Talk:Las Vegas, Nevada

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Las Vegas which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 00:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Stratosphere

Under the "Tourism" section, it states that most of the downtown casinos are located on Fremont St, with the Stratosphere being the exception. The Stratosphere is (and widely accepted) as being a Strip property. Although the Stratosphere lies within the city limits of Las Vegas, and the other hotel-casinos do not, that does not make the Stratosphere a downtown property. It is quite some distance from downtown, as downtown does not stretch all the way to Sahara Ave. And keep in mind, all of the Strip hotel-casinos do not reside in one jurisdiction anyway; some are located in Paradise, some are in Winchester, some are in Enterprise, and yes, some (or at least one) is located in Las Vegas. So the fact that the Stratosphere lies in Las Vegas isn't the determining factor of whether it is a downtown property or not. Also, printed maps of the Strip casinos always show the Stratosphere; printed maps of downtown casinos do not show the Stratosphere. The article needs to be changed and have the phrase "with the exception of the Stratosphere" removed from the statement that's referring to downtown hotels. People read these articles for information. It is not fair or accurate to have a person who wants to stay in downtown Las Vegas read this and book the Stratosphere when it is not a downtown hotel-casino. Likewise, its not fair or accurate to have a person who wants to stay somewhere on the Strip read this article and rule out the Stratosphere because they are lead to believe it is downtown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk) 00:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The county definition, cited in the article, shows the strip ending at Sahara, so the Stratosphere is not on the strip. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Sorry for the long novel but, Sahara Avenue may just be the county's definition only because the county handles the affairs of the non-incorporated cities, and Las Vegas is an incorporated city (Las Vegas city limits begins at Sahara Ave on Las vegas Blvd). Because Las Vegas is incorporated, it handles most of its own affairs, unlike non-incorporated areas; those areas that have no mayor or city council so governmental issues are mostly handled by the county. However, some entities like the city of Las Vegas, the various organizations of Strip property owners, the state of Nevada, and the general public actually do consider the Stratosphere to be part of the Strip. Another way to look at it is, imagine if the southernmost unincorporated area, which is Winchester, became an incorporated city; getting its own mayor and city council. Would the hotel-casinos located on Las Vegas Blvd within Winchester all of a sudden not be considered Strip properties because they are now in an incorporated city? No, they would still be considered Strip properties; just lying within the limits of another city. This is the case with the Stratosphere. Basically, it's easier for the county to leave out the Stratosphere hotel because it sits in an incorporated area (where they have less influence) and it is only one building. But that doesn't mean the Stratosphere isn't part of the Strip in the bigger picture. Downtown hotel-casinos do not have roller coasters and other amusement park-like rides zig-zagging on or around their buildings. The Stratosphere does, however, as do several other properties on the Strip. The county is not the be-it-say-it-all of defining the Strip. In another ten to twenty years, new casino-hotels or malls may be built just mere blocks north of the Stratosphere; that would mean the Strip is extending. If the Strip boundaries were never extended, that would mean anything outside the original cluster of properties, like the New York-New York or CityCenter, wouldn't be considered on the Strip. At one time, Mandalay Bay was the southernmost Strip property, now Four Seasons came just south of it, extending the Strip southward. So if the Strip can continue a southward extension, why is there an imaginery brickwall at Sahara when extending northward? Because you've come into an incorporated area? That's not reason enough. Again, look at all the entities (except the county) and notice that whenever they define the Strip they all include the Stratosphere too. This could be something that maybe Wikipedia readers can give their opinion on for contribution to the article. -Even if it is decided that the Stratosphere is not on the Strip, that still doesn't make it downtown. That's a little overboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Magick12000, 5 September 2011

Please add the website: www.neonparadise.com to the external links section. The website is all about Las Vegas.

Magick12000 (talk) 17:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• Declined - Wikipedia is not an internet directory of sites, and the proposed link appears to fail inclusion criteria defined at WP:EL. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Las Vegas Economics

Why doesn't this page discuss unemployment, homelessness, or the movement of resources from Nevada to Asia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dahnshaulis (talk • contribs) 18:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

That sounds incredibly biased and inappropriate. Not to mention a lack of real references. Frischee113 (talk) 15:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)Frischee113

Requested Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move, current title does no harm to WP Mike Cline (talk) 04:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Las Vegas, Nevada → Las Vegas – Las Vegas is a much more appropriate name for the following reasons...

• Las Vegas, Nevada is the most well known Las Vegas. Obviously, like all other major US cities there are other smaller cities that share the same name. If I were to say for example "I just came back from Boston. What a beautiful city." You would assume Boston Massachusetts not Boston GA or Boston TX.

• The Atlanta, Oklahoma City, and New Orleans Wikipedia pages (which all have a smaller population than Las Vegas), along with countless others on Wikipedias List of United States cities by population, do NOT have their state names following the city name.

• The Las Vegas Metropolitan Area is detailed in the Las Vegas Valley article, therefore there would be no confusion between the city proper and the greater metro area.

We have discussed previous requests and have gotten nowhere. I am now asking for no more discussion. Make the move. We are getting no where and the Vegas page needs to be equal to other cities of smaller or similar size.

Thank you. Frischee113 (talk) 04:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)Frischee113

Comment: Yes, this issue has been discussed repeatedly on Talk:Las Vegas, some of these same arguments have been repeatedly been made, and these previous debates have "gotten nowhere" into resulting in no consensus. But asking "for no more discussion" and have an admin unilaterally "make the move" without any other comments by others would fly in the face of Wikipedia:Consensus. Zzyzx11 (talk) 09:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - Based on past discussions, many disagreed that the primary topic should be the city of Las Vegas. The Las Vegas Strip, a top contender, is not technically in the city limits of Las Vegas, Nevada, and would therefore present a problem for those actually searching the term "Las Vegas". Therefore, "Las Vegas" became a disambiguation page, and although it may not be the best solution, I feel that the proposed change would not improve the situation. GoneIn60 (talk) 11:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per GoneIn60. Jonathunder (talk) 19:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support; there's no reason the Strip can't be covered in this article. Powers ^T 01:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • It is not part of the city, that's why. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
    • It is very much a part of the city. If it was not, it would not be called the "Las Vegas Strip". The fact that it's not within the official administrative boundaries in no way removes the Strip from being within the remit of an article called "Las Vegas, Nevada". Powers ^T 01:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
      • From what I read somewhere, it is called the Las Vegas Strip because some police officer named it that while driving towards Downtown. Years later, after a few hotels went up, they named the nearby community which technically includes the Strip, Paradise. Since it's technically not part of city limits, just about all the details go in the Las Vegas Strip article IMO. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Even if the strip was in city limits, the details would still go in a separate article, since otherwise the Vegas article gets too long. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 21:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. When people say the came back from Las Vegas, they may not know it, but the proboly mean the Strip, which all but one hotel is located south of Las Vegas. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The fact that they don't know it is why the Strip should be considered part of Vegas. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 21:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• 'Support'. The Strip is detailed in this article here. The article is about Las Vegas. Although it is technically in Paradise, it isnt in another city because Paradise is unincorporated. There would be no confusion at all. "The name Las Vegas is often applied to unincorporated areas that surround the city, especially the resort areas on and near the Las Vegas Strip" is straight from the Las Vegas, Nevada page. Why exactly do you oppose it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frischee113 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Paradise is an unincorporated township. While "Las Vegas" is applied to other unincorporated communities, it forwarded to the LAs Vegas valley and not the actual city is not correct at all. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support per the same argument I used at Talk:Yogurt for years. There, enough editors who favored "Yoghurt" opposed the Yoghurt→Yogurt move for eight years so that each time there was an RM discussion (and there was usually one per year, sometimes more), the result would always be "no consensus". Sound familiar? I argued repeatedly that once the article was moved, there would be no argument to move it back, and, so, it would have consensus support once it was moved. But they resisted and resisted and resisted. Well, recently, finally, it was moved, and, lo and behold... there are no arguments to move it "yoghurt". There simply is no basis for that move. Similarly, once this article is at "Las Vegas", there will be no argument to move it to "Las Vegas, Nevada", and it will be stable at Las Vegas with consensus support, even if it appears there is no local consensus by counting !votes to move there right now. By evaluation of the arguments, clearl consensus favors the move.

  This city is a special case where "the city" is not necessarily defined exactly by the official municipality. The most common use of "Las Vegas" is the city including the strip, and so that's what this article should cover, and the name of this article should be Las Vegas. We already explain the distinction. Anyway, considering the mailing address of hotels on the strip is "Las Vegas, Nevada", the claim that the current title is somehow distinctive in terms of referring specifically to the official municipality, excluding the strip, is absurd. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

  • That you continued a debate over a silent "h" in yog(h)urt for years is what was absurd. Please don't make this page join the WP:LAME list as well. Already my yog hurts. Jonathunder (talk) 19:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Yeah, as if it was me that continued that debate. I was instrumental in ending it, finally. The only lame aspect of that whole thing was the opposition to restoring the original spelling. The only lame aspect here is the opposition to this move. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support - The Request for comment on this topic was over 95% supporting that the city is the primary Las Vegas. Requests for comment have the advantage of involving the entire Wikipedia community, and not just the editing cabal on a particular page whose views don't align with the majority or with reliable sources. (see China for another example). Many of the opponents argues to close on the blatantly false premise that the request for comment was frivolous or invalid. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 16:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • In that RfC I counted 14 Yes, 5 No which is more accurately described as 74% in favor. That's a good majority but not over 95% as you stated. Also, the RfC format is not a way of tallying up votes (see WP:RFC). It's about the content of the discussion. The most recent debate continues to show a notable amount of contention. Also it's worth noting that No consensus for article title discussions results in the continued use of the long-standing, stable title (see WP:CONSENSUS). Multiple discussions initiated in a short time frame to overturn that consensus could be seen as going against WP:POINT. GoneIn60 (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Agreed, the discussion should be speedily closed IMO. After all, the Strip is not part of Las Vegas. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 18:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes, it is. We have no good reason to restrict ourselves to administrative boundaries when authoring a comprehensive article on a city. Powers ^T 15:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
    • "Multiple discussions initiated in a short time frame to overturn that consensus" Umm, what consensus? Every single proposal has ended in no consensus. So, how am I, or anyone else, breaking the non-existent consensus? The request for comment was the closest there has been to consensus, and it was clearly to make Las Vegas an article about the city. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
      • I was mistaken. I reviewed the history of this debate again and see your point that you are trying to reach a broader audience taking the correct course of action. GoneIn60 (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support - clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Again though, this article is about the City of Las Vegas. The Las Vegas strip is discussed here. There would be no confusion because there are TWO DIFFERENT ARTICLES. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.191.78.124 (talk) 15:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Also, the same arguement can be made for New York. When people talk about visiting New York, they are probably referring to visiting NYC not NYS. That doesnt mean that New York City should be called, New York City, New York simply because tourists refer to it improperly. New York City covers the city while New York covers the state. Frischee113 (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)Frischee113

The comparison isn't a good one. If I search for NYC, it takes me to NYC. I am thinking about the city and was directed to the city's article. If I search for Las Vegas, the proposed move would take me to the city's article although the common intention (being debated) was likely the Las Vegas strip. GoneIn60 (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

But, for the third time, there are two different articles. Las Vegas Strip and Las Vegas. One is about the city, one is about the tourist destination in the Greater Las Vegas region. There would be no confusion. Frischee113(talk) 16:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)Frischee113

It is a good one actually. If I search New York it will bring me to New York State. Just like if I search Las Vegas it will bring me to the city of Las Vegas, not the Las Vegas strip. Frischee113 (talk) 16:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)Frischee113

• Oppose – if Las Vegas, Nevada and Las Vegas Strip are merged to a single article, that article would be primary topic for Las Vegas; but for the current set of articles, the current namings make sense. Dicklyon (talk) 04:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

No one said we were combining them. Las Vegas, Nevada would simply become Las Vegas. The Las Vegas Strip would remain its own article. Frischee113 (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)Frischee113

Did you miss the there's no reason the Strip can't be covered in this article comment above? Vegaswikian (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The strip article is too big to be merged into this one, but along with the change in title I would expect the scope of this article to expand to include the strip, covered as a section here, including noting that it is outside of the formal city limits, but within "postal" Las Vegas, and with a pointer to the existing article. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Vegaswikian, you sure love the strawman argument. "Covering the Strip in the Las Vegas article" means summarizing it and linking to Las Vegas strip as a main article, not merging. That's pretty obvious. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 07:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support per the arguments put forward by Frischee113. Julianhall (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support per nom and other arguments here. The Las Vegas Strip brouhaha is a non-issue. There are already a hatnote and a couple of lines in the intro of the article explaining the difference. Another small section can be added to the body of the article. As User:Dondegroovily notes above, "'Covering the Strip in the Las Vegas article' means summarizing it and linking to Las Vegas strip as a main article, not merging." —  AjaxSmack  04:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons stated by Vegaswikian et al. When people think of Las Vegas, they think of the skyline of the huge hotel-casinos along the Strip which is not within the boundaries of the City of Las Vegas, but instead is governed directly by the Clark County Commission. Moving this article to the title Las Vegas would only compound the confusion. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The current title is no less confusing than the proposed title in that respect, as the address of every place on the strip, even though it's outside of the city boundaries, is "Las Vegas, Nevada"[1] [2] [3]. All this confusion would be eliminated by expanding the scope of the article so that it is not restricted to the boundaries of the City of Las Vegas. A few tweaks to the intro, history and a new short section with a link to the full article about the strip is all that is probably needed.

    In fact, if we had an article about the City of Las Vegas with scope restricted at the city boundaries, its title would be City of Las Vegas. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

    • What you propose would create a gigantic, disorganized, subjective, and hopelessly incoherent mess. This article is ALREADY restricted to the city boundaries like every other U.S. city article and should continue to do so for consistency with those other articles. City limits are simple and objective. We have articles on METRO AREAS like the Las Vegas Valley for the larger concept you describe.
    • For example, just because I regard Jersey City and White Plains as extensions of New York City doesn't make them part of New York City, even though they share a common skyline and are connected by numerous transit and road links. They're part of the New York City metro area. Same thing here; nearly all of the Strip is in the township of Paradise, not the City of Las Vegas. --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Jersey City and White Plains are part of the NYC metro area, but rarely if ever does one consider them to be part of the entity to which they are referring to when they say "New York City". Yet the strip is normally considered to be "in" "Las Vegas" or "Las Vegas, Nevada". That's the difference.

        I suggest this is a great example of taking consistency too far. For the vast majority of U.S. cities -- virtually all of them -- "CityName", "CityName, StateName" and "City of CityName" all refer to essentially the same entity, so it's perfectly reasonable to name articles about the cities using either just the city's name, or the city name disambiguated with the state name. But Las Vegas is a rare exception to this general rule, because the area famously referred to as "Las Vegas" or "Las Vegas, Nevada" is normally not limited to just the city boundaries. This is also why this issue keeps being raised on this talk page. We need to treat Las Vegas differently because it is different.

        The Las Vegas Valley is larger than just "Las Vegas", as it includes Henderson, etc. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

    • Coolcaeser, you are incorrect about limiting things to city limits. Seattle discusses Boeing, Microsoft and Sea-Tac airport, none of which are in city limits. Los Angeles discusses the Port of Long Beach and the various airports that are not in LA, as well as the Anaheim Angels. New York City mentions Ellis Island, even though half of the island is in New Jersey. Paris discusses the Palace of Versailles, which is in a suburb, not Paris. Things that are widely considered an important part of a city are always included in city articles regardless of whether they are in city limits or not. The same is true of the Las Vegas strip - the fact that it is not in city limits is not a valid reason to exclude it, and not a valid reason for the city not to be the primary topic. (Plus, it's called the Las Vegas Strip, not the Paradise Strip, so the "it's in Paradise" argument doesn't quite fly with me.) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 21:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose with apologies in advance to the admin who will need to read this. Having read through the above support comments, it is clear that they fail to address any of the valid oppose reasons raised in this discussion or any of the previous one. They fall into the WP:ILIKEIT or hey this is what I think it should be so make it so or WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Then there is the straw man argument applied to discredit facts rather then presenting anything of value. So let's discuss common name. Las Vegas, Nevada is commonly called Las Vegas. Las Vegas, New Mexico is commonly called Las Vegas. Las Vegas (TV series) is commonly called Las Vegas. North Las Vegas, Nevada is commonly called Las Vegas. Henderson, Nevada is frequently called Las Vegas. The Las Vegas Strip is commonly called Las Vegas. The Las Vegas Valley is commonly called Las Vegas. Clark County, Nevada is commonly called Las Vegas. The Las Vegas-Paradise, NV MSA is commonly called Las Vegas. Las Vegas, Santa Bárbara is commonly called Las Vegas. So clearly many places have Las Vegas as their common name.
  Now to repeat the facts about the disambiguation of the inbound links to Las Vegas. Probably about 97% can be correctly disambiguated to Las Vegas Valley. Probably about 45-50% can be correctly disambiguated to Las Vegas Strip though winding up at an article for a street when you were expecting a place can be a surprise. Another 2-3% are for Las Vegas, New Mexico, North Las Vegas, Nevada, Henderson, Nevada or other stuff. And about 5% are for Las Vegas, Nevada, usually as an airline destination or to measure mileage to someplace else.
  So given that, I fail to see where one can argue that the city is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. But some editors seem to be convinced that the strip and valley are named after the city so that somehow make the city the primary use. However, the city is really named after the water stop on the San Pedro, Los Angeles and Salt Lake Railroad line that was likely named after the commonly used name for the area and the valley. The city did come years after the railroad. Given that the Strip is the driving force for the area as a whole, it seems odd that we would want to move that into the city unless it was the primary topic or had a stronger claim to the primary topic. After all, the politicians there have really no say in what happens there so this is rather confusing. In fact the city has about 5% of the Las Vegas rooms, 5% of the gaming revenue and 80% of the courts and lawyers. So yes if you get a traffic ticket for the Las Vegas Township Justice Court (which excludes the City of Las Vegas), yes this is the largest court in the area, you need to pay in the city, but don't go to the city's office to pay since they are different.
  Then we still have the fact that Las Vegas is first and foremost a resort destination and a brand. The city does sit on the board that markets the destination. But they are 2 of the 14 seats with the other cities actually having a stronger voice! When people say they are going to Las Vegas they mean the resort and destination. They don't mean the city. When people say they have just returned from Las Vegas, they mean the resort and destination. They don't generally mean the city. Even the national press when they report on crime or housing or income or what ever don't mean the city since that data is released for the Las Vegas-Paradise, NV MSA. I hope everyone enjoyed this past weekend from the UFC fight to America's Party which are mostly held outside of the city. Or the Las Vegas Bowl again, not in the city but a part of the resort destination. Then there was an interesting point made by the Las Vegas Sun about the problems with XL Airways France and their limited number of flights. Seems they are talking about the 'Las Vegas Market' does not buy enough tickets. I wonder if the Las Vegas they are talking about is the city?
  So clearly the case is there that the city is not the primary topic no matter what editors would like. That is why when the contentious wording about the AP list of cities was added, Vegas was not renamed along with a few others. It was not and still is not the primary topic. So while far from perfect, the current arrangement is head and shoulders better that what is proposed. I sense from reading the support votes that those editors understand that. Otherwise why do we need to expand the city article using original research to add one and only one 4 mile stretch of road? Oh and don't forget that it is the Las Vegas Strip and Valley that host all of the MMA events and the poker events and the concerts and the beauty pageants and the rodeos and the conventions and trade shows and... Vegaswikian (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "Las Vegas [a.k.a "Las Vegas, Nevada"] is first and foremost a resort destination and a brand.". And that's the point; the primary topic is the resort destination (which includes the city) and brand, and that's what the article at Las Vegas should be about. So, move Las Vegas, Nevada to Las Vegas, tweak the intro and a section or two, and presto, you're done. If you really want an article about the municipality, then put it at City of Las Vegas, because the primary use of "Las Vegas" or "Las Vegas, Nevada" is clearly not the city proper. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, the primary topic is the resort destination (which includes the city) and brand it is not the city which is one of three cities in the resort destination. I will not argue that an article about the resort destination and brand might be the primary topic and that an article about that would be better then a dab page at the main main space. But the city article is not that article! And it's not that I want an article on the city, it's that everyone wants an article on the city! Which just happens to be the article we already have on the city, no tweaking required. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, per the thorough analysis by Vegaswikian.   Will Beback  talk  02:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Page edit notice

While making a ho-hum routine edit (deleting the move discussion notice as the discussion has ended), I notice a page notice saying not to add anything about the Las Vegas Strip. Can anyone provide any discussion justifying this page notice? If there is no consensus, there should be no page notice. It seems that more than a majority in recent discussions have wanted the Strip included in the city article, so this page notice seems to contradict consensus. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about excluding all material on nearby areas. But it should be kept to a minimum.   Will Beback  talk  04:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

A page about Las Vegas that doesn't mention the strip is like a page on Seattle that doesn't mention Boeing or a page on Paris that doesn't mention the Palace of Versailles. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Reverted. The hat note is sufficient. The article Las Vegas is about all related topics (actually, a disambiguation page); this article is about the city. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Show me the consensus to do this. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The article does mention the strip - in the {{about}} header and in its own dedicated subsection. Julianhall (talk) 12:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

That page notice has been there for about two years to clarify that this article is about the city. If makes it clear what the focus of the article was and continues to be. As I recall it was added after the feature supporting page notices was 'discovered' and since then it has greatly reduced edit waring in the article, mainly over images. As I recall it does not say that material about the strip can not be mentioned. However simply adding material not about the city should be avoided. Clearly if something on the strip had a direct impact on the city it can be mentioned. But something about the strip that does not affect the city should not be included. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that this article shouldn't focus on the Strip, it's hard to imagine anything about the Las Vegas Strip that doesn't have a "direct impact" on the city. Las Vegas is famous for gambling, and most of it's on the strip. Vegas is famous for entertainment, and most of it is on the strip. Nearly everything that makes Vegas famous is on the strip.

There was a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/Archive 11) a year and a half ago. It focused on Rochester, New York, where the rough consensus is that Eastman Kodak deserves a mention despite not being in city limits (while some smaller companies don't deserve mention). The Las Vegas Strip is way more notable than Kodak, and way more associated with Vegas than Kodak with Rochester. In my view, that means the Strip not only deserves a mention, but an entire section. In fact, the strip is iconic with Las Vegas enough that the city photo should probably show it. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not from the US, and have only a basic overview of Las Vegas' geography, mostly picked up from here. As something of an outsider to this subject, i think that there is enough with the {{about}} tag and the subsection Las Vegas, Nevada#Las Vegas Strip to point people in the direction of the Strip's dedicated article. I also think that there is enough guidance for editors to add information about the Strip in its own dedicated article. Julianhall (talk) 12:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)