Talk:Las Vegas Boulevard

Las Vegas Boulevard Merged

I merged the article after trying to "clean up" the Las Vegas Boulevard article itself, as someone had tagged it for several weeks now to be improved, and deduced rather quickly the information I tried to include was already in this article, or in the Las Vegas Strip article. Since this article lacked a lot of the info found in the LVBlnd article I merged the info and did a redirect. If I stepped on anybody's toes, I apologize, but I hate seeing these big blue tags atop articles for months upon end, asking whether "This article has been recommended for Merging with this article". I just merged them and I think it works well and makes common sense. --Mikerussell 18:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Importance of high

I think this is on of those roads that has importance beyond what its local designation might normally give it. So I have changed this to high. Vegaswikian 23:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The WP:USRD/A standard is Mid. I have thus reverted back. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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 Move. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

I am requesting that this be moved to Las Vegas Boulevard, which is by far the common name. Note that the LV Boulevard redirect has some history, which should maybe be merged, or maybe only the post-merge history should be copied over. --NE2 12:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Survey

• Support. Clearly this proposal is the most common name, both locally and around the word. This is not a street name that lacks world wide recognition. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• The article is quite out-of-date as far as to the current status of SR 604. (Unfortunately I haven't had time to fully research the history; it'd be updated if I did.) Much of SR 604 has been decomissioned by NDOT, including virtually all of Las Vegas Blvd on the Strip and in Downtown. Thus, the two aren't exactly one and the same. Thus, I would keep SR 604 as its own article for the history of the roadway itself. Merge all other information into Las Vegas Strip (which is the most common name) and redirect Las Vegas Boulevard there. --Ljthefro (talk) 00:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The Strip is only a four-mile piece of the Boulevard, so that redirect wouldn't make sense. On the other hand, SR 604 has simply been a state route designation for most of the Boulevard. --NE2 05:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Okay. After thinking about it, I can see rationale for moving SR 604 to Las Vegas Boulevard - but only because of the notability of the name "Las Vegas Blvd". I'll support the move, as long as the Las Vegas Boulevard article remains primarily about the road and its history (not so much Las Vegas Strip attractions, which can be covered in that article). This kind of move for other state routes in the area (SR 159, 595, 612, etc.) wouldn't be justified, because the roads themselves aren't really notable. --Ljthefro (talk) 10:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      • However those other road have names that are in common usage. The SR designations are not used by locals or tourists. Other renames would be based on looking at each on a case by case basis. Given that most of these are already decommissioned by the state or are in the process says that keeping the article at the old SR name would be confusing at best. Confusion is compounded by the fact that the roads are not signed for the SR. I do believe that for many of these, the mapping databases actually use both names and they are not updated in a timely manner. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Discussion of other routes is diverting from this SR 604 topic... I'll continue on your talk page.

• Move this article to Las Vegas Boulevard, move any Las Vegas Strip info to that article, and create a new Nevada State Route 604 article if neccessary to deal only with the particulars of the route that is still the state route (roadgeek-type info). — AjaxSmack 03:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Any merge can be discussed after the move and would be best discussed after this move is resolved and should not be a condition on this move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I wasn't implying conditionality with my further suggestions so, just to be clear, I support the move as proposed. However, since the intro paragraph and infobox deal largely with the details of SR 604 rather than Las Vegas Blvd, maybe a separate article is warranted or at least a "SR 604" section in this article placed further down. If the article is to be about Las Vegas Blvd, this should be reflected in the intro. — AjaxSmack 15:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• How about this?: Based on another possible merge discussion at Talk:U.S. Route 91 in Nevada, I've been thinking that the US 91 NV article should be merged into the SR 604 article, because they are historically the same roadway. With that, we can split this article back into Las Vegas Boulevard and Nevada State Route 604 (like it used to be). If we do this, the historic "roadgeek" information can go into SR 604, while basics about the road and its development as a major Las Vegas thoroughfare (the "notability" and "touristy" info) would be included at Las Vegas Boulevard. (Each article would have a "See also" link to the other for more info.) This would alleviate the concerns I expressed above, and I think would better serve the scope of articles being written by the U.S. Roads and Las Vegas Wikiprojects. Thoughts? --Ljthefro (talk) 17:47, 24 May 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.

Las Vegas Boulevard and SR 604

Pursuant to the discussion in the RM above, I split the Nevada State Route 604 info out into a separate article that appeared like this. The need for this is disputed by User:NE2 because "there's nothing you can say about SR 604 that doesn't also apply to LV Boulevard, and there is not enough information for a separate article." I dispute both of these contentions to a degree. Yes, SR 604 is a subset of LV Blvd but, reductio ad absurdum, almost everything at Wikipedia is a subset of something else. (Las Vegas Strip is also an even smaller subset of LV Blvd). And the length of the SR 604 article is longer than that of many other Nevada highways. Having said that, I'm not that wedded to SR 604 being kept as a separate article, but if it's not, the SR 604 material should be better segregated within the LV Blvd article to make clear the differences between the two. Merely pressing the "undo" button is not a solution. — AjaxSmack 09:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally I have had a problem with the way this encyclopedia wants to treat history. The guidelines are basically to keep up merging as things change. So in that sense the approach taken by User:NE2 is correct. However this tends to bury and reduce past names, be it a company name, a holding company or a road. This issue goes way beyond what is being discussed here. Using this discussion only as an example, what would be wrong with having an article for SR 604 that only covered the history of the road as a SR? Then use the {{main}} in the SR article and the Blvd one to direct the reader to the other article if that is the information they are looking for? Would something like that follow common sense from a readers perspective? I know that there are better examples like in cases where a portion of some road is no marked as being 3 or 4 or more different roads. Just how would you up merge that so that it was clear in a single article, especially if the route for one or more of the roads was moved and maybe it was also labeled with some now extinct routes? I'm not sure what the best solution is, but up merging perfectly good articles to meet some guideline is, at times, confusing to me. If you think this is bad, you should see what happens with companies after several mergers, buyouts and joint ventures! We are not likely to settle this here, but maybe this discussion will point out that there may be reasons to look at our guidelines and suggestions in this area. If so, the discussion probably needs to migrate to the project page for an open and frank discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

So what would be wrong with having an article for SR 604 that only covered the history of the road as a SR? Nothing inherently since this is not a paper encyclopedia. In this case, arguments in favor of this approach is that it allows for much better categorization and linking from lists and other general articles dealing with SRs as opposed to just roads in general. It will also likely lead to more information being written on the SR itself.

However, an argument can be made that a separate article on every route number ever applied to this stretch of road is unnecessary fragmentation of what is essentially a single topic. If this is the consensus, I would suggest one article on U.S. Highway 91 in Nevada including info on all route numbers used on that route through ca. 1974 and on article on LV Blvd including all route numbers since 1974.

My immediate concern here is that, if LV Blvd and SR 604 are dealt with in one article, that the content specific to SR 604, including the infobox, be clearly segregated from the general LV Blvd material so as to make clear to the average visitor that LV Blvd ≠ SR 604 but that SR 604 ⊆ LV Blvd through presentation in a clearly marked separate section. Without this deliniation, the article implies for example that LV Blvd is 13.407 miles long which is not the case. My complaint with User:NE2's actions was that he or she reverted to status quo ante: deleting additional information on SR 604 that I put in that article and reverting to the old text that conflated LV Blvd and SR 604.

To be fair this is currently the case at a number of othe Nevada road/SR articles where the SR is a subset of the road. For example, the Sunset Road is entirely about Nevada State Route 562; there is absolutely nothing about the road in general but the title of the article is still Sunset Road even though the SR forms only a portion of the entire road. It's fine to have roads at their names in cases like LV Blvd where the article deals with the entire route but is questionable for others like Sunset Road, Sahara Avenue, Flamingo Road, &c. Likewise, if the article is truly about the entire length of road, the SR info should be clearly separated out. — AjaxSmack 21:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly the issue I raised when the merge discussion first came up. Now it's is a problem for several of the NV SR 500-600 route articles in the Las Vegas area, not just SR 604. The SR articles that have been moved to their Las Vegas area street names are ambiguous in their coverage. The articles and their leads are still primarily written based on the SR information with some other info added in--none of them (to my knowledge) have been revised accordingly to reflect the street as a whole. Further complicating the issue, not all the Las Vegas SR articles have been moved, so there is ambiguity in article names, redirects, etc. Ultimately, this situation is resulting from differing goals of WP:USRD and WP:LAS...

To fix this particular article: I still suggest (as I mentioned above in the RM discussion) that we separate "Las Vegas Boulevard" from "Nevada State Route 604". The SR 604 article would have the infobox and contain all the information about SR 604/US 91-466/old SR 6 as it pertains to the state highway history while the Las Vegas Boulevard article would cover the notability of the highway, relevance to Vegas history, attractions along the road, etc. Taken this way, an SR 604 article would have plenty of information to pull from to create a standalone article separate and not duplicative of a Las Vegas Blvd article. This also solves the problem of delineating between the SR and the 'Blvd' information so someone can easily find what they're looking for. We can use {{see also}} on top of each article to link to the other.

As to the other minor SRs in Las Vegas, I am thinking to put them in a list. These will likely never have enough info to become GA class articles by themselves, but the info can be presented similarly to List of minor state routes in New York. The SR information could then be removed from Las Vegas street articles like Sunset Road, Sahara Avenue, etc. and WP:LAS can expand those articles accordingly. --Ljthefro (talk) 01:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well then, is there any objection, in this specific case, to a separate SR 604 article such as this? But I would question making US 91-466/old SR 6 info a part of it since those routes were longer than SR 604 ever was. The list of minor SRs sounds fine too. — AjaxSmack 03:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That approach seems reasonable. Care should be taken with the redirects to make sure that they point directly to the heading for each route. It might also make sense to add the heading and a short stub for any SRs that should be in the list and do not yet have an article. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I just thought that putting the old route numbers together would make the article stronger on its own. SR 604 did stretch at least as far as Jean to Apex at one point directly replacing US 91/old SR 6, thus covering all the old numbers on the single stretch of road in one article. But I can concede to leaving those two separate from SR 604.

As to the list of urban Vegas routes, this is something I've been thinking to do for a while. I would check all the redirects also. I'll get to it as time permits. --Ljthefro (talk) 05:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

SR 604 is the majority of LV Boulevard; it's pointless to have two articles about the same thing. --NE2 13:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, I would probably prefer them be merged in the same article, but if and only if it can be done in such a way that doesn't confuse the two. The way the article is done now, as mentioned above, does confuse them, primarily due to the placement of the infobox. The question is, can it be done in such a way that doesn't make the sections of the article so distinct that it wouldn't make more sense to split them anyway? :-* Dilemma... -- Kéiryn (talk) 13:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

For history, there can be a section about the road's construction and maintenance. This would start with the building of the Arrowhead Trail (SR 6) and eventually lead to SR 604 and the city/county takeover of portions. The infobox should be modified, possibly showing the length of only SR 604 in length_notes. --NE2 14:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. As long as we can fix the article's identity crisis (is it primarily about the boulevard? or the state highway?) then I'm in favor of the merge. -- Kéiryn (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It's the disconnect between the physical road and the designation again. SR 604 is simply a designation that means NDOT maintains most of the road, and really doesn't need much. What actually matters here is who, including NDOT, maintains the road. --NE2 17:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

NDOT maintains some of the road in seemingly ever-changing proportions. The infobox with mileage, &c. is about the NDOT portion only. Therefore, an article on LV Blvd should not have the SR 604 infobox in the first section and the parameters of SR 604 should be defined in a separate section with the infobox placed there. If U.S. Route 91 in Nevada is merged into LV Blvd, it should have a separate section within history with it made clear that U.S. 91 was far more than the present-day LV Blvd.

I'm still not sure in this case why, with reasonably significant differences between the various versions of this road (LV Blvd, SR 604, US 91) and a decent amount of content on each, all should be shoehorned into one article. Analogies might be Interstate 95 in Maryland and John F. Kennedy Memorial Highway or Interstate 95 in Delaware and Delaware Turnpike where the latter designations are subsets of the former but are dealt with in separate articles. — AjaxSmack 19:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a merge of US 91 into here would make sense, since the part through Mesquite was never US 91, and US 91 was moved onto I-15 once it was built. An analogy where a named road covers numbered routes would be Loop (Texarkana) with Arkansas Highway 245 and Texas State Highway Loop 151, or Junipero Serra Boulevard with California State Route 117 (1964). I agree with you about mileage. --NE2 19:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

All I meant regarding the identity crisis is that right now, the infobox is all about NV 604, which makes sense if NV 604 is the primary topic of this article, but it's not. -- Kéiryn (talk) 17:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Since there has been no activity to separate the content within the context of the combined LV Blvd/SR 604 article and there is general consensus (except for User:NE2) for a split, I will go ahead with the re-split. — AjaxSmack 00:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, interesting definition of consensus you have there. I'm pretty sure I said that I was in favor of a merge. I think the main reason the separation hadn't occured as of yet is because most of the recent conversation was on how best to go about doing that... -- Kéiryn (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to misrepresent your position. I defined consensus the same way it seems many admins at Wikipedia do: arbitrarily to suit my wishes. But I'm perfectly happy with a merge too as long as it follows the parameters generally agreed upon here, i.e., full separation of SR 604 content (including infobox) from general LV Blvd content in a separate section. This is not the same as a reversion to the status quo ante which is what was done before this latest discussion round began. I would also personally prefer that no relevant information in the current Nevada State Route 604 article be deleted since I actually used several minutes of what I consider valuable time to research some of it. If this sounds reasonable, merge away and you'll get no argument from me. — AjaxSmack 03:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL re: the definition of consensus. :-P I'll make you a deal since I'm super busy IRL and can't do the re-merge myself at the moment. I won't revert the split so long as you don't revert a proper merge when/if it occurs. Deal? -- Kéiryn (talk) 14:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. — AjaxSmack 23:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)