Talk:Las Vegas

Archives
Jan 2005 - May 2005: Jun 2005 - Nov 2007:

Needs disamb. page

I added a link at the top to LV, New Mexico. "Las Vegas" should certainly start here, but I think we could use a "for other uses see Las Vegas Disambiguation" tag and page...Smarkflea (talk) 02:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

But "Las Vegas" doesn't redirect here - there is a separate Las Vegas page for disambiguation between the city, the Strip and the metropolitan area. There is also a Las Vegas (disambiguation), so I don't think that so many dab links are needed at the top of this page. Cheers, Rai-me 14:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was No consensus to move page, per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Las Vegas is too big and too well known to be named Las Vegas, Nevada. Chicago isn't named Chicago, Illinois, Paris isn't named Paris, France, why should Las Vegas be named any differently? Just use Las Vegas (disambiguation) for a list of all the other places with the same name. 199.125.109.135 (talk) 07:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose per all of the previous like nominations. The article conforms with the US naming conventions. In addition, I believe that it has been shown that most uses of Las Vegas in articles are not for the city but rather for the Las Vegas Strip and the Las Vegas metropolitan area. So if you want to make this move, change the naming convention first. Or wait for Oscar to combine the city and county. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose This same move request just failed a few months ago and nothing has changed since. My reasons haven't changed either. TJ Spyke 08:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per all of the previous nominations of this and other US cities. — AjaxSmack 04:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Srtong Oppose, although this one is stronger than most of the US city naming proposals, because (as Vegaswikian notes above) the place may be the most common usage, but not the city. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support US naming conventions? What on earth are you talking about? Small cities that no one has ever heard of need to be qualified with their state added, but not ones that everyone knows where they are, like Honolulu, Juneau, San Diego, Los Angeles, Dallas and Seattle, just to name a few, all of which are silly re-directs to the city article, when they should be the name of the article. Vancouver, Paris, New Delhi, Amsterdam all get their own article, without a redirect, why should US cities be any different? 199.125.109.54 (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment then take it up there too. There's no point in trying it piecemeal. See the extensive talk that's already taken place.--Loodog (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per Vegaswikian. feydey (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Indifference and note - you will never get this passed without first getting everyone to agree to a move of ALL cities in AP Stylebook. You'll have to start another proposal for a set of moves of the cities you mention. What you're doing here is futile.--Loodog (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per Vegaswikian. Perhaps, US cities that don't have the City, State naming convention (like Chicago) should be standardised to that format. WHATaintNOcountryIeverHEARDofDOtheySPEAKenglishINwhat (talk) 03:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.