Talk:Las Vegas metropolitan area
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Related articles needed
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)
[edit] Controversial reference
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)
- 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)
[edit] Searchlight Nevada
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.
- 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)
- 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.
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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.
- 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)
- 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.
-
-
-
- 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.
-
-
- 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)
[edit] Boundaries
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)
- 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)