Las Vegas (disambiguation) ( talk| | history| logs| links| archive| watch) ( RM)

The close of this WP:RM discussion calls for a review since it is apparently not based on existing policies and guidelines. Instead if you read the closers position that the arguments supported the move, it is not clear why there is a consensus. Does stronger support equal consensus?

1. While some might consider it WP:OR, but the fact is that only about 5% of the newly created inbound links over the last 3 years or so are for the city. That is hardly a ringing endorsement for being the primary topic.
2. Those supporting this as the primary topic appear to acknowledge that for the city to be the primary topic, that article has to cover to some extent the Las Vegas Strip or Paradise, Nevada and Winchester, Nevada or at least portions of the later two. If the city is not the primary topic on its own, how can it be the primary topic? Alos this is intended to eliminate government issues, yet it creates an article that covers a city, parts of two townships and a 4 mile section on one street to create a primary topic. That just muddies the water rather then clearing things up.
3. The close completely ignores that fact that the rename is in direct opposition to the WP:USPLACE guideline. If the closer would have read the discussion and the discussions that resulted in the naming guideline it would have been clear that the city of Las Vegas was not moved when the convention was established since it is ambiguous. Nothing in the discussion indicated that Las Vegas is unambiguous. So there is no reason that this discussion should override the specific exemption raised in the discussion and in the guideline.
4. Nothing in the close indicates what if any policies and guidelines were considered and why some were favored over others.
5. Nothing in the close indicates what has changed over time from the last series of no consensus closes from previous discussions. If we are going to change a long history of closes, we need new information to justify a change to the previous closes. In fact the close appears to simply ignore any previous discussions along with WP:RETAIN.
6. The RFC to gather wider input on the existence of a primary topic remains unclosed. That fact and the opinions expressed there raise serious questions about the city being the primary topic.
7. The discussions and the close seem to be arguing the fact that a city must be a primary topic. That is a position that is not to my knowledge written in any policy or guideline.
8. The close refuses to acknowledge the unchallenged position that about 70% of the exiting links to the city are in fact for the city. So using inbound link activity is especially problematic. Yet, it would appear that the closer is accepting the inbound link activity as justification of the move and rejecting any possibility that these data could not be correct. So the number of inbound links is given more weight than any guideline or policy.
9. The close does not address the fact that the city was named after the railroad stop which was named after the valley but just seems to accept the fact that everything was named after the city.
10. The close did not really discuss the sections in the sections at the end of the discussion. In particular this discussion. Given that immediately after the discussion closed, some of the most strident supporters were actually apparently supporting a move of the Valley article to the main name space. It shows that this discussion was not correctly considered.
11. It is likely that the consensus that the main page probably should not be a dab page was taken as support for the move.
12. After the move, attempts to properly dab incoming links are challenged as not correct since this move has defined Las Vegas to include everything about the valley.
13. Exactly how was there a consensus strong enough to revert the 2008 move that established the status before the move? The details of this are buried since a history merge was done at that time.

I'm sure that there are more, but clearly this move needs to be reversed. Vegaswikian ( talk) 06:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close (and I favored the proposal in the original RM discussion). I call sour grapes. Vegaswikian is simply rearguing the RM. I commend the closer, RegentsPark ( talk · contribs), for his exemplary decision, which he explained in detail. This was no one-line explanation. He expressed a clear understanding of the somewhat unusual situation, and why he thought the practical solution of having an article about the city that includes the strip at Las Vegas was favored by consensus: " Both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC are polices with usage rather than pedantic accuracy in mind and, if users confabulate the strip and the city, then we should take that into account, point the page to the obvious candidate (the Las Vegas that is in the minds of the reader as several editors have implicitly suggested), and include the strip in that article". And that's essentially what the majority of those participating argued. Vegaswikian clearly disagrees with this, as he has for years. Nothing new, or relevant to a review of the closer's action, about that.

  I also note that this was not one of those closes where a number of people called "foul" for some reason and questioned the decision on the closer's talk page or at the article talk page. Instead, there was only discussion about what to do given the name change, which everyone seemed to accept. I move for a speedy close of this effort which sure seems to look and walk like forum shopping. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 07:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close (I supported the move originally). Procedurally, it would appear the nominator here has made no attempt to discuss this with the closing admin. But more importantly, several of the points in his opening statement requesting the move review are challenging points people made in the discussion itself. Hot Stop 11:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close (I supported the move). Vegaswikian has not presented anything new and mainly of his assertions and provably false. "Nothing in the discussion indicated that Las Vegas is unambiguous" - actually, the discussion stated exactly that, repeatedly, and concluded that the only possibly "ambiguity" is between the city and some surrounding areas. I'm sure I can prove other of his statements false, but tldr applies. Ego White Tray ( talk) 12:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close Joining the others who supported the original move (I also initiated the move request), this is absolutely ridiculous. First, this happened more than two months ago. I don't care that there was no move review process back then; this new process shouldn't be a license to dig up old move requests from the abyss. If it's been that long and the decision was so wrong, create a new move request and see how it fares.

One does not even need to do that here, as the previous configuration (whereby Las Vegas was a disambiguation page and Las Vegas was at Las Vegas, Nevada) never had consensus. There were a series of move requests ending in no consensus, but I don't think there was ever a time where a simple majority of editors supported that configuration. It was just the same small group of editors, led by Vegaswikian, arguing that Las Vegas was somehow special enough to not have its article where you'd think it would be.

Discounting Vegaswikian's points that are simply the equivalent of "the closing admin didn't agree with me", we get to some rather bizarre points. Direct violation of WP:USPLACE? Uh, no, it's not; per that guideline, Las Vegas can be moved to Las Vegas (without the state name) should it be determined to be the primary topic. And it was. Through the move request in May. The RFC is not yet closed, so no decision can be made on the name of the article? Are you talking about the RFC from last August that no one has commented on in ten months where those who believe Las Vegas is the primary topic of "Las Vegas" outnumber those who don't by three to one? That should prevent a decision on a move request from this May? I can't roll my eyes at you hard enough. And one person's suggestion (quickly shot down) after the RM is grounds for reversal of this one? What? And what 2008 move are you talking about? What consensus do you keep referring to? The only reason the article on Las Vegas was at Las Vegas, Nevada was because of the technical issues created by the bot that auto-generated articles on U.S. cities. This is the first time it was moved with any sort of permanency.

The conclusion of the latest move request suggests the ambiguity you reference constitutes the minority, and that preference is for the configuration we have now. It doesn't matter that RegentsPark didn't rattle off your preferred guidelines. His position was clear and well within his discretion. I wouldn't even call it a borderline decision; I'm sure 95% of admins would have come to the same conclusion.

Again, I'd like to repeat my request for you to drop this matter and move on to more important things. There was nothing improper about the close of the move request, and -- as I stated in the initiation of the RM -- this was a long time coming, with the continued majority (even if not supermajority) shown in move requests supporting this move. This move review now is forum shopping of the highest order, and comes across as disconcerting when one considers that Vegaswikian was one of the architects of the move review process. One would think she'd have a better understanding of what should be brought here and which points are able to be discussed. As others have said, she spends most of the time in this review request rearguing her points, and the remaining time exaggerating relevant facts. -- tariqabjotu 00:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC) reply