Talk:Las Vegas

Requested move 3

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: page not moved: no consensus in 15 days. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Las Vegas → Las Vegas (disambiguation) – This is what we all agreed to in the previous discussion. Hopefully this will not be as much the train wreck as the last discussion was, and we can get it closed quickly. Let's save discussion about "City of Las Vegas" until after this is closed. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 00:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Las Vegas Valley → Las Vegas
• Las Vegas, Nevada → Las Vegas (city)

• Support "Las Vegas Valley → Las Vegas"   Will Beback  talk  00:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose "Las Vegas, Nevada → Las Vegas (city)"  Will Beback  talk  00:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Please provide a reason for this. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 16:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
    • He has several times - he says "Las Vegas (city)" does not follow the city naming conventions, ignoring the point that in this case following the convention results in a title which is ambiguous, but has the same primary topic as does "Las Vegas", and, so, should redirect to Las Vegas. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: Las Vegas should remain a disambiguation page. It is much too confusing to the reader to do otherwise. Jonathunder (talk) 01:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: According to 2010 traffic stats, Las Vegas, Nevada had 1,558,386 views, compared to 903,784 views for Las Vegas Strip and 11,273 for Las Vegas Valley. Why would we make a page with almost 2 orders of magnitude less traffic the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? And moving Las Vegas, Nevada to Las Vegas (city) is against WP:PLACE#United States I think. –CWenger (^ • @) 17:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • And how much of that traffic results from bad disambiguation in the past? If you look though all of the links what percentage of the sports related links should really be for the city? How about the entertainment ones? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. For the reasons stated by Will Beback and CWenger. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. I favored Raimes idea to merge the Valley into Las Vegas, Nevada and then moving to Las Vegas. Then creating a separate, for municipal/government purposes, City of Las Vegas/Las Vegas (city), Nevada article. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 19:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • But those are the two articles we already have. Cleanup of the existing ones is all that is needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
    • While that may be, the titled page Las Vegas itself should not be a disambiguation page. This situation strikes a similar comparison between the Los Angeles Basin and city proper of Los Angeles. Many commonly think the whole basin (Hollywood, Long Beach, etc.) is simply L.A., as is done with the Las Vegas Valley and city proper. I think that Las Vegas, Nevada should be moved to Las Vegas. Therefore I Oppose these moves.08OceanBeach^S.D. 19:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support, assuming Las Vegas, Nevada would redirect to Las Vegas. The whole point here is that "Las Vegas" (and "Las Vegas, Nevada") has a primary topic, and that topic is not the city proper. We seem to have had consensus above about the primary topic for "Las Vegas" being, more or less, the entire valley, but certainly including the unincorporated area of the strip. How anyone who agrees with that can argue that "Las Vegas, Nevada" most likely refers to something else is beyond me, especially considering that the most common use for "Las Vegas, Nevada" is as a mailing address which is not limited to just the city. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per CWenger. Las Vegas should redirect to Las Vegas, Nevada per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Also when you refer to a "previous discusssion", you need to link to that discussion. If it was a Requested Move, and if indeed there was a consensus, the closing admin should have made whatever changes were agreed to, if there was a consensus. Softlavender (talk) 07:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Clearly, when Born2cycle references the "above discussion," he is talking about the lengthy "Requested Move 2" that is located on this talk page just above this move request. The move was recently closed as no consensus, but the proposal at the very bottom of the discussion to merge "Las Vegas Valley" into "Las Vegas, Nevada" seemed to have a good deal of support. If you read the entire move request (which, grant it, is a pretty long task), you will see that Vegaswikian provided numerous sources that indicated the entire Valley and not just the city proper is the primary topic of "Las Vegas". Rai•me 12:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support The most well known Las Vegas is Las Vegas, Nevada. There's no need to have the state name follow the city. Also, I do believe we need an article for the Metro Area and the City Proper but the article doesnt need to be followed by (city). Just have one be Las Vegas, and the other be the Las Vegas Metropolitan Area. All this discussion is unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beepoppab (talk • contribs) 02:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Beepoppab, then you actually Oppose the move, and should change your vote. Look what the move request proposes. Softlavender (talk) 04:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support the first two and oppose the third. The question here is what is the primary topic. The AP list is not a guide for primary topics as some might have you believe. Page hits here are of limited value since in the past a large number of links to Las Vegas were incorrectly disambiguated to the city article even though they have nothing to do with the city (yea, something over 10,00 probably need cleaning up). Las Vegas or Vegas is a brand, it is a destination. How many entertainment events happen in the city? Close to zero, consider the NHL awards or the last week's Miss America contest. How about sporting events other then minor league baseball? The primary use Las Vegas is the valley and not the city. A few weeks ago I watched a concert on Lake Las Vegas. I believe it was Michael Buble. Did he say 'hello Henderson'?, No, he said 'hello Las Vegas' since that was his 'Las Vegas' stop. From cleaning out the incoming links to the current dab page, it is clear that the city is the intended destination for only a small percentage of the links. That alone says something about what is not the primary use. Simply put, Las Vegas describes several different places, even in Nevada. This weekend's Electric Daisy Carnival is billed as being in Las Vegas, but it is not in the city, it is not in a township, but as far as I can tell it is in unincorporated Clark County. As for the closest city, I believe that is the city of North Las Vegas. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support. On the contrary, after taking extensive thought on the matter, Las Vegas should not remain a disambiguation page. The French seem to have the idea down as fr:Las Vegas is about the valley. Once this proposal goes through, we can discuss the Las Vegas (city)/City of Las Vegas matter more extensively. The only thing I might ask is that a separate metropolitan statistical area page is created strictly for government purposes. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 00:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support a move of the Valley article to Las Vegas and a move of the city article to Las Vegas (city), Nevada. But note that I strongly oppose Will Beback and Vegaswikian's proposal to move the Valley article to "Las Vegas" and leave the city at "Las Vegas, Nevada". Having a Las Vegas article and a separate Las Vegas, Nevada article would be far too confusing; I think even the existing dab page is better than this solution, as at least the distinction is clearer. I still prefer the option of merging the Valley article into the existing Las Vegas, Nevada article, moving that expanded page to Las Vegas, and then creating a new Las Vegas (city), Nevada article. Rai•me 03:12, 24 June 2011 (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.

Request for Comment - primary topic?

Is the city in Nevada the primary topic for Las Vegas? Answer yes or no, and please explain a no answer with an alternative or by stating there is none. Las Vegas is currently a disambiguation page. Two previous move requests to change this have gone nowhere. While everyone agreed that keeping Las Vegas a disambiguation page is not acceptable, what the Las Vegas page should be failed to reach consensus. The primary argument for Las Vegas as primary topic is that it is by far the largest city of that name and nearly all non-city uses of the term are named for the city (such as the TV show. The primary argument against it is that the Las Vegas Strip, where the most famous landmarks are located, is not in the city limits. Let's get this settled and have Las Vegas actually go someplace instead of disambiguation. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC) - Revised rationale to correct statement about disambig page. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Yes Since I didn't state my opinion above, I'm stating it here. The exclusion of the strip from city limits has nothing to do with whether it's part of the city. It's has more to do with local politics, likely a way for casinos to keep their taxes low, and no one outside the city really cares about those local politics. City and county governments often have idiotic boundaries (look at Los Angeles) and shouldn't be trusted to tell us anything. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Yes, city in Nevada the primary topic for Las Vegas. That the Las Vegas Strip is outside the city limits doesn't seem to alter the fact. It is called Las Vegas Strip because of its proximity to the city. --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Yes. I've read the various proposals above, and the pros/cons arguments. I'm persuaded that the example set by Los Angeles should be followed for Las Vegas related articles. In other words, Las Vegas article should be about the city, and there should be a Las Vegas (disambiguation) disambig article. I've lived in the United States my entire life, and "Las Vegas", in the overwhelming majority of usages, means the city, not the valley, and not the strip. The fact that the strip is outside the city limits is not too significant: the same thing can be said for the city of Los Angeles: L.A. city is rather small, and many (most?) usages of "Los Angeles" actually mean "Greater Los Angeles Area", yet it would be perverse to have the article Los Angeles cover greater L.A. --Noleander (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Yes, for same reasons mentioned above. I generally find taking people to a DAB page to start is a useless exercise unless there are truly multiple primary topics. Here, the primary topic is clearly the settlement; all the other articles relate to the city and are not distinctly unique primary topics. -epicAdam^(talk) 18:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. There are a number of people in the previous moves who have made it clear that they believe there is no primary topic for "Las Vegas". The sentence in the RfC statement that " everyone agreed that keeping Las Vegas a disambiguation page is not acceptable" is clearly mistaken. I don't even see a consensus for that in the previous move request threads. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I've corrected the error and I apologize. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• No. No one, except in a governmental context, uses "Las Vegas" to refer to the city alone. The city of Los Angeles is sometimes used by people outside the area, although I think the intersection of the metro area and the county may actually be more common. The valley (which, in reality, is a subset of the metro area; the valley does not include Henderson) or the metro areas are the only potential primary topics, and I'm not at all sure that either is primary. Las Vegas or Las Vegas (Nevada) should remain a disambiguation page, not necessarily the same page as Las Vegas, Nevada. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying, but for a very, very famous place like Las Vegas, it is not friendly to readers to make them type in "Las Vegas" in the WP search field, show them a disambig page, and then make them click a link in the disambig page: readers should be able to get to an article in a single step. Isn't that what the "primary topic" test is all about? The city article can have a disambig template at the top steering readers to other articles. --Noleander (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Only if the city is truly what is know as the primary use Las Vegas! I'm reminded of the sign on I-15 in California inviting everyone to the place that Vegas began. And it is not the city. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

True, but that sort of trade-off is made all the time in WP: Should Los Angeles go to a disambig page, so users can see the full breadth of interpretations? or should it go to the city article, so users at least can see some article immediately? I understand your point: but I see it not as black-or-white, but rather as a weighing of what is best for the readers. --Noleander (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

A careful reading of the the previous discussions is that

• the dab page needs to be moved
• the city is not the primary topic
• Las Vegas Valley is the primary topic

Where the previous discussion broke down was try to also

• move the city article from Las Vegas, Nevada
• change about 4 or 5 redirects

So the RFC would be better focused if the consensus from the previous discussions was presented in a clear and unbiased manner and that was used as the starting point. Oh, and no LA should not go to a dab page. The county article or the Greater Los Angeles Area should be the main topic. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Yes as per Noleander's point above. It seems like the best way to go would be to have the Las Vegas article about the city, and a separate disambig page. Kessy628 (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• 'Move to close since the RFC misrepresents the previous discussions. The last one failed because the requester of this RFC said one thing in the nomination (which would have passed) and yet proposed exactly the opposite in the discussion. This is also forum shopping since this is the third time in 2 months that this has been discussed to death. Editors are tired of this discussion and this should be left alone for a while. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

If the RfC text is flawed: it should be fixed, although I dont see any significant flaw. I agree with Rubin that the " everyone agreed that keeping Las Vegas a disambiguation page is not acceptable" claim is not accurate, but that doesnt seem to impact the RfC. More importantly: the RfCs are designed to draw in uninvolved editors (such as myself) rather than the same old denizens of the Talk page. Closing this would exterminate the entire purpose of the RfC: to get input from new editors. --Noleander (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's exactly forum shopping; making a new proposal a month or so after a "no consensus" result doesn't seem out of line. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Waiting at least six months would have shown more respect for Wikipedia's consensus-driven processes. Repeatedly initiating RfCs on the same issue smells awfully suspicious and looks like attrition tactics.--Coolcaesar (talk) 07:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Coolcaesar, waiting six months would be appropriate to change consensus. In this case, we failed to reach consensus twice. A repeated failure to reach consensus is exactly what RfC is for. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you did not deny you are engaging in attrition tactics. Your record will catch up with you someday. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? I think WP:AGF applies here. I never said it was attrition tactics, and I didn't deny because you never made that accusation in the first place. In summary, we had multiple no consensus results. I want this resolved. I find another way to find consensus. RfCs are great, because the overall community overwhelms the small core of regular editors, who often aren't neutral about the topic and have opinions that don't match the wider community. Regular editors of China, for example, don't consider the People's Republic a legit government, and have fought having it recognized as such on Wikipedia. The RfC at Talk:China knocked some sense into them. All the yes votes here tell me the same thing is happening for Las Vegas. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

"I want this resolved. I find another way." Sounds like attrition to me. For you to assert WP:AGF is breathtakingly disingenuous. The consensus was that there was no consensus. You're the one who can't accept that. So your tactic is to initiate an RfC in the hope of bringing in enough users unfamiliar with the topic to "overwhelm the small core of regular editors." Keep it up, you're "winning" in the way that Charlie Sheen is "winning." --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

As usual, you are failing to actually read what the history here is. It is not simply that there was no consensus for your repeated requests which are clearly a violation of WP:POINT and forum shopping, you are simply ignoring the fact that the current situation is in place as the result of consensus! These repeated attempts to try and keep changing without reading the history of this shows that you only have one goal which Coolcaesar seems to have pointed out. The second RM request and now the RFC to override a long standing consensus decision is what is not acceptable. Yes consensus can change, but editors need to understand why something exists when you present the RFC. I too opened an RFC recently on a topic that was actually causing issues. However in that one, the introduction presents the issues in what I think is a clear and unbiased manner. This RFC fails to do that. It makes it sound like a simple yes or or no answer which you know is not the case. Your proposed solution relies on bastardizing the city article to include a population 3 times the size of the city and to include 2 other cities and the 90% of the hotel rooms that are not in the city and so on. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• • I've corrected the error and I apologize. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Yes. The city is the primary topic as explained in the above supporting comments and the following reasoning: places in the immediate vicinity derive there name from the city, places within the region are advertised as being in Las Vegas, even though they may lie outside of the city limits. The disambiguation page is inappropriate in the place of Las Vegas when clearly there is a primary topic. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 23:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Citations for that please? The name Las Vegas was first applied to the area as there was no city. The valley retained that name which was adopted by the railroads and then then city. So the city is the late comer and not the first. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
    • The Los Angeles River predates the city, but no one says LA should point to a disambig. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 00:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Huh? Was the river named before the city? And who is recommending that LA point to a dab page? Vegaswikian (talk) 01:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
        • I don't think we need to be stubborn, may I remind you of WP:BLUE. Cities often take names from the names of the geographical areas surrounding them. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 02:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Yes, the city in Nevada is the primary topic. The disambig text at the top of the city's article and a separate disambig page should be enough to explain the other uses. Ibanez100 (talk) 01:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Proof? Vegaswikian (talk) 01:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Demanding proof really sounds like desperation to me. Why don't you prove it's not? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 22:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
      • When editors suggest a name change or article move because of the assertion that something is the primary topic it's standard practice to ask for some kind of evidence. Otherwise it's just the opinions of editors. It's also standard practice that the burden of proof rests with the editor proposing the change.   Will Beback  talk  23:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• No. The current disambiguation page is adequate. And this RfC should be closed immediately as frivolous. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Considering that "yes" represents a pretty large majority right now, it's hard to see how this is frivolous. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Also, as Noleander said above, the point of an RfC is to get uninvolved editors (like myself) to see the issue and comment on it. Kessy628 (talk) 01:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
• Yes make Las_Vegas,_Nevada the target. It got 143024 page views! Las Vegas strip only got 76697. Las Vegas Valley isn't even on th map (pun intended) with 12468.– Lionel ^(talk) 07:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Page views is not valid in this case do to previous page moves. There are over 10,000 incorrect links to the city article that resulted from a bad disambiguation page and previous page moves. If you want to use page views, please cleanup all of the inbound links to the city article. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Vegas, you're the only one who thinks these links are "incorrect", and every "incorrect" link is a yes vote in this discussion. Here's the scenario: An editor mentions Las Vegas in an edit. Clicks the link to check it. Sees that it's a disambiguation page. Changes the link to Las Vegas, Nevada. Multiply by 10,000 and there's your "incorrect" links. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
• Yes, I think this argument is pointless. If you live in the eastern part of the country, and think of Las Vegas, you think of Las Vegas the city. SOXROX (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

  You may think you're thinking about the city, but you're really thinking of the metro area, for which we do not have an article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

  Oh, so when someone says Las Vegas, they're talking about Henderson and Boulder? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• Yes The "metro area" argument is something of a canard; every city has a metro area which is referred to in common parlance with the name of the city. Certainly, the term "Las Vegas" is inclusive of the metro area, but the city is the primary topic, and the topic from which the blanket term has emerged. Infoboxes on city pages even include population estimates for the metro area as a whole, and the history sections rarely exclude important events because they just happened to occur one block over across the city limits (the Chicago history section makes no bones about mentioning Al Capone despite the fact that his base of operations was in Cicero). The example of Los Angeles is quite pertinent, also. siafu (talk) 00:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
• Yes Speaking as someone who has never been to Las Vegas, nevermind the states, I would expect and hope to immediately find the article Las_Vegas, Nevada for the city upon searching Las Vegas. This should definitely be the primary topic. JoshuaJohnLee ^{talk softly, please} 23:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  • So your view that everything is in the city should control what is the primary topic? Exactly what proof do you have that the city is or should be the primary topic? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
    • WP:Place states that when a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. I know that doesn't make it the primary topic, but the generally held impression given by Las Vegas worldwide is for the city called Las Vegas. I know that within the states and within nevada people will possibly be thinking of the metro area or another type of area known as Las Vegas. But since Las Vegas (especially when use outside of North America) generally refers to the city, it would make sense to have the article point there. Also, please remember that an RfC is intended for comment from neutral parties and the hostile attitude you are taking is making that difficult here. JoshuaJohnLee ^{talk softly, please} 00:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
      • Actually the advertising is for Las Vegas and not the City of Las Vegas. What is marketed is a brand and a resort destination. That place is mostly outside of the city and that is where people go. It is the economic engine that drives things, both locally and for the state. So that is clearly the primary topic. Not sure what your reference to WP:PLACE is suppose to prove. That does not really say anything about how to name things based on disambiguation when there are multiple uses for a specific name. The fact that people in Europe don't understand that they are not going to a city simply makes the point that the articles should be correctly named and located so that the encyclopedia educates and does not reenforce incorrect assumptions. By the way, the city article is at the correct place based on the established naming conventions. I guess part of the problem here is that the RFC itself makes false statements that lead to the conclusion that the city is in fact the primary topic. Statements like The primary argument for Las Vegas as primary topic is that it is by far the largest city of that name and nearly all non-city uses of the term are named for the city (such as the TV show are simply false (other then it is the largest city with that name). So in my opinion, this just leads people into saying yes assuming that the request is unbiased and accurate. Clearly not the case here. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
        • Vegas, you continually fail to make any case that Las Vegas is different than the hundreds of other large cities that are primary topics. If Vegas is a brand, so is every city with heavy tourism. New York is a brand, Boston is a brand, Paris is a brand, so what makes Las Vegas different? Also, please justify that my statements are false. Looking at the disambig page, only the towns in New Mexico and Ecuador and the ancient culture in Ecuador are not named for the city in Nevada (arguably even the nearby natural features are named for the early Mormom settlement that is today's city). Everything named after the strip is named for the city, as the strip is named after the city. BTW, the city article is not in the correct place, the naming conventions say to omit the state name when AP does so, and AP omits the Nevada. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
          • You are the one making the case that that city is the primary topic without providing any evidence to refute what has been presented in the past showing that clearly the city is not the primary topic. As for justifying your statements as false, how do you know that Las Vegas (TV series) is named or the city? What percentage of the scenes are shot in the city? What percentage of opening title sequence is hot in the city? Exactly where in the city is the Montecito Resort & Casino located? As to different, please read the past discussions where this is made quite clear. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
            • Concur with Vegaswikian. Also, New York, Boston, and Paris are all bad analogies because when you're standing in Times Square, or walking the Liberty Trail, or sightseeing on the Champs-Elysee, you are actually in the City of New York, the City of Boston, and the City of Paris. (I have visited all three of those cities at least twice, and caught connecting flights in New York to other destinations many, many times.) When you're watching the fountains at Bellagio, shopping at Fashion Show Mall, or viewing another Cirque du Soleil show, you are not in the City of Las Vegas, but rather, an unincorporated township under the jurisdiction of the Clark County Commission. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
              • Regardless, the cities are all still "brands." No doubt places outside of the Paris city limits are advertised as being "in Paris." Another example of advertisement, places are frequently advertised as being "in Miami" when in fact they can be found in Miami Beach. Miami is not located at Miami, Florida simply because the Beach is often being referred to. The same can apply with Las Vegas and the Las Vegas Strip. It would seem the vast majority, outside of the usual group of Las Vegas editors, concur that the city is the primary topic. Why don't we stick to the AP style guide for naming cities. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 06:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
                • Las Vegas is somewhat unique among recognizable cities, in that most of the area known as "Las Vegas" is not within the city limits, while most of the city is not in areas commonly known as "Las Vegas". If there is a primary usage, it's not the city. Most of the most other cities are one (Los Angeles; much of the city is not known as "Los Angeles"), or the other (most of the city of Miami really is known as "Miami"). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
                • What proof do you have to refute the facts presented before that the brand is the city's? Please read the previous discussions which explained this prove your point wrong. Of the 37 million visitors that Governor Chris Christie called crazy for going to Vegas each year, how many go to the city? Did he mean the city which only has about 5% of the rooms and maybe less of the gaming space or is he worried about the the 95%? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
                • Paris isn't such a bad example. The Palace of Versailles isn't in city limits. For New York, half of Ellis Island is in the state of New Jersey. Technical accuracy isn't what we write this encyclopedia for anyway. The Strip is not part of the city as a legal entity, but it is part of the actual, genuine city. This distinction is probably the entire argument here. I consider the legal boundary irrelevant, while my opponents consider it of utmost importance. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
                  • Well, actually those opposed to this are not concerned with any legal boundaries since the city is not the primary use, the brand and the destination are. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
                    • You're missing the point, Vegaswikian. Those who say "yes" say so because they believe that the city and the brand are one and the same. The Palace of Versailles is certainly part of the Paris "brand", Al Capone is part of the Chicago "brand", Boeing is part of the Seattle "brand" even tho none of those are in the city in question. For all three of those cities, those out-of-boundary places are a important part of the city itself. The same is true of the strip, which is widely considered part of the city by the majority of people who don't care if it's in the city or not. Once you include the strip, the city and the "brand" become the exact same thing. (the handful of non-city off-strip properties are a small minority of the Vegas tourism scene) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
                      • When did believing what is wrong override truth? Actually is original research. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
                        • I'm not sure what the point of your link is. I don't see the connection between primary topic and this ultra-luxury house you posted about. However, here are some links that call the strip "Las Vegas" without qualification: http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2011-09-11/late-score-change-in-utah-usc-creates-confusion-in-las-vegas http://www.freep.com/article/20110910/SPORTS01/109100400/Lions-coming-up-big-early-bettors-Vegas?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CSports http://ringsidereport.com/?p=15811 http://www.ocregister.com/sports/diaz-316362-ufc-welterweight.html so it's rather obvious that the sports media (and the rest of the media) considers the strip part of the city. This is not original research, this is third-party reliable sources saying so. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
                          • Note that the house is considered in Las Vegas and yet is about 10 miles outside of the city. Your links, and mine, prove that Las Vegas is the primary use for a much larger area that then the city. The city is an unique entity withing the greater Las Vegas, it is not the Las Vegas! Do you think that Chris Christie was worried about the City of Las Vegas when he made those ill advised comments last week? I don't think so. He was most likely concerned with the Las Vegas resort, destination and brand. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
• No Before I stumbled upon this I was under the impression that the strip was in the city. If that was the case then the city would be the primary target. Is there any more mileage to be gained discussing moving Las Vegas Valley to Las Vegas with hat notes to the strip and Las Vegas (disambiguation). Otherwise the current set up will have to suffice. AIRcorn (talk) 07:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
• Yes (qualified). I don't present evidence here, but I do present an argument based on a number of assertions that I'd be happy to support with evidence if they are genuinely doubted and questioned.

  The problem of the primary city name being commonly used to refer to a broader area than the city proper is not unique to Las Vegas. It's true from London to Paris to Moscow, and from Portland, Oregon to Portland, Maine. The argument that the city proper is not the primary topic for a given city name could be made just as strongly for a myriad of other cities. And it's not just big cities. The main city on the Monterey Peninsula is Monterey, California, but Monterey is commonly used to refer to the entire Peninsula, but that link still redirects to the city. Just like people going to Caesars Palace are likely to say they are going to Las Vegas, people staying in the Peninsula cities of Pacific Grove or Carmel are still likely to say they are going to Monterey.

  So, based on the precedent set by virtually every other city article in WP, yes, the City of Las Vegas is the primary topic for "Las Vegas".

  That said, I would not limit the scope of this article (or any other city article) to the strict city limits. The strip and the valley each deserve sections, and if we ever create an article for the metro area, that deserves a section too. Why? Because these topics are sufficiently related to the main topic to be mentioned in the article - it's similar to how we mention closely related people (children, parents and siblings) in articles about people. Similarly, places "closely related" to the place which is the topic of an article should be mentioned in that article. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I suggest the consensus here is clearly that Las Vegas is the primary topic, at least as much as many if not most cities are the primary topics for their names, and so to move Las Vegas to Las Vegas (disambiguation) and make Las Vegas a link to Las Vegas, Nevada. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
• No. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  • That was easy. Clearly it has been established that the city is not the primary topic. The question here as proposed ignores primary usage and is really a question about the common name for the city. If you do some digging you would see that when the El Rancho Vegas was opened it began a trend for the casinos to be located outside of the city. While many think that this area was named after the city, that is WP:OR since the city, valley, rail stop and the strip where named after the name given to the area by the Spanish. That type of logic would be fine if this was Thinkopedia and not a factual Wikipedia. So ask a faulty question or one designed to extract a wrong answer from editors who don't really do research into the details. Consider the fact that population growth outside of Vegas grew faster then in the city for most of the time after 1941 and for some periods before then. Did this have anything to do with the fact that the Vegas as people know it was really the areas outside of the city? Bottom line is that while the city it commonly called Las Vegas, the primary use for Las Vegas is the brand and destination which holds the 95% of the rooms, casinos and tourists that don'tgo to the city. It is the destination that the media call simply Las Vegas. Look at who markets Las Vegas, hint it is not the city! To this point the only evidence that has been provided has been about why the city is not the primary topic. Nothing to support the city has been presented. As I have stated in the past, incoming links to Las Vegas are mostly for the brand and not the city which gets all of a generous 5% or so. The edit history is there to support this. One other point. If you look at all of the supporting articles, they are for the area and not the city. So clearly the fact that the Las Vegas Valley is the primary topic is recognized by many other articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
• Yes. Every major American city is used, to some extent, synonymously with its metropolitan area. Yet, Los Angeles, for example, is not made into a disambig page just because people's idea of LA might include Beverly Hills and Santa Monica. Las Vegas is not unique in this respect, and there's no reason to handle it differently from other cities. Toohool (talk) 07:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
• Yes per many comments above, including Toohoo1. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
• No, insofar as most of what makes "Las Vegas" famous is outside of the city. This is quite unlike other metropolitan areas. Most of what makes Boston, or New York, or London famous is in the city proper. older ≠ wiser 21:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  • In that sense it is a bit different, but it doesn't matter. What people mean when they say or write "Las Vegas" is usually (its primary meaning) the city in a broad sense that extends beyond the strict political city limits to include the strip. By including a section on the strip in the "Las Vegas" article (or the article to which it redirects), we are accurately reflecting that primary use. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
    • That's a nice ideal, but in practice, there remains significant opposition to including anything outside the city limits in an article about the city. See, for example, Talk:Rochester, New York/Archive 2. Powers ^T 18:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - RfCs normally go for 30 days,, so there are about five more days to go on this one. Then, if it looks sensible, a Request for Move may be initiated, based on the RfC comments. --Noleander (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)