Talk:Golden Nugget (resort)

Category
I don't understand why User:RedWolf deleted Category:Laughlin from Golden Nugget (resort). In any case I reinserted it again, abeit not under my username because I forgot to login. Any questions about this edit should be posted here. Misterrick 03:50, 09 March 2004 (UTC).

Elimination of separate article on Golden Nugget Las Vegas
My reaction is that organizing the material this way doesn't work. We should try to maintain some consistency in how casinos are treated. The way that others are treated is: (1) an article on each casino, although of course many are yet to be written; and (2) an article on each corporation that owns casinos, like MGM Mirage.

There are only a few instances where two casinos not in common ownership share a name, because of a licensing agreement attendant upon a sale. The agreement is usually temporary, like the one for the "Golden Nugget" name. I suggest that we handle the information this way: Then, after the Laughlin property adopts a new name, Golden Nugget Laughlin will become a redirect. JamesMLane 22:31, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * restore the separate article on Golden Nugget Las Vegas;
 * create an article on Golden Nugget Laughlin to accommodate the sale information; and
 * create Golden Nugget as a disambiguation page to point people to these different sources of information.

James I have to disagree with you. I think having one uniform article about the Golden Nugget properties is the way to go. Though there should be a disambiguation page. Having separate pages which mimic similar information is a waste of space and bandwidth for Wikipedia. Before any action is taken let's have a concensus of users taken on this talk page. I don't want this to end up being an editing war. Misterrick 22:50, 13 December 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with not having an editing war. That's why I commented instead of reverting.  Trouble is, I don't know whether anyone else will bother commenting.  My disagreement with you is that a phrase like "the MGM Mirage properties" is meaningful, as referring to the properties owned by that company, but "the Golden Nugget properties" is different.  There are now two separate casinos, miles apart, with different owners, lumped together in one article, which lends ambiguity to references to them in other articles. JamesMLane 23:36, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Misterrick wrote, "Having separate pages which mimic similar information is a waste of space and bandwidth for Wikipedia." As I return to this article now after some time has passed, it still strikes me as unnecessarily confusing, just because there's not all that much similar information.  The two different properties have to be described separately.  For example, the article now includes this statement: "When Poster and Breitling assumed control of the Golden Nugget, they began to upgrade the gambling operation, for example by installing new "cashless" slot machines and by increasing the maximum bet available at table games to $15,000."  I very much doubt that Golden Nugget Laughlin is or ever was accepting that kind of action.  To the extent that the two casinos were for a time in common ownership, that could be accommodated by linking each separate article to a new article about Poster Financial Group, Inc., which would include the information about the principals that's now in this article. JamesMLane 10:38, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * James, Go ahead and do what ever you like. At this point if you feel that there should be separate articles then go ahead and make the changes I won't object because I'm sure I'd be overruled by the majority anyway. But personally I would wait until the the acquition by Barrick Gaming Corp. of the Golden Nugget Laughlin is completed before you make any changes. Misterrick 19:05, 23 December 2004 (UTC).


 * Hm.. I think perhaps one article is the way to go with the other stuff redirecting to it. This is, in my opinion, an aesthetical choice.  Unless there's some long standing precedent then either way is fine, but I'd prefer one well written article.  CryptoDerk 00:34, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * Misterrick, I asked CryptoDerk to give his opinion, because of his extensive editing of gambling-related articles. Given that he agrees with you, I'll go along with leaving the status quo until the aquisition is completed. JamesMLane 01:19, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I decided to look here after reading what I thought was a totally confusing article about three different Golden Nugget casinos. I'm also not sure that any of them is really a resort.  Further note the singular and not pural in the page name.  My thought was to add a disambig page and create one article for each casino.  It looks like most of the history would stay with the LV one.  Having a page for at least one of the Laughlin properities might spark some interest in getting more activity about that city listed in wiki.  I sure that Don(?) Laughlin's work to build the first casino and bridge is enough to get that properity into Wiki.  Golden Nugget (Take a look at the number of hits on google using "Golden Nuget") is also a Nintendo 64 game.  I creatd the Diasambig page with the three hotel casino antries pointing here untill they each get a page.  One final thought.  Even if the Laughlin name changes, by setting up the page now, you retain the history of the casino under whatever name it becomes.Vegaswikian 22:28, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * As you'll see above, what you've described is the structure that I favored a few months ago (except that I didn't know about the Nintendo game). Both Misterrick and CryptoDerk were inclined to maintain the status quo as long as the two existing Golden Nugget casinos were in common ownership (i.e., until the acquisition of the Laughlin property was completed), so I deferred to them.  I don't know the current status of the Laughlin deal. JamesMLane 02:00, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Kind of hard to get a concensus with only 4 people evenly split. The bottom line is that if the properities are not split out we will still have the confusion in the current article.   The fact that the name will be changed in Laughlin does not affect this in any way, we are still trying to cover 3 casinos in one article.  Personally I'd let the creator of the article make the final decision.  But I'd push to make the article readable and since it is an encylopedia, it needs to keep the history.  Having individual articles allows that, keeping a single article does not appear to do that.  This points out the need to clean up Vegas history quickly by moving the ownership changes into the pages on the holding companies.  Then all you need to include is who the current owner is.  The history of who ate who is in the company and not the casino page.  You only need the data once in one place.  I don't know how many pages had different version of the MGM Grand file, it was even textual in the disambg page!Vegaswikian 03:11, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There have been no comments since my last post over a week ago. So, I'm going to split out the various properities into their own articles. That way if you look at the city category you really see the portion of the writeup that is correct. Listing three cities for a resort should not happen in my opinion. Vegaswikian 19:22, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, the casinos have their own pages. There are also two new pages for the various companies that owned the casinos.  After doing this, it became clear that what was included in the old 'combined' page was mostly company history.  There was almost nothing about the various casinos.  While I was able to add some stuff in, the articles could use a lot more attention to make them better articles.  This lack of data was hidden when everything was combined. Vegaswikian 22:06, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If it matters (and I'll assume that at this point it doesn't, but what the hey?), the Golden Nugget Laughlin may not be changing names and could be joined with Golden Nugget Vegas if the deal continues to fall as it does. You probably saw this article this weekend, but in case you didn't here it is. LVRJ Article on Deal Collapse SpikeJones 10:37, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, it could be combined, but why? There are two different histories and they will be different in the future.  Each of these hotels needs an individual article.  Vegaswikian 05:27, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Golden Nugget (resort) named to Golden Nugget Las Vegas
I'm going to do this move and fix the redirects. Actually this will have to be a cut and paste since there is a redirect in place and a good number of the references are still to the Golden Nugget Las Vegas. This will give all three of the casinos that have articles and used that name similar article names. I'll also fix some of the holding companies which still have bad links and missing information at the end. Vegaswikian 21:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)