Talk:Riviera (hotel and casino)

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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: edit history watch purge 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 The link to the Missouri gambling site is now out of date and needs to be updated.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'. Nevada (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nevada, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.NevadaWikipedia:WikiProject NevadaTemplate:WikiProject NevadaNevada articles

Here we go again.

The opening date in the article was April 20. In the last updates it was changed to April 10. When I looked at the apparent source for the April 10 date, it seemed to really say April 20. Does anyone know for sure? I changed it back to the text that had been there for this rather then using the copied in text from an external source. Vegaswikian 19:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought the theme was Mediterranean, no? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.131.233.39 (talk) 03:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The link to "LVStripHistory.com History of the Riviera" is IE specific and excludes Firefox users. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.7.57.209 (talk) 22:04:53, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

The page currently reads, "The Riviera also broke new ground in its design: previously, Strip resorts resembled roadside motor courts." "Motor courts" is a rarely-used synonym for "motel," and "motor courts" redirects to "motel." The current usage should therefore be preferred, and I have edited the Riviera page thus and inserted the wiki link. User:Vegaswikian has reverted this twice, arguing "motor court was correct at the time so is valid." In my view, this makes no sense: in the 16th century, "egregious" meant "'distinguished, eminent, excellent,' from Latin egregius 'distinguished, excellent, extraordinary'"; does that mean that Wikipedia should say that da Vinci's contemporaries regarded his work as "egregious" because that would have been standard use at the time? Mikalra (talk) 22:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Motor courts was a common term to describe a type of motel in the 50s and 60s. Since that is apparently what the sources used and is period correct, it should not be changed. We use text that is accurate and let the links and redirects get the reader to the article that covers the term. To change to eliminate a redirect or simply update to the current term is simply wrong. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. OK, but few contemporary readers will know that, and I expect that only a minority will have any clue what a "motor court" is -- and if they Google it or search the term out in Wikipedia, they're still going to wind up on the wiki entry for "motel," defeating your intent and adding a needless step in between. Could you insert clarifying language describing the kind of "motel" was meant (and possibly source the overall idea that other Strip casinos were indeed modeled on them)? This source and this seem to indicate that it simply meant a typical low-rise motel design of the day -- is that your understanding?Mikalra (talk) 23:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mikalra. Wikipedia should be written in modern language (except for direct quotations from older sources, of course). Toohool (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VW, you suggested that we should retain "motor court" "Since that is apparently what the sources used and is period correct". We don't know what the sources used -- there's actually no citation for this -- but in any case, we should not simply parrot the language of sources: at some point, of course, that becomes plagiarism. And "period-correct" gets back to my comment about "egregious:" as I suggested, and as Toohool agrees, we should be using language in its current sense, not in the sense contemporary to the event or a source, except in direct quotation (and even there, clarifying or explicatory language should surely be added). Agreed?Mikalra (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Motor court is correct and not wrong so there is no need to change it. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]