Talk:Downtown (Nevada gaming area)

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

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The link to the Missouri gambling site is now out of date and needs to be updated.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'.

On 28 November 2012, it was proposed that this article be moved to Gambling in Downtown Las Vegas. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. —Darkwind (talk) 03:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Downtown (Nevada gaming area) → Gaming in Downtown Las Vegas – Per use common names policy, this should be Gaming in Downtown Las Vegas. Also, the current title is ambiguous, since Reno also has a downtown gaming area that is in Nevada. While the tourist bureau promotes it as just "downtown", this title is purely promotional and, like many promotional names, quite ambiguous. If there is natural disambiguation, we use it, and here we have it.relisted --Mike Cline (talk) 14:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC) Ego White Tray (talk) 04:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The state name is Downtown so the rest of the title is for disambiguation. I also have questions about the proposed name being in common use. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of those cases where we need to create a descriptive title, since the official title is entirely insufficient. In fact, when I first created this proposal, it was to move to Downtown Las Vegas, since the current title implies that this is the article on downtown. It is, instead, a subtopic of Downtown Las Vegas, and my proposal is the standard format for titling subtopics. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that not all of these casinos are downtown, right? That would make your proposed title misleading. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's why we can't be strict with official boundaries, since they often make no sense. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways, the practice is that you title the article with a common name and then explain how it's defined. For example, "The Las Vegas tourism bureau defines the downtown gaming area as..." Something like that, which is standard for any article like this anyway. This is also worth doing to allow alternate definitions - you could mention next that some of the casinos are not considered downtown by other definitions. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the common name is simply Downtown, or occasionally Downtown Las Vegas, in the monthly news reports when the data is released. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When we say common name, we mean the common name used everywhere. "Downtown" is only used as a common name by sources in Las Vegas, for obvious reasons. That leaves Downtown Las Vegas as the common name, and Gaming as the sub-topic, leading to the title Gaming in Downtown Las Vegas. Ego White Tray (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Query / suggestion. If the parenthesis is to remain in the title, shouldn't it be "(Las Vegas gaming area)" or even "(Las Vegas gambling area)"? 213.246.91.158 (talk) 07:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, 213. Exactly right. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If clarity is the issue, use "gambling" instead of "gaming" in the title. "Gaming" is the more ambiguous of the two terms; see also WP:COMMONALITY. — AjaxSmack 02:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, gambling is better than gaming. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: There seems to be several alternative names in play here. Please propose one and weigh-in on the proposed name. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gambling in Downtown Las Vegas is my preferred title, based on AjaxSmack's comment above. Ego White Tray (talk) 15:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, so the reports are from the Nevada Gaming Commission and the reports are in the Gaming Revenue Report. So Gaming is not appropriate? People gamble, companies offer games. The state reports the results from the gaming offered. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The idea that this article should formatted as a subarticle of Downtown Las Vegas makes sense to me. The way it is formatted now implies that there is a gaming district somewhere in Nevada called "downtown", and that this district is unrelated to the Las Vegas business district. Kauffner (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Which just happens to be the case. It is a state defined district and it is not restricted to the downtown area. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it is absolutely related. The district is downtown plus a couple adjacent areas, which qualifies as related in every book but yours. Ego White Tray (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Gambling in Downtown Las Vegas, this is unambiguous and based on common understanding, therefore the best choice for the (typically non-Vegan) reader's convenience. --87.78.54.250 (talk) 11:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And exactly why should this be moved based on WP:OR? Clearly when reported the titles suggested are not used (read the table and article name) in any way shape or form! Vegaswikian (talk) 02:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It isn't original research to call gambling gambling. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - But is is OR to rename a state named district without supporting sources. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - And there is already consensus that the official name doesn't work here. And we pick common names over official anyways. Gaming is the official name, gambling is the common one, so gambling wins. Ego White Tray (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the problem that Gaming is ambiguous, and can mean several things, mostly untrelated to Gambling. Skinsmoke (talk) 07:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Missing Casinos

The article is missing: Golden Gate Hotel and Casino, Gold Spike Hotel and Casino, Mermaids Casino and La Bayou. Also the Stratosphere is usually never included in the listing of Downtown casinos, as it is on the Vegas Strip. Mikepellerin (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one Nevada state gaming district that covers the city. This is the article for that and it includes the Strat which is not actually on the strip. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Downtown (Nevada gaming area). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]