Talk:Binion's Gambling Hall and Hotel

Gambling Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gambling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gambling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GamblingWikipedia:WikiProject GamblingTemplate:WikiProject GamblingGambling articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Gambling To-do:

Current collaborations:

Improve an article to FA

Improve an article to A

Help with the Gambling articles needing attention.
Tag the talk pages of Gambling-related articles with the {{WikiProject Gambling}} banner.
The link to the Missouri gambling site is now out of date and needs to be updated.
Japan section reads as though it was written by the gambling industry - quotes of 160% returns are 'citation needed'.

Nevada (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nevada, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.NevadaWikipedia:WikiProject NevadaTemplate:WikiProject NevadaNevada articles

Reference ideas for Binion's Gambling Hall and Hotel

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Merge??[edit]

What was the reasoning for not merging this with Binion's Horseshoe? The casino in its current state still touts its history. ⇔ EntChickie 23:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It started as two articles. Then someone suggested a merge that was not supported by everyone. The merge was done and then someone decided that they really should have been two articles and split into two again. The change of ownership from the Binion family really justifies two articles. This was a historical event for the property. All ownership changes do not mean we need to keep everything in one article. Sometimes it is just too confusing. Another example is Bally's and MGM Grand. Or the company that is listed in the Gaming Hall of Fame when it is not (the old company is). Merging can be very confusing in some cases. Vegaswikian 00:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is an ownership change different in this case compared to Flamingo Las Vegas or Golden Nugget Las Vegas? There's no new information in this article that isn't addressed in the previous one. I think the current way is much more confusing, as there's a definite gray area when other Wikipedia articles are trying to link to one casino or the other. I think an example of how the merge could work would be the Bally's Las Vegas article. It incorporates the history and names of the property in a chronological, appropriate manner. ⇔ EntChickie 04:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And the Bally's article links to the one article that does exist for a previous property. There is no rule saying everything has to be merged. Some articles should remain. There are many reasons for this. Vegaswikian 05:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are many reasons to merge as well. There's no reason on either of the talk pages who undid the merge and why and you were the only one not in favor of it. If I proposed a merged article for you, would you consider reviewing it? Or are you totally opposed to the idea for certain reasons? ⇔ EntChickie 06:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the fact that someone else recreated the article knowing the history says that there are others who support this. My problem is that merged articles like this tend to be confusing and messy. Yes, I would consider a merged article but I do feel strongly in this case that they should be kept as two. I also like to see accurate entry into the correct categories, so how do you list 2 years of establishment for the name? Then one is defunct and should be listed that way. There may be solutions, but those problems don't exist with two articles. Vegaswikian 07:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's entirely possible the name could be changed again in the future. If there's any ambiguity using just "Binion's Casino" could work. Here's my shot at a merged article. I added more info to strengthen each section so the merge wouldn't seem so awkward. I also think an article on the Binion Family is probably needed somewhere down the line. ⇔ EntChickie 10:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well it does read better. I have a lot of minor issues with text, but those are mostly related to cleaning it up if your proposal becomes the article and are not an issue at this time. Both articles as they exist have problems and need work, so I'm not just picking on your proposal. Most of the history really concerns the Binion family so your point about a Binion article is interesting. As you may have noticed, I did add the start of an article for Jack last night, been meaning to do that for about 6 months, and the Category:Binion family to the related articles. I'm not sure if we need an article about the family, but it could be justified. Isn't it true that most of their problems resolved around the casino? If so, then the casino article might be the best place to cover their fights since it is central to a lot of what happened. As a part of this, the article for Becky probably needs to be created, however I suspect that it would be tagged for POV issues since it may tend to be negative. There is more history that needs to be added, like the closing the basement restaurant, the token redemption fight with Stupak and some other notable events. Getting back to the first question, I still think that we should keep two articles. But if consensus is to merge, then your proposal is a good starting point. Vegaswikian 20:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge March 2012[edit]

I tagged the articles to restart discussion. These should definitely be merged. Yes, the sale and subsequent name were a big event in the history of the building, but it's still the same building. And that's what it comes down to. This isn't an article about the corporate ownership, it's an article about the building. And it's the same building. oknazevad (talk) 16:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. An ownership change, name change, or temporary closure (or all three in this case) doesn't make it a different casino. Toohool (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Million dollar display[edit]

Why couldn't they use thousand dollar notes for the new million dollar display? That would better than using 100's, 20's and one dollar bills- for one thing, the display would appreciate rather than depreciate in value over time. I guess it would cost more though- at least 3-4 million dollars for a million dollars of $1000 notes in decent condition. To use $10,000 notes for the display would cost at least 10-13 million dollars these days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.166.20.199 (talk) 03:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found an image of this and added it.. It' s kinda cool. According to Large_denominations_of_United_States_currency#.2410.2C000_bill only 4 of these bills are still known to be in existence.David Condrey (talk) 05:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]