Jump to content

Talk:Las Vegas Valley

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

If anyone in interested in Radio stations, take a look at Template:Las Vegas radio for some radio stations that need articles. There are also TV stations missing articles and you can find the redlinks at Template:Las Vegas TV. Vegaswikian 19:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial reference

[edit]

Vegaswikian has been deleting this link from the article because "Exactly what material in the article was taken from this refrence source? In any case, claims to be comentary & not fact so it should not be used". The article cited corroborates this article because it mentions several prominent Las Vegas casinos. Portions of it are naturally opinion, but, really, is "MGM Mirage buying Mandalay Bay Resorts and Harrah's buying Caesars" opinion or fact? It's of course a sub-par source, but a weak source is better than none. Insufficient referencing and vandalism are the two main reasons Wikipedia is not considered an accurate source of information. Citing third-party sources to corroborate our facts, even if those sources are not as perfect as we'd like them to be, is imperative. Johnleemk | Talk 07:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with Vegaswikian's removal of the article. (a) it's an opinion/commentary piece (and listed as such on the Slate site); (b) the focus on the article is not about the "Las Vegas Metropolitan Area", but rather a look at the business side of gambling and where the market appears to be heading according to the author's observations and conclusions. Other than a side reference to MGM and Harrah's and how consolidation may lead to slower growth, the article spends just as much time talking about Foxwoods and other non-Las Vegas (let alone non-Nevada) references. This piece would be better suited to a Wiki article on the casino industry as a whole - and even then, because it's an opinion piece, may not be right there either. SpikeJones 15:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Searchlight Nevada & Other Areas

[edit]

Is Searchlight part of the Las Vegas metro area? According to this article, Boulder City is generally considered part of the metro area. It is probally only about 25 minutes from the southern city limits of Boulder City to Searchlight. Michaelcox 06:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boulder City is not a part of the Las Vegas Metropolitan area. Nor is Searchlight. But your suggestion shows how unbelievably crazy this article defines the area. The makers of this article would have a person believe that the entirety of Clark County, Lake Mead, and even Kingman belong under the guise of "Las Vegas Valley". I have taken the responsibility of editing out Boulder City and I will probably contact the Boulder City City's office and have them take care of similar misdeeds involving Black Mountain, Lake Mead, and any other innaccuracies. Hopefully this article can accurately describe what the Las Vegas valley is and not give it credit for things that do not belong. In the end, truth should prevail. TruthQuest

  • Have you considered the title of the article? Metropolitan area covers the surrounding areas. Yes, Boulder City exists in its own world at times. But it is connected to the other parts of the county. Before changing a working definition that was a compromise it is generally best to discuss what you are planning to do. This article covers the area in general and not the specifics of each city. That's why Vegas and NLV and Henderson and Boulder City have their own articles. Vegaswikian 07:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Boulder City is not defined by the people of Boulder City as being part of the metropolitan area of Las Vegas. It is not geographically linked to the Las Vegas Valley and it is not culturally linked to Las Vegas. It is not an adjoining city, in fact, the only similarity it shares with Las Vegas is that it's in Clark County. This does NOT mean that it is part of the Las Vegas Metropolitan area. Again, I am editing the article because Boulder City is not a part of the Metropolitan area of Las Vegas. TruthQuest 015:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have thought about this issue and still see no reason to not conclude that Boulder City is in the metropolitan area. The changes made also seem to be targeted at Blue Diamond which is in no way related to Boulder City. The change seems to be made to make the point that Boulder City does not want to be considered a part of the Vegas area. Normally consenus is what helps to decide differences here. With only two editors discussing this that's kind of hard. I'm going to revert the changes again and try some rewording to try and reach consensus. The definition that is there has been present for a while without any concern so it would appear that most editors believe that it is reasonable. To say that Boulder City is not linked to Vegas is so wrong. It was the creation of Boulder City to build the dam that may have really caused the growth that makes Vegas what it is today. Vegaswikian 04:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The people of Boulder City and the culture of Boulder City are significantly independent. Furthermore, there is no geographic reason for Boulder City to be linked to Las Vegas. As such, I will make the appropriate edits and remove Boulder City completely from the discussion. The Las Vegas metropolitan area should more accurately describe the Las Vegas valley, and that is how it is referenced and thought of. Boulder City will not be in this article, and edits will be made until this is understood.
          • BC is included in the Clark County Regional Flood Control District, and the Southern Nevada Water Authority so it is tied to the metro area. It particiates in other regional activities and gets funding from the metro area communities. So it is tied to other parts of Clark County. The fact that it is different from the rest of Clark Country does not mean it is not a part of the metro area. Vegaswikian 00:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Once again I have appropriately edited out all references to Boulder City. The fact that Southern Nevada water services us is not important as we are a different community geographically and culturally than Las Vegas. Further destructions of the Boulder City name will continue to be edited out. Just because we are linked to some services in Nevada does not mean we are fully independent of the Las Vegas Valley.

Do not put Boulder City in discussion of the Las Vegas valley. It is incorrect and it will not stand. There are no arguments for the inclusion of Boulder City as a part of the metropolitcan area of Las Vegas.

  • Again your reasons here seem to be based on what some individuals want. You support your actions with statemements like 'Further destructions of the Boulder City name will continue to be edited out'. There is nothing destructive about listing BC within the Las Vegas metropolitan area. Your edits seem to be for making a point. Also please read the articles. We are not including BC in the Las Vegas Valley since it is clearly not in the valley. I think most of those in the Vegas area consider BC as a unique part of the culure that is a critical component of what makes the Vegas area unique. Discussion is the way to resolve issues so that a consensus to be reached. Please consider workig towards consensus rather then trying to force a change that has appeared to have reached consensus by virtue of its being in the article for a long perion of time. Vegaswikian 05:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not what some individuals want. It's what the entirety of Boulder City feels. The only reason why it hasn't been changed is simply because a handful of people have managed this page. I have already established that Boulder City is not a part of the Las Vegas valley. This is the biggest reason for its exclusion. Other points include the fact that Boulder City did not start as a gaming city and never was a gaming city. It was born from the Dam, a fact exclusive to Boulder City. The Vegas area simply does not include Boulder City, and if you feel that it's part of Vegas's culture, then let's include the entirety of Las Vegas in the Las Vegas Metropolitan area. Boulder City is NOT a part of Vegas. While you might like to have a "cute" town apart of what you feel Vegas is, that's simply not the fact.
    • To Reiterate: Boulder City is NOT part of the Vegas Valley. Boulder City does NOT have gambling and was not born because of gambling. Boulder City has its own set of laws and ways of going separate from Vegas, as goes Vegas does NOT go Boulder City. Henderson/CC/NLV all have to carry the burden of Las Vegas metropolitan. NOT so for Boulder City. A correct explanation was included from the first editor of this page that understands the truth behind Boulder City.
      • Boulder City is clearly a part of the Las Vegas metropolitan area, your opposition not withstanding. I have explained this above based on facts and not on opinions which are not considered encylopedic material. And for the record, Boulder City and the dam are what gave Las Vegas a push to being the city that it is today. Check the history books. Without the dam, Las Vegas might be a nothing town today in the middle of the desert. Vegaswikian 00:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • My opposition is based on two clear facts. 1. Boulder City is not geographically linked to the Las Vegas Valley. 2.Boulder City was created by workers of the Dam for the needs of many different people, The dam, and by extension, Boulder City, was not created solely, or mainly, for the people of Las Vegas.
        • That, coupled with the fact that Boulder City operates on its own. It does not have gambling (Las Vegas big), it does not have an extensive growth plan like Las Vegas cities and it is completely dependant on its own attractions (The Dam, Art in the Park) that it's only dependance on Las Vegas is the McCarran airport.
        • Boulder City will not be included as an incorporated city of Las Vegas. This point is validated by fact. Any further perversions of the truth will be duly edited.
          • The southeast boundary of Henderson touches the northwest boundary of Boulder City. True, there is no developed part of Boulder City there yet, but it is part of the incorporated city limits of Boulder City. If they touch (for several miles), how can one be part of the metro area and one not be? Perhaps the best way to figure this out is to use the article Metropolitan area as a guide. Does anyone really believe that the "only dependance on Las Vegas" that Boulder City has is the airport? Michaelcox 04:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To the anonymous editor who speakers for what is "Defined by the people of Boulder City" and "the entirety of Boulder City feels": Did you ask each of them? Was a vote taken? Are you psychically aware of the personal feelings and opinions of every one of these thousands of individuals? Or are you overreaching with hyperbole? By the way, I agree with excluding Boulder City from a discussion of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Area. Boulder City's government web site and master plan discuss ambition for a small town feeling that makes the most of the natural resources of the area - and Vegas is conspicuous by its absence from these documents. The U.S. Census Bureau refers to the "Las Vegas-Paradise MSA," not including a mention of Boulder City. From Vegas to Boulder City, the highway exits the Vegas Valley (with Henderson straddling the southeast rim of the valley), then goes through miles of open desert before entering the clearly distinct town of Boulder City. The Clark County urban planning area map (from http://gisgate.co.clark.nv.us/gismo/cpmapprod.htm) very clearly draws a county urban planning line around the Vegas valley and Henderson, excluding Boulder City (as well as Pahrump and Mt. Charleston). Therefore, there's plenty of objectively verifiable evidence against calling Boulder City part of the Vegas metro area - with no need to speculate on what 15,000 people might say or feel inside their own minds. VisitorTalk 03:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine, next figure out what a metropolitan area is. This is not about BC, it is about a large area in southern Nevada. 20:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Just as a point of reference, Las Vegas-Paradise-Pahrump, NV CSA redirects to this article. Is Pahrump part of the Las Vegas metropolitan area? If so, then why isn't Boulder City and Laughlin? If it isn't, then why is this article redirected here? Also, if Mesquite, Laughlin, etc, are not part of the metro area, why are their casino areas listed here? Michaelcox 05:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The gaming area section grew over time to include all of Clark County and no longer was limited to the metro area. That section was just moved to the Clark County article. Your first point is more difficult to deal with. The census CSAs do not respect political subdivisions. So adding this as a link is confusing especially if the link is a redirect. Since the CSA is mostly the Las Vegas metro area, you might be able to justify the redirect. The other solution would be to change the redirect to a disambiguation page and then list all of the municipal areas that it covers. This would define in more detail what the CSA actually is and allow an interested reader to decide if that is all they wanted. If they need more information they could simply link to the article they are interested in. Vegaswikian 06:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not from Las Vegas but the words "valley" and "metro area", when speaking in terms of Las Vegas, may mean something different. For instance, the San Fernando Valley which covers northern Los Angeles, Burbank, and Glendale are part of the "valley" in that region, but cities like Anaheim and Long Beach are not in the "valley"; but they all are part of the Los Angeles "metro area". So, maybe Boulder City is or is not in the "Las Vegas Valley" per se, that's a depression of the land. It needs to be researched and determined if its in the valley; but there's no denying Boulder City is in the Las Vegas "metro area". And to answer a response above, the U.S. Census Bureau refers to the area as Las Vegas- Paradise because those are either the two main cities of the metro area or the two most populous cities. Just like Dallas-Fort Worth, Seattle-Tacoma, or Los Angeles-Long Beach. But it doesn't mean there are not a host of other surrounding cities in the metro area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.176.30 (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion as a resident: Locally, "Las Vegas valley" is used as a synonym for "Las Vegas metro area" rather than to note a geographic area. The article itself is titled "LV metro area" with "valley" as just a redirect to that, which seems appropriate to me. Anyone who is talking about the geography of the area will point out that the "valley" is in fact a basin. The anonymous complaints above about Boulder City being included in the LV metro are downright ludicrous. Santa Monica is a distinct city, but no one would seriously dispute its inclusion in a discussion of the Los Angeles metro area. Simishag (talk) 03:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, Boulder City is definitely in the metro area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.176.30 (talk) 04:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boundaries

[edit]

I requested a citation for the boundaries section. Currently it states "generally thought to be defined...". Which authority generally thinks that the borders are such as mentioned in the article? Isn't there a regional development council or something that oversees the area? What do they say is the extent of their jurisdiction? --Polaron | Talk 18:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did find some references to State hydrographic area 212, but I could not find that in any online db I have access to. Does someone know where to find that source? Vegaswikian 20:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the relevant authoritative reference is "Las Vegas Urban Planning Areas" map, available from the Clark County government GIS site at http://gisgate.co.clark.nv.us/gismo/cpmapprod.htm. This map shows a very clear line drawn around the Vegas valley, including Henderson but not Boulder City, and not including Mt. Charleston or Pahrump. VisitorTalk 03:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed my question about climate because I looked in the wrong article - I see the climate graph is still in the city article. VisitorTalk 03:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United States housing market correction & Subprime mortgage crisis

[edit]

Isn't the Las Vegas Metro Area one of the metros most affected by the current United States housing market correction & Subprime mortgage crisis? What is the effect of this on Las Vegas Metro's astronomical rate of population growth? Has it slowed down?--Section8pidgeon (talk) 11:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Las Vegas-Paradise, NV MSA

[edit]

As with most metropolitan pages, this page should really be structured around the defined Las Vegas-Paradise, NV MSA. This page doesn't even make mention to this government-defined area. --Criticalthinker (talk) 10:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it did mention the MSA until September 11, 2008. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skyline Photo Update

[edit]

Someone should update that photo, being from 2006 which is ancient for the city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.216.14.1 (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Focus of this article

[edit]

The article was changed a while ago to move the focus from the area surrounding the valley to the MSA. Other then the introduction, I don't believe that the rest of the article has followed. There are several possible reasons why the article probably has not reflected the into change including the fact that the MSA overlaps Clark County. If this article covers the MSA then we have two articles that cover the same area using different names. So is there any object to changing the lead to focus back on the valley area? Vegaswikian (talk) 06:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics

[edit]

The first sentence in this section looks like this: "As of the census[6] of 2000, there were 1,375,765, 512,253 households, and 339,693 families residing within the MSA."

I'm sure "1,375,765" is supposed to have something else behind it besides the other numbers, but I'm not sure what it is. The way the sentence is now, it makes it seem like there is over a "trillion" households in the LVMA!Normstradamus (talk) 01:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naming and scope of the article

[edit]

At the beginnings of this article it was about the Valley as seen in the first version. Later in someone argued that since there was an official definition of a metropolitan area, Las Vegas-Paradise-Henderson Metropolitan Statistical Area, the article name should be changed to match. Now we have editors working to try and eliminate the focus on the valley. I don't think that expanding the focus of the article to all of Clark County and Pahrump would serve anyone. Maybe a reword of the introduction to put the focus back on the Valley and the suburbs would be the way to go. One could argue that the Las Vegas-Paradise, NV MSA and the valley have nothing in common other then the latter is within the boundaries of the former. And the former is within the even broader Las Vegas-Paradise-Pahrump, NV CSA. Given that the inclusion criteria for these government classifications can and does change at the whim of bureaucrats, it makes little sense to try and structure articles around these ignoring the geographic areas that exist naturally. At one time, these definitions actually included parts of Arizona.

So are there objections to resurrecting a Las Vegas-Paradise, NV MSA article and possibly renaming of this article back to Las Vegas Valley? Or is there a better solution? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this has been on the table for almost 5 months now is there support for this direct? Does anyone have an objection? I'll also note that we have Las Vegas Valley (landform) as a redirect that probably should be renamed to Las Vegas Basin since the valley is the common name and that may not match up with the geographic definition of the basin. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No objection from me, nor better solution. Suggest WP:CYCLE. rkmlai (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this has remained without any objections for 5 months. Today, I moved out the material into the MSA article. What remains in moving the metro area article back to the valley name and then the cleanup rewriting can begin. I should add that Las Vegas Valley (landform) is no longer a redirect but an article, so we now have an article that defines the scope of the valley. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Underground city

[edit]

I am interested in including the observations of this article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1326187/Las-Vegas-tunnel-people-How-1-000-people-live-shimmering-strip.html Las Vegas tunnel people: How 1,000 people live under shimmering strip | Mail Online into the article. I think it would be under "communities".

There is coverage under : http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/2651937/The-people-living-in-drains-below-Las-Vegas.html

Beneath the Neon: http://www.beneaththeneon.com/

Shine A Light: http://www.beneaththeneon.com/shine-a-light.asp

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/subterranean-home-of-las-vegass-losers-1786877.html

http://blogs.lasvegascitylife.com/cityblog/2009/03/25/homeless-outreach-goes-underground/

Thoughts, comments ?

rkmlai (talk) 04:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom line is that it may well not be encyclopedic. This type of activity occurs in most cities. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

[edit]

You are invited to discuss something of importance to this article and Wikipedia:WikiProject Las Vegas at the project talk page. 08OceanBeachS.D. 03:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

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)[reply]

Merge suggestion

[edit]

I suggest a merge between Las Vegas-Paradise, NV MSA and Las Vegas Valley. These two pages are essentially about the same topic (Las Vegas metro area), just somewhat different definitions. The content at each page would compliment each other well, and the result would be better than both articles separately. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – if they're covered in one article, the distinctions between the valley and the MSA still need to be made. The MSA is the whole county, which is much more than the valley. Dicklyon (talk) 03:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yeah, of course. The LV-Paradise MSA article is really nothing more than US Census demographics, which is missing from the Vegas Valley page, so as long as we note that the census uses the entire county instead of just the valley, it's fine. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As long as you ignore the fact that historically the MSA included parts of Arizona and Nye County, as I recall. The MSA has a separate history that is not restricted to the valley. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can merge the pages and acknowledge that fact, actually. Place the final article at a title like "Las Vegas metropolitan area" and give the multiple definitions. Vegas Valley is a geographic definition of the metro area and Clark County is the census definition, but they both define the same thing. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hardly anyone said anything and I decided to be bold, so much for that. But the AfD crowd would rightly tell me where to shove it if I nominated, since AfD is not for merge proposals. Still, no good arguments from Vegaswikian that the Valley and metro area are genuinely different, and the huge territory covered by the census definition is hardly unique, but no other metro has separate pages. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Historically this MSA of SMSA has covered counties in two states. Merging it into an article that covers 10% of the land area of only one of the counties does not make sense. This material on its own is notable and has an article. Merging serves no purpose in informing the readers if anything and makes the definition of the MSA more difficult to locate. This is especially true when the only clear source that provides links to sources is the wiki. The Las Vegas library actually only had this wiki as a source for links when asked for more information. The Census Bureau does not make it easy to source this material! Rather then trying to merge this article on Las Vegas out of existence, I think your efforts would be better spent creating the Las Vegas Township article which is really needed. It is larger then then city of Las Vegas in terms of population and has an elected constable and judges. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree. We shouldn't have two articles, one on the valley and one on the census definition, but one article on the metropolitan area. Like all metropolitan areas, there are multiple definitions, and like many, the census definition covers a huge land area simply because it's easy to define. The Seattle metropolitan area, according to the US Census, includes Mt Rainier, which is in the middle of a huge national park that itself is surrounded by national forests, but no one has seen a need to create a separate article for just the urbanized area. We can use the valley article as a basis, add the census demographics data, and make it a single article about the metro area. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are actually at least two metro areas being used. One is the Las Vegas Metro which basically maps to the valley based on what I have read and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Area as defined by the census bureau. Eliminating articles when the uses are overlapping and ambiguous serves no one. Redirects can help, but not when you do inappropriate merging of articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is absolutely not two metro areas. It is two definitions of the same metro area. Either way, it's the Las Vegas metro. Having them together helps readers better understand the overlapping and ambiguous definitions, while separating makes it harder to make comparisons. If you combine them, you could even put in a map showing the county versus the valley. Look in the history and look how I handled it when I merged them - this does a lot better at explaining than two pages ever could. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The MSA is a "Metropolitan Statistical Area" (see the defintion). But that two-hour drive through the desert from Las Vegas to Laughlin sure doesn't seem like something that could be called part of a "metropolitan area", and the Las Vegas Valley is only a small part of the MSA. Check it out. Dicklyon (talk) 04:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And two hours of crooked two-lane road thru forested mountains between Crystal Mountain, Washington and Tacoma in the Seattle MSA doesn't seem like a metro area either. Yet there is only one article on the Seattle Metropolitan area, and not a separate one for the MSA. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Boulder is undoubtedly part of the metro area and undoubtedly not in the valley (since there is a mountain pass between there and Vegas). Just another example of how there isn't and can't be a single definition for any metro area. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And then you have articles like Louisville metropolitan area which is my mind is an example of the information and types of data that can and should be in these articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That page is terribly incomplete. What about economy? Government? Geography? The overall metro area economy, gov't and geography certainly have significant differences from what Louisville itself has. For Seattle, for example, the geography of the metro area will include several places not in the city, such as Lake Washington and Lake Sammammish and Auburn Valley, even if you exclude the distant unpopulated Cascade Mountains. The best model would be Las Vegas Valley+Las Vegas/Paradise MSA. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 15:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm convinced that you are really having issues here. Las Vegas Valley+Las Vegas/Paradise MSA is nonsense. the Las Vegas Valley is about 10% of the land mass in the Las Vegas-Paradise MSA. So one already includes the other. Or one is a part of the other with very different populations, urbanization, crimes, culture and so on. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that combining the text from those two articles will be the best way to create a Las Vegas metro article. Las Vegas Valley is a well-written and mostly-complete article about the metro article. The only thing missing is demographics. Las Vegas/Paradise MSA has that missing information. Both "Las Vegas Valley" and "Las Vegas/Paradise MSA" are two different interpretations of the same thing, "Las Vegas Metro area." Thus, we only need one article, giving both definitions (as well as the earlier census definition) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 22:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Too many images

[edit]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout Images for one of the thousands of neighborhoods? An Audi from the auto show? So ***Many*** images. They go on longer than sections... they go on longer than entire article. At the least, it seems to me there are simply too many, and that if we need more than a few of these, they need to be piled into a gallery for those that are needed at all. I am not going to war over any of these (such as the one just re-added), but I argue most need to go, per the MoS. I encourage other editors who are interested to join the discussion. My thinking is that any image not directly tied to sourced content should go.Shajure (talk) 21:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shajure! I really appreciate your opinion. I know I'm new here, but I personally think the images help to show the diversity of things within the valley, as well as driving forces behind the economy, tourism, etc. relevant to the article. Many other city articles on Wikipedia, including San Francisco have even more photos of various neighborhoods, events, etc. throughout the city. The images help the reader to get a sense of the Las Vegas Valley as a whole, rather than simply the preconceived notion held by many that Las Vegas is "just the Strip." The images help to build upon and expand the encyclopedia information. Rmvisuals (talk) 00:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that the images in this article focus on the Strip too much. I realize that is a huge part of Las Vegas, but this is about the Las Vegas Valley and there should be some more photos of Henderson, Summerlin, Green Valley, etc. Of the 45 total pictures in this article, 27 of the photos are about the Strip and casinos (Including the collage where 5 of the 7 are of the Strip). Seeing all the images here, one gets the impression that the Las Vegas Valley is made up mostly by casinos LasVegasLocal414 (talk) 09:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neighborhood section

[edit]

I believe this is a junk magnet. I did trim it down to those that had their own articles, though most of those look like real estate wp:advertising, and think they themselves need to go. Do we need the section at all? There was a proposed restore of the "some" in the section head... but lists are never never complete and accurate... there is no need to say so in each... "List of longest-lived humans" would not need to be "List of some of the longest-lived humans with a few errors and frauds"Shajure (talk) 21:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Las Vegas Valley. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 18:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The most of any...

[edit]

I promise that reverting to this did not remove any grammar error. The extraneous "the" did need to be removed. I have removed it now along with the "most of any".Shajure (talk) 23:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Las Vegas Valley. 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) 23:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Las Vegas Valley. 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) 02:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Las Vegas Valley. 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) 16:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Las Vegas Metropolitan Statistical Area into this article

[edit]

Morning all. Since we already have an article on the metropolitan area of Las Vegas, having a separate one covering the specific counties of the US census agency seems like essentially duplication. I know that the census definition is a technical thing, but that could be covered easily enough in a section of the other article as I think we do for most metro areas. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 07:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clark County, Nevada

[edit]

Redirected page to Clark County, Nevada 99.73.230.112 (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Las_Vegas_Valley&oldid=1236823121"