Talk:Las Vegas, Nevada/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between January 2005 and May 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Talk:Las Vegas, Nevada/Archive02. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. Olorin28 01:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)



Contents

Correction needed

I don't know the correct numbers... but: In the "City redevelopment" section, 3rd to last paragraph says "8 buildings, with 7.5 MILLION Sq. Ft. of space" - but the last paragraph says "...soon to have... 2 MILLION Sq. Ft." Note: The formats (even though difficult to read) are inline with reguards to WP:Manual of Style. Guy M (Talk) 01:51, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Clarification: The wikicode is difficult to read, but the rendered page is inline with the WP:Style Guide. Guy M (Talk) 01:57, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
Typo the new number is 12 million from the web site. It was fixed. Thanks Vegaswikian 02:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Possibly Main Page Feature Article for May 15?

As you may (or may not) know, May 15, 2005 is it's 100th anniversary. That is about 2½ months away from now. I was hoping to see if there's any interest in making sure the article is up to the higher standard for being a Wikipedia Featured Article specifically on it's anniversary.

I'm not great at authoring, average in editing, and require a spell checker. But I am willing to put forth a significant effort in research, verify and document all references and sources of statements. Why would I be a good candidate?

  1. Resident of Las Vegas since May 1995.
  2. Former fulltime taxicab driver (unrestricted) (1995-2002)
  3. Currently, free time is all I have.
  4. I live one block (about .25 mile) from Las Vegas Blvd. and Tropicana Ave.

So what do you think? Any volunteers for styling/editing? Guy M (talk) 05:04, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

I will help. I can even add some material and pictures as I vacation in Las Vegas frequently. However having the help of an actual resident would be very helpful. I look forward to getting this featured. Apollomelos 23:34, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Some good examples to follow would be Sarajevo and Salt Lake City, Utah. Apollomelos 23:37, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is this climate chart necessary? If so, can someone cut it down so it doesn't spread the page into the right margin? -- Zoe

No it isn't necessary and is prone to get out of date fast so I removed it. --mav

There is a link to a personal web page that is essentially just a journal of someone's trip. Doesn't seem link-worthy to me, as the items covered in that site are well covered by the other links listed. Is that really necessary?

http://www.tutorgig.com/encyclopedia/getdefn.jsp?keywords=Las_Vegas,_Nevada

this seems to be a mirror of wikipedia.

is this allowed?

Xah P0lyglut 04:04, 2003 Dec 19 (UTC)

It says "Source: Wikipedia | The above article is available under the GNU FDL". This is acceptable usage. RickK 05:03, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Re Misterrick's recent image changes: I made my changes because the images were already screwed on my screen, and your changes have broken the problem I had. I guess this is the problem of lots of different screen resolutions.... Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:27, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I know the general rule is to make a Wiki link only for the first occurrence of a term, but here the first occurrence of "Las Vegas Strip" is in a photo caption, where it's easily missed. Shouldn't the first occurrence in text be linked also? JamesMLane 03:05, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

JamesMLane, I reverted back your changes regarding Mayor Goodman because you took out the link to his official website. There should be no problem having a link to his website then followed by a link to his Wikipage. Misterrick 07:28, 01 May 2004 (UTC)

Your creation of the separate article on Oscar Goodman was a very good idea (it's been on my list for a while but I never got to it). I think it's most appropriate that this article have only the Wiki link to your article on Goodman. This follows the policy of "Don't use external links where we'll want Wikipedia links." The reader who wants more information on Goodman should first be directed to our own article on Goodman (now that we have a fine one, thanks to you). In the Goodman article, I have no problem with listing his site as an external link. I made other changes there but left this link alone. There's no reason to repeat the link here, though, because it has no information about Las Vegas other than the information about Goodman. JamesMLane 09:13, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
How about we do this... I will change all of the links current links for the Mayor and Council to Wiki Links and then put under External Links the list of their official website. Misterrick 19:40, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
Having external links embedded in text, as they are now, instead of in the "External links" section, seems to me to be against Wikipedia policy. I'm not keen on listing them at the end, though. This article already has too many external links. (The article on New York City has only ten, four of which are just to convey photographs.) Furthermore, all of these individuals' official sites are merely pages within the City's website, which is already the first external link listed. A reader who goes to the City's site selects "Elected Officials" then "Council" then the ward, and reaches the page -- not very tricky. I think it makes more sense to do it this way: Make Goodman a Wiki link; don't bother Wiki linking each Councilmember, because odds are there will never be an article; delete all links to individual pages within the City's website; and insert a sentence, before or after the listing of Councilmembers, along the lines of: Each member of the Council has an individual page within the City's website (see "External links," below). JamesMLane 21:54, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Wiki Links

Would anyone have a problem if I made Wiki links on the names of the Las Vegas City Council members? As of right now the only person who has a Wiki link to a Wikipedia article is Mayor Oscar Goodman who is also an At-Large member of the City Council. I figure if I create Wiki links someone would be inspired to actually create an article about that Councilmember which is why were here right to propogate Wikipedia with vast information. Misterrick 03:43, 31 December 2004 (UTC).

City council members are pushing the envelope of "notability", but it's OK with me. Stan 01:37, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Las Vegas page looks chaotic

The content here is chaotically organized... I don't have much experience with wiki formatting as I'm new, but I hope someone will take the time to fix this up. So far I've been very impressed with the overall wikipedia content quality, and this page does not live up to it.

I agree with you. I think the root cause of the problem is that we are blessed with lots of images on this page. I have several times time to re-arrange images so that the page looked ok for people with lots of different screen resolutions, but because I was trying to cater for a lot of page layouts, the balance was delicate. Other users, who could hardly expected to be aware of such issues, came along very quickly and broke them again. I have taken the slightly more radical approach of putting all the images in a table, thereby forcing it to look ok at all screen resolutions. The only downside is that images are all in a row rather than spread throughout the article. However I do believe it looks better than before (note: if you don't think it looks better - then you were a lucky person with a screen resolution the page was still designed for!). Pcb21| Pete 06:59, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'm one of those who didn't consider the previous setup chaotic. Maybe I have the right browser, or maybe I'm used to more sloppiness in my life.  :) What I don't understand, though, is why this browser problem should be any worse for the Las Vegas article than for any other. Do other articles employ a different solution? Having the pictures all in a row at the beginning certainly isn't optimum. JamesMLane 07:46, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I am convinced that it is a screen res issue, not a browser issue. The previous layout had overlapping images, and hence ugly whitespace, in both Mozilla and IE at my screen resolution. The reason that it affects Las Vegas more than most is that this article has lots of images. Articles with just one or two images can have their images sufficiently spread out that it will look ok at any resolution. There are other articles where there is an issue - London is one, City of New York is hanging on by the skin of its teeth - there are just enough long lists to enable spreading out of the images. I have employed this solution on a few other pages. It is still a relatively scarce issue - over-abudance of images is not something Wikipedia is cursed with :).
If this solution does not suit, the next iteration of sophistication would be to have two or three tables, each containing two or three images, spread out down the page. Pcb21| Pete 08:07, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Doesn't look chaotic to me, Although IMHO it really isn't necessary to have so many pictures in the article. I mean do we really need to have a TERRA satellite picture and a picture of downtown Las Vegas in the daytime and at night? and since this article is specifically about the City of Las Vegas the picture of the Las Vegas Strip should be excluded since the strip (aka Las Vegas Boulevard South) is technically part of Unincorporated Clark County in an area called Paradise. Misterrick 04:55, 02 January 2005.

Misinform in one sentence regarding the Sports section

Las Vegas is the largest city in the United States to have no major-league level professional sports teams. That is not true. El Paso, Texas has a larger population (679,622) and land area (648.9 km² (250.5 mi²). 645.1 km² (249.1 mi²)) than Las Vegas, Nevada. (514,640 - 293.6 km² (113.4 mi²). 293.5 km² (113.3 mi²)) Do you guys know any major-league level professional sports team in El Paso, Texas? Of course, not. There are none. --Anonymous Cow 04:16, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Las Vegas is the largest such city in sense in which most people would think of Las Vegas, not realizing that much of what's commonly called "Las Vegas" is in unincorporated Clark County. Would it be correct to say that Las Vegas is the largest metropolitan area in the U.S. that has no major-league-level professional sports team? JamesMLane 04:36, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, it means that it's the largest city in terms of metropolitan size that does not have a professional sports team. bob rulz
As a Las Vegas resident for 10 years, I don't think I've ever heard any locals term Las Vegas a metropolis. The most frequently used term to encompass more than Las Vegas proper, is (Las) Vegas Valley. Which would cover the three Cities: Las Vegas, North Las Vegas and (sometimes even) Henderson; plus the unincorporated areas (Larger than all three cities combined). For the lack of professional sports? We're trying to get it together! Guy M
Just found out the definition of valley (def.) and it doesn't pertain to the "Las Vegas Valley". Appearently, since our location is surrounded by 4 mountain ranges, we are concidered a bowl(def.). Guy M 21:50, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Moved some material into Metro article

Since Rama has a strict interpretation of which locations are within the city limits of Las Vegas, I went ahead and created a separate article called Metropolitan Las Vegas, Nevada to try and save the deleted material from this "city" article.

In the spirit of Rama's most recent edit, I also removed the references to Chinatown (which is no where near the city limits) the monorail (which ends at Sahara, just before the city limits), NASCAR (which is on the south end of the strip) and UNLV (which is also not even close to the city).

Please feel free to download the city map from the official City of Las Vegas web site if you care to verify any of these changes.

Cheers,

— DV 10:18, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think this approach is a mistake. Very few readers will care about the municipal boundaries. Heck, the Postal Service doesn't care; if you live in Paradise, your correct official mailing address is "Las Vegas, Nevada". Readers will come to this article looking for information about the Las Vegas metropolitan area (whether they know it or not). The prior approach was to put all the information here, including the explanation that most of the Strip is outside the municipal boundaries of Las Vegas. I think that worked best. If people insist on separating them, then the article at Las Vegas, Nevada should be about the metropolitan area, with a separate articel for Las Vegas, Nevada (city) or the like that would give details (such as census figures) that are limited to the municipal boundaries. JamesMLane 00:54, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I have to agree with JamesMLane; the strict city limits line drawing that's going on here doesn't make sense. Carter 01:46, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
To avoid an edit conflict, I've asked Rama on his user talk page to comment on his edits that started to strip out references to locations outside of the city, but despite the extensive nature of his last edit, and that it was just a day and a half ago, he now states that he "can't remember editing" the article.
I think we should give Rama a chance to clarify his intent.
So, in the interest of avoiding conflict, I've added a follow up note to Rama's user talk page pointing out the entry in the history and his user contributions where he made his recent edits, with the hope that it will refresh his memory enough so he can comment one way or another.
If there is a consensus to go with a single article that covers metro and the city, then we should revert back to the version of the article just prior to Rama's last edit, which included information about the greater metropolitan area, and then delete the new Metropolitan Las Vegas article that I created to try and save the deleted material, as well as its reference on the disambiguation page.
I'm open to either approach (i.e., either one article that covers metro and the city, or separate articles for each) but we should be consistent either way.
— DV 04:02, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Rama now quotes someone named Brion, on the #mediawiki IRC channel, as follows:

rama: we've had a number of seriously fucked up database problems in the last couple of days. some edits may have been based on older versions or been oddly ordered, leading to odd-looking diffs.

If the database is truly being randomly corrupted in this manner, I give up.
If we can't rely on the integrity of the database, I'm not sure how to proceeed.
Unless someone objects, I recommend reverting back to the last version by JamesMLane.
— DV 09:03, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with rolling back. Our general articles about cities are all about what is commonly understood as "the city", with maybe a section on the technical details of where the boundary actually lies, for the 3-4 readers who actually care. Another reasonable thing to do is to segregate lists of landmarks into "city proper" and "in the area". Rama should have brought the matter up for discussion before scrambling everything. Stan 15:43, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, since there seems to be agreement, and Rama supports the "database corruption" theory, I went back to the last known good version by JamesMLane. — DV 03:58, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hi David, on a side point, if Rama did get his information from Brion (User:Brion VIBBER) then it is likely to be accurate. Pcb21| Pete 14:25, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Population

An anon editor changed the population figures. The previous figure for the 2000 census -- 478,434 -- is correct according to the Census Bureau's website, so I changed it back. The other change was to replace the 2002 estimate with a 2003 estimate. I find a different number on the Census Bureau site; the difference may be that the Census Bureau and the city have different estimates, but to preserve comparability, I'm replacing the "city's official estimate" with that of the Census Bureau. JamesMLane 09:25, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The multiple pages

Yes, this has been discussed, but I feel that what is out there is confusing at best.

Las Vegas is generally the entire valley to most people.

Is there any support for creating a City of Las Vegas, Nevada page for just the city specific information? The demographics and elected officals from the las vegas page could be moved into there. Probably a few other items. A pointer in the current page to the city specific info at the top of the page should suffice to get people there. Also the las vegas disambiguation page would be redone to cover this. This would be a much smaller task then trying to pull out the 'other information'.

This could make it easier to do a better page for the 100th anniversary.

Having a city page keeps the current one, minus items moved to the city page, as the generic Las Vegas page which is what everyone is probably looking for. We just don't list it as a city in Nevada or do we?. The disambiguation page and links would get everyone to the correct place. In fact, this approach would probably not even break any existing links.

The current page could pick up any additional material in the metropolitan page. You might consider it as the resort or destination page. After all, isn't that what Vegas is about? I think his would be cleaner then then putting some information under metropolitan rather then City of. I think that the current Las Vegas page is what people really are looking for. After all, when the LVCVA markets Vegas what is it that they are Marketing?

Vegaswikian 07:52, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To further support not using the term metropolitan, I offer the following:
  1. The United States Census Bureau has apparently defined Core based statistical area to replace metropolitan;
  2. Here is what one site defining the area it covers [1]; and I believe that' different that what is intended here;
  3. MSN Encarta has a different definition that what is proposed here [2]. Also very different from what is suggested here.
  4. The MSN metrolpolitan Map covers 4 states [3]!
  5. Apparently [4]' says the offical name for the metropolitan Statistical area is "Las Vegas-Paradise, Nevada"; And acording to [5] it lists both Las Vegas and Paradise;
  6. The census bureau apparently lists Las Vegas in TWO metropolitan areas [6], the one listed above and Las Vegas-Paradise-Pahrump;
  7. The only government agency that I know of that uses metropolitan, METRO covers a vastly different area. And that name was probably a political creation to make the merge between the Las Vegas and Clark County Departments possible.
  8. The LVCVA sells the city and the county under the Las Vegas banner. [7] is one example from Primm through the valley including Henderson;

So, I believe that metropolitan is not well defined and is not what people think of as Las Vegas. Being n lock step with the LVCVA is probably the best choice. Use the area they cover an the name they use.

Vegaswikian 19:03, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • I tend to agree. It's rather like London vs. City of London; places like Spring Valley, Paradise, and so on are in Las Vegas, though they're not in the City of Las Vegas. But the interaction between county and city is intense; the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police also serve much of, if not most of, the unincorporated townships surrounding the city; the school district is unified; and though Mayor Goodman legally has power only with relation to the City of Las Vegas, he's also the spokesperson for greater Las Vegas. I'd say there should be a special article about the City, that includes information that's mainly relevant to the city; but the Las Vegas article should be about what most people think is Las Vegas. After all, the famous sign, "Welcome to Las Vegas", is seven miles from the actual city. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:23, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
People who type in "Las Vegas" should come (via the redirect) to an article that tells them about the Strip, and about the basics of the governmental entity that Goodman heads, and about the basics of the governmental entity that governs the Strip. For that reason, I don't think very much of the information in this article should be removed. Perhaps the listing of the City Council members could be transferred to an article about the municipality, but not much else. The demographic information should remain in this article. (A daughter article just about the municipality could repeat the relevant portions of it.) It would be a good idea if this article covered the Clark County Commission a bit more. I'm not sure I understand what Vegaswikian is suggesting, but I think I'm against it. JamesMLane 21:09, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The Las Vegas article is not about the City of Las Vegas no matter howwe try and cut it. It is about the Las Vegas Area. In particular the major gaming areas. If a city page is created, then the demographics need to be moved to the city page. They simply are not correct for a general vegas area page. I'll wagger that virtually no one who types in "Las Vegas" is looking for the governmental entity that Goodman heads," as you suggest. They want information on the Las Vegas destination. The problem is that Las Vegas means two different things and that needs to be addressed. One is the City of Las Vegas. The other is a much broader area that is universally know as Las Vegas. That latter area is what is on the entry sign as Las Vegas, as was pointed out above, and is advertised as Las Vegas in all of the commericals by the LVCVA. How many of the almost 40,000,000 visitors go to the city? Is following the lead of the LVCVA wrong? By splitting this into City, County and area it makes things clearer for anyone from the outside. They don't care about the county or the city. They just want the area. Those who want the other stuff can get it from links on the area or the disambugation page. Does anyone still think the metropolitan page, given all of the facts I listed above, is the correct way to go?Vegaswikian 22:55, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree that there's a distinction between the city (in the legal sense) and the area (what most visitors would think of as the city because they don't know they're in Paradise). The current article notes that distinction, however. It gives the population statistics for people residing within the city limits and for people residing in the area. That's appropriate information to provide to a reader who comes to this article. JamesMLane 23:19, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Except that the top of the page says city of Las Vegas. That's also on the disambiguation page. Adding the strip there also makes extreme sense. I'll do that shortly.Vegaswikian 01:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
OK, I added added the strip to disambiguation. The Strip article could use some work. It is rather lean.
If the concensus is that the las vegas page is both the city and the area, and the metropolitan page gets deleted I would probably be OK. Vegaswikian 01:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind is that we have 30,000 articles that are set up to be consistent with US census and are updated automatically from time to time; don't want to start fooling with that. It does work to have a "city, state" article include pertinent information about nearby areas, whether within city limits or not. It's overly pedantic to try to make multiple articles that are somehow restricted to within the city limits, or restricted to outside the city limits; readers don't care, it makes other WP editors crazy keeping it all straight, and only the one pedant is ever satisfied. For instance, the edit history of Metropolitan Las Vegas, Nevada pretty clearly shows that it was a single person's idea with little support, with everybody continuing to work only on this one. The things to split out should be topical, such as Las Vegas Strip, and Clark County Commission, because it's more interesting than the average county commission. Stan 23:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Transportation Picture

Why do we have a smog over the valley from autos picture in the transportation section and no mention of autos in the text? Is that a good picture to use for painting a positive picture of the area?Vegaswikian 07:15, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires that we not paint either a positive or negative picture - we're just painting. Pictures can be striking and/or beautiful, as long as they're faithful to reality. Stan 17:34, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
And you can change which picture of reality you use; or, alternately, insert some info about air quality in the Vegas Valley -- which, I understand, is now more endangered by dust than by vehicle emissions. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:51, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

“Welcome to Fabulous Las Vegas” sign

I posted a request in commons for the welcome sign. I'm suprised that one is not already available. I think it belongs on the page. Likewise we could use a picture of the city version that was erected. It could be nice if someone could add the dates and all locations for both signs.

Once this section gets more complete, I think that as a landmark, it should be moved to its own page.

So does anyone have the data or pictures?

Speaking of pictures, does anyone have pictures of other sights? Here is a list of what we could probably use:

  • Mt.Charleston from the valley covered in snow and the mountain or lodge area covered in snow.
  • A better selection of the pedistrian bridges, especially one over the blvd.
  • The largest free standing sign in the world in front of the hilton, maybe before, after and while damaged? Again this is historic
  • Missing casino pictures like the Riv
  • The gates open at Hoover Dam with the water sprays
  • The old and new Fremont Street Light Show
  • The ski and snowboard resort

Please add to this list and add a note if you added a picture to commons so it can be used (or just link it in a page after you create it).

We have Image:Welcome to vegas.jpg, but it's not very good; I've been planning to do a photo shoot of my own. I have some pics of Mt Charleston, but I don't like them much. Stan 05:02, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That image was in the article for quite a while. In fact, until this comment I didn't even notice it had been removed. I think it's good enough to include, at least until a better one comes along. More generally, there are several good photos that were moved to Metropolitan Las Vegas, Nevada, an article that isn't needed unless this article is to be confined to the Las Vegas city limits. I thought that material removed from this article had been restored, but obviously I made an incorrect assumption. Along with the pictures there may be some text that should be restored. As to the longer list of photo suggestions, I think we have to draw some lines and not have too many photos. "Missing casino pictures like the Riv" -- if that means having a picture of every casino, I'm against it. In particular, I don't think we need a Riv picture. JamesMLane 06:33, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I compared the text in the two articles. The Metro one looked pretty much like the old Las Vegas one before the edits, corrections and moves to other pages. I did not see any material in metro that was not in Las Vegas. All of the images in metro should now be in other articles.Vegaswikian 08:19, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Re: Casino pictures. Would it be reasonable to have pictures for each casino that has a page? It seems that all of the old pages do. Vegaswikian 07:09, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Re: other stuff. As to the metropolitan page, consider the fact that there is a Las Vegas metropolitan area page besides the metro LV page listed above. I think this one could be better named the Las Vegas Valley, but I'm not sure how to use it. Right now it basically defines the towns in the valley. Since there does not appear to be support for keeping Metropolitan Las Vegas, Nevada, can someone start the process of deleting it? I'm a little busy dealing with a delete vote and trying to get something set up so that we can get spa defined a little better. I'll try and do something with the pictures and see if any text is there that should be in the article. I did search commons, but did not get any hits for the sign picture. I'm also going to remove the city comment on the top unless someone sees a real reason to keep it. Vegaswikian 07:09, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
OK, I moved the images around and modified a few of their descriptions to better identify what they show. Can someone verify the the US 93 picture is really from that location and which way we are looking? Vegaswikian 08:19, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It would be easier just to redirect the other article here than to redirect. IMHO this article is already at the best possible title, shouldn't be messed with. Stan 19:18, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have the original high quality version of that image at home. Must've uploaded it during that period of time when Wikipedia wouldn't allow large file sizes and I didn't know how to compress jpg files well. Pcb21| Pete 10:13, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Not to rag on it too much, but the angle is not so good either - looks like it's attached to Mandalay. One of my goals was to try some different angles - looking down the Strip seems like it would be better, but maybe too visually noisy, won't know till I try it. Stan 19:18, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Rag away, I just took the photo whilst driving so it was bound to have its problems. Although that particular sign is in the middle of a busy road, plenty of people do get themselves safely positioned to take a decent photo. Pcb21| Pete 23:01, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I wonder what restrictions Metro has about stopping there. I think that a ten foot ladder would get you high enough to get a 'good' shot straight on to the sign. A shot of the back side could be interesting for the end of The Strip article.Vegaswikian 00:00, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It should be easy enough. The "middle of the busy road" is a wide median, and frequently there are people parked there to take photos of themselves with the sign. (As often as not, the subjects of the photographs are wearing wedding clothes.) I'll try to convince the family photographer to get a good one. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:46, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I took a picture with my digital camera over the weekend. Comments?? Kcferret
Oh and for the natives .. yes the power lines have been edited out ... they detracted from what I wanted to picture to convey. Kcferret

The "Welcome to Fabulous Las Vegas" sign does not actually reside in the City of Las Vegas. Has this point been previously addressed? Perhaps a picture of Fremont Street or something to that effect would be more appropriate? brianckeegan

The sign article says it is 4 miles south of the city. The strip article also points out that it is not in the city and the LV Boulvard article describes its location after you have left the city. So I think this is clear. I should have a camera soon and I'll try to get a picture of the city's welcome sign. Vegaswikian 6 July 2005 19:20 (UTC)

Two Dollar Bills?

Hi! I just contributed a few lines to the two dollar bill page, which is, unfortunately, only speculation. I've never been to Vegas, so I don't know how accurate the info is, and I wonder if anyone here might know. (The question is whether or not "gentlemen's clubs" tend to give out two dollar bills as change) If you do know one way or the other, feel free to make the appropriate changes. Thanks!! Randyoo 00:24, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Culture & Attractions

Is this something that would be better on the Vegas Valley page with a link and reference left here? This is stuff that will grow as more items are added. That would make this page rather large and harder to follow. Or is there a another place that would be better for this data? Vegaswikian 08:06, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Transportation Section

I was looking at other city pages and they often have the airport in a seperate section using transportation only for auto, bus and train. Should we do something similar or leave things as they are? Vegaswikian 23:44, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Suddenly unorganized, incomplete, bloated, unprofessional & disappointing.

Note: Sorry it's long.  I would edit article page, but it's overwhelming at this point.

This has to be the worst I've ever seen this article, or any other once well groomed article. What happened? I went to edit it a bit, finally canceled out due to the overwhelming lack of facts, (lack of) continuity and style standards. Can we say T.M.I.? (Too Much Info)

  • Pics Why so many? Isn't two, maybe three enough? (about LV even)
  • Law & government - Term: Bloat
  • Climate - Full of Hot Air
  • Economy - Nothing said about LV
  • Transportation - Too congested
    • "... airport .. in the U.S." (not in LV [honorable mention though]) LV Metro
    • "... growth of the Strip to the south..." (Not even towards LV) LV Strip
    • "... Clark County ..." (Not LV) Clark County, Nevada
    • "... LV monorail" (Not in LV [yet]) LV Strip
    • "... light rails / trams" (Not in LV) LV Strip
    • Convention Centers (Not in LV) LV Strip
    • Hoover Dam (Not in LV) Clark County


  • All mentioned: Mirage, TI, MGM, Hilton, Mandalay Bay, Luxor, Excalibur, Sahara, Harrah's, Bellagio, Venetian, CP & Klondike ... Las Vegas Strip


  • No mention of:
    • Summerlin (One of the largest Master Planned communities at 36 mi&sup2)
    • LV Trolley or MAX Light rail that originates in downtown LV.
    • The Spanish Trail
    • Binions Horseshoe (mentioned in passing) home of World Series of Poker & $1 Million on display.
      • SOLD (March 2005) and Renamed: Binions Gambling Hall
    • Stratosphere (highest rides, tower, former Vegas World, Stupak)
    • Plaza (old Union Pacific train station)
    • El Cortez (first hotel/casino by Bugsy)
    • Golden Nugget (Wynn's first hotel/casino he owned/purchased; he even worked there!)
    • Golden Gate (FIRST Casino to open in LV)
    • Lady Luck, Sun Coast, Four Queens, Fitz, Fremont, Main Street, California, LV Club, Showboat


... Which all have great Las Vegas history.


  • Too much talk about things NOT of Las Vegas
  • Too much comparing Las Vegas to anything and everything.


An attempt at focusing on a possible solution (instead of just b!tch!ng). At the bottom of the first paragraph/section:

Additional information covering a larger geographical area, see: The Strip, Las Vegas Metro, Las Vegas Valley, Clark County, Nevada
Guy M (talk) 17:56, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
edit | Guy M (Talk) 02:11, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • And my latest add about city redevemopment makes it even longer. But it is in the City.

I think the problem you raise is the formal definition of the city vs. the common use of Las Vegas to descibe the area. And where to put what.

The problem is that the city is not what most people think of as the City. Do you realize how many people think they live in the City and do not? Do you know how many CC&RS include properity in the City when it is not? Even Summerlin is not completly in the City. The issue is how to best deal with this real problem. No one commented on my suggestion to move culture & attractions to a new page. That would take a lot of this stuff out and help somewhat.

Max is mentioned on the Cat pages. But isn't that in NLV and not LV for the most part? (I don't know, just asking.) Maybe if transpotation was upgrade to include more about roads and busses and not the airport as was suggeested that would help somewhat. But the buses are not City. They are RTC! I believe that the CIty does own its sewer plant.

I was suprised yeserday when I wanted to mention the Golden Gate as a landmark to not find an article on that hotel. Someone who has the facts needs to document the older hotels! I could see adding them to the history, but they would all be red links. Is that what we need to get someone focused on writing those articles? When the Market Center opens, I would like to move that to its own page. Likewise for the Welcome To Las Vegas sign if we can get somemore data there. Given the strees being added in for other town, Maybe we should create a Freemont Street page. I'll bet there are already a few links to it.

Likewise the Old Morman fort has nothing, and it's downtown!

The Golden Gate article is also an issue. One side wants to keep all of the properities on one page, the other wants them to be seperate since that would allow the individual history to showcased. That needs to be resolved before the hotel can be listed on theVegas page.

Someone suggested the the Clark County Commission have it's own page given the criminal charges. Maybe the same should apply to the City Council with it's corruption charges of late.

It was discussed to move the city to it's own page, but that was shot down because the current name is fixed based on automatic update stuff. And Las Vegas means more to most people then just the City.

No one had a good way to address this. The Vegas Valley seems the best way to describe a lot of this.

Given the number of links to Las Vegas is so large, maybe the solution is to use that entry for the generic Las Vegas and then reduce the Las Vegas, Nevada page to just the city. Is the valley different then the generic las vegas?

Maybe we just need a plan that can get concensus support. I think most people agree that there is a problem, but the solution is not obvious. Would setting up a topic on this page as a list of what should be in the City vs. Las Vegas that everyone can adjust be the simple solution to reach a concensus? Does Clark COunty enter this picture?

As a trial that we can reverse, I'll move media, culture & attractions and education to the valley page. See if that helps any. I'll set up links to the new location. If it does not work, it's easy to move it back.

On the bright side, having too much information is better then having too little, I think. Vegaswikian 20:24, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the problem is appearent, the solution is evasive. Although, I thought my idea (which can be expanded/improved upon) was a good start. Having articles with topics such as:
  • Las Vegas, Nevada - City of data (following Wikipedia formats).
    • Downtown - Historic, Casinos, Hotels, FSE, and bot data [Census info]. I would leave entertainer information primarily in Las Vegas Strip and government personel in City Of.
    • Simple lines like "McCarren International Airport provides commercial flights into the Las Vegas Valley." and "Las Vegas Motor Speedway (LVMS) hosts NASCAR and other automotive events." and "RTC provides public access transportation via CAT which Las Vegas benefits from." Allow the links to provide other documents for which more detail is provided.
  • Las Vegas Strip' - For information directed to entertainment, Casino, Hotel...
  • Las Vegas Valley - Topics covering more expansive area.
    • Lake Mead, Mountains, Ski Resort, Climate/Flooding (more area to explain why (the shape of) LVValley floods)
Yes?

Guy M (talk) 01:37, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Lord save us from the pedants! Once again, this article does not need to be picky about only mentioning things that are literally inside the city limits. The problem is that each editor wants to add their little tidbit of info, without thinking much about whether it's sufficiently important to be in the main article, or should go into topical articles. One way to solve this problem is to make a "budget". For example, 20K is a good size for a city article; in that space you need to give an overview (1K), history (3K), geography (3K), demographics (2K), culture (3K), economy (3K), sports/recreation (3K), politics (2K). If a section grows past that, split out the full-length version and leave within-budget summary behind. (This is just a sample budget; I neglected transportation, but a section for that means another section has to shrink.) Instead of churning the article randomly, this talk page is perfect for an interested person to put up an outline of what section should contain; that outline will give an idea of how to fine-tune the budget, and also ensure that each section includes its most important topics. Stan 04:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
To pull stuff out, it has to be notable and encylopidic on its own. You also need to not have it so short that it is nothing more then a stub. It also needs to be logical. I'd like to see the welcome sign expanded so that it can stand alone and be a seperate article. I'm sure that others would like to see other sections become stand alone articles. Likewise, it is easier to build an article where you talk about Fremont Street and The Golden Gate in a few words and the complete discription is in the link as a page. There is so much that is missing. So, how do we move in the right direction? Do we add rewrite adding broken links in the hope that someone will be able to create complete articles? I spent time today cleaning up the Mojave links. They all pointed to the city when most were about the desert. Not very helpful. I'm afraid that without a plan something like that could happen here. On the plus side, so far no one has said moving culture and attractions to a different page with a link to the data was wrong. And speaking of sports, there is no mention of Boxing which is a major venue here. Vegaswikian 06:28, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I completely agree with Stan about the "city limits" issue. That's been taken up on this page before. People who enter "Las Vegas" or "Las Vegas, Nevada" in the search box aren't concerned to know exactly what's within the city limits; I'd guess that they generally don't care. They want to know about what's popularly considered "Las Vegas". It might make sense, however, to have a separate article on City of Las Vegas or Las Vegas, Nevada (municipality) or whatever it's titled, which could include City Council corruption issues and anything else that's specific to the municipal government.
As for the overall length, while I don't agree with a formal "budget", I do agree that largish topics can be spun out into daughter articles, leaving behind a summary. One tricky part is that we should never delete a subject entirely just because there's a daughter article. For example, we have a separate article on the Las Vegas Monorail, but at least the basic information was still included in this article. I think the same principle should apply to "Culture and attractions" (that's how the heading should read per the MoS, by the way) and to any other section. Vegaswikian, I think your most recent set of edits goes too far in removing information from this article, especially in those instances where not even a summary has been left behind. I call this the "tricky" part because it means crafting a summary, which is usually harder than just providing all the available information.
Instead of making a fetish about the length of the article, I would concentrate on serving the needs of various readers by including the highlights of each subject, with a link right at that point to the more detailed daughter article. I would also prune the lead section (including probably moving one or more photos) so that the reader gets to the table of contents more quickly. Some readers will be able to use the table of contents to jump directly to what they care about. The current third and fourth paragraphs (the third about the UP and the freeway, the fourth about some of the removed material) don't need to be in the lead.
The question about creating a red link has to be decided for each case. A few months ago, Misterrick linked each City Council member, saying, "I figure if I create Wiki links someone would be inspired to actually create an article about that Councilmember ...." So far the inspiration hasn't struck. I think links should be created where you yourself intend to write the article or where there obviously ought to be one. Each major Vegas casino would qualify (I have my doubts about the little hole-in-the-wall joints like Le Bayou, though). A Mormon Fort article would make sense, so linking that now would be OK. On the other hand, given that Fremont Street Experience exists, I don't see much likelihood that we'd need a separate Fremont Street article; a simple redirect to Fremont Street Experience would be better. JamesMLane 08:27, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'll try and put more short summaries into the body for the moved stuff. I can also fix the '&' while I'm in there. The UP and road stuff can be moved into transportation. The Fort is a state park, and there are several pages with a red link calling it a state historic park.
Council members tend not to be interesting enough to justify their own articles (even many members of Congress have thin bios). I think it takes a certain amount of WP experience to develop a sense of what is likely be an article that not only seems worthwhile in the first place, but gets others to improve on it. Stan 13:05, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Any opinions on where the Las Vegas redirect should point? Right now it goes to Las Vegas, Nevada. I'm wondering if the disambig page would be a better choice. Vegaswikian 08:47, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Absolutely it should point here. If we get an irate letter from the Las Vegas, New Mexico Chamber of Commerce, we post it on WP:BJAODN. JamesMLane 10:57, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Redir is fine where it is. Stan 13:05, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Should the sign picture be moved down to after the first paragraph? Doing this should make the first screen better balanced. Vegaswikian 09:13, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think the welcome sign is a good welcome to the article. I've tried moving the skyline photo down instead. With the pictures aligned vertically instead of horizontally, the second paragraph doesn't get cramped over toward the left margin, and we have a smaller expanse of blank space to the right of the table of contents. JamesMLane 10:57, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
On my display, both paragraphs are using the left 2/3s of the display. There is mostly white space next to the TOC except for that highway 93 picture. If I go full screen, the shorter text length does move the pictures down a little more. Moving the first picture down to below the first paragraph will fill the space to the right of the TOC better with all or most screen sizes and resolutions, I know it does on my when I tried that as a preview. How this appears is dependent on the user display settings. So forcing a position lower allows the pictures to float next to the TOC for pretty much all displays. Vegaswikian 19:37, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, the welcome sign is ideal, could only be outdone by a stunning skyline pic. Stan 13:05, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Concerning the Economy section. Can you really break out the economic drivers in the city from the rest of the county? Is there one economy for the city and another for the valley or are the all a parts of one economy? Vegaswikian 09:22, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't think they can be completely separated, but development efforts being undertaken by the city government can reasonably be a separate section. JamesMLane 10:57, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Should the general economy comments be on the metro page or the county page? Given that how much is run by the multi-agency authorities I'm thinking the county. Vegaswikian 19:37, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Interconnectedness of the city and county economy is one of the reasons that a "city limits only" article concept breaks down. As a fast-growing area, the economy is of much interest, and could easily support an Economy of Las Vegas that talks about casino revenue, strip vs downtown vs neighborhood dynamics, diversification initiatives. I'm not much of an economics type myself, but it would be nice to have a succinct description to answer people's questions about how the place works. Stan 13:05, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Since the concensus seems to be clear, and match what GuyM was suggesting, I'll move the curent text to the metro article. I don't think that it is complete enough to be a stand alone article right now. Maybe if we all add more information to it, it could become standalone. I was listing the state gaming areas in a different place, maybe that is really a part of the economy section? Vegaswikian 19:12, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't agree that there's a consensus on this. GuyM's fundamental approach was to draw a sharp distinction based on the location of the Las Vegas city limits, but no one else agreed. I'm not sure that any purpose is served by the separate Las Vegas metropolitan area article. For example, the information that many people retire to Las Vegas is worth keeping in the main Las Vegas, Nevada article.
One example of a U.S. city article, a recent selection as a featured article, is Seattle, Washington. If people are concerned about article length, I think the best approach is that used in the Seattle article, with information spun off to topical daughter articles, with the main article having a summary and a reference like "Main article: Education in Seattle." If we do that, why would we need the Las Vegas metropolitan area article at all? JamesMLane 22:45, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
A Las Vegas Wiki anyone? Yes, Seattle has spun off a lot of larger complete articles. But it still seems to be mostly about the City. I would agree that if there was something like a Las Vegas area attractions article, there would not be much of a question about 'is it in the city or the county'. It there was an agreement to split stuff off, who is going to fill in all of the stubs that are created? We have been doing a good job with identifying pages needed and some topics are being developed in other places like The Springs or the welcome sign. I was wondering if we had a topic here to list the pages, generic for things like hotels, that everyone could move around would work to get develop a plan for how things should be layed out. Kind of like the blueprint for what needs to be done. This way the moves will be easier and it would be easier to see the end result. No comments on the section just headings, but maybe a place to explain why you moved something. Vegaswikian 00:07, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A list of desired missing topics could be here on this page, or make a list of Las Vegas-related topics, or a Las Vegas, Nevada/Temp as a work page. When splitting stuff off, it's only worthwhile if what you're splitting is more than a stub. Splitting off a stub in the hopes that it will grow is usually an overly optimistic strategy; we have thousands of such, they sit around for a couple years, then somebody merges them back in, so kind of a pointless exercise. Personally, I'd like to write a lengthier history by May 15, I have a couple of the standard books on the subject to work from. Stan 02:49, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The '\temp' sounds like a place to put a trial format. Also, when I was looking into that I ran into the expansion template. The list over there is rather small so maybe that means articles in this catgory get more attention then stubs. Don't know if that can help in getting some of the articles that need work filled in. Vegaswikian 04:00, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In my experience, it's hard to get people to work much on things they're not already interested in; they tend to develop their own task lists, or wander into areas linked to from their interests. One benefit of having f2f meet for Vegas residents is to get some ideas flowing about how to coordinate and expand coverage; there are at least a half-dozen people that I can recall. I'm in California right now, but will be back on Friday and available. Stan 15:46, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to meeting. Anyone have a place in mind and a time? I'm on the west side, DI and Town Center area. Vegaswikian 02:38, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(and a month later he responds...) I'm in Red Rock, so hardly a mile away. I see no other people piping up, time to ping them. Stan 13:35, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Amtrak

I thought we lost Amtrak service about 3 years ago. Anyone know for sure? Vegaswikian 02:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • According to Amtrack's website, trains don't run to Vegas, but there is an Amtrak/Greyhound Thruway bus service that runs through Las Vegas.Carter
    • So the change to the page is technically correct. To make the type of service clear, should we change Amtrak to Amtrak (bus)? Vegaswikian 17:56, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

People

I agree that it's confusing for "Notable natives" to include people born elsewhere, but it seems useful to have a list of links to articles about people who've been important in the development of the area. (Some of the "immigrants" are linked in the body of the article, like Oscar Goodman, but others aren't.) What we did in the Worcester, Massachusetts article was to use the heading "Notable people", with subheadings for "Born in Worcester" and "Other residents". I suggest we do the same here. An article about Vegas should really include links to articles like Steve Wynn (developer) and Liberace, as long as they're not incorrectly called "natives". JamesMLane 07:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Notable residents sounds reasonable. One question, would you expect that list to get too long for the page and become a page on its own? Vegaswikian 07:15, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
I doubt it. I envision only a list of links, with no more than extremely terse descriptions ("entertainer" and the like). It should be OK unless people start trying to cram in more information about the named notables. We should bear in mind that anyone who wants to read more about Liberace can just click on the link. If need be, though, you're right that we could spin it off, as was done with List of famous New Yorkers. JamesMLane 07:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
OK, I'll create this with the data from the old entries. Entries with links that work probably should have only a 1 or 2 word comment. Other entries should have a bit more. Vegaswikian 18:43, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Move a block of text from history to redevelopment?

Does it make sense to move the text starting with When The Mirage opened in 1989 to redevelopment? It seems to fit in there better since it was a major driver for the redevelopment effort. Somehow it does not seem like it belongs in history but I'm not sure that it is redevelopment either. Vegaswikian 20:01, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

  • No objections so I'll move the text. Vegaswikian 18:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Missing picture

The old smog picture seems to be missing. Anyone have a suggestion to replace it in transportation? Vegaswikian 18:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)