Talk:Casino

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2018 and 28 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Xcarg1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Seychelles

I have added the Seychelles casino link, because Dmoz is not listing any of those. (http://seychellescasino.com)

Wikipedia is not a web directory - that is DMOZ. And only because links are missing in DMOZ is no reason to add them here, if one from Seychelles, then why not one from Aruba, Kiribati, Monaco, Las Vegas...? andy 12:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, what is the point in only keeping one external link? There could be links for Aruba, Kiribati, Monaco, Las Vegas... separately imho. Daniel

Again - Wikipedia is NOT a web directory. See Wikipedia:External links for why we want to have only top-quality weblinks which really extend the article. andy 20:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That one link leads to listings for virtually every casino around the world, either via itself directly or via the other sites linked from it. Nothing else is needed. 2005 21:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Locals Casino

Should this be defined on this page as a type of casino? This is a casino speciffically built to attract residents from the area rather then tourists. They usually have better comps, and better pay tables then other casinos. ARe there other types of casinos that should be defined?

What about Racinos, casinos with bingo machines? Card rooms? Cruise ships? Temporary casinos like Klondike Days Casino? It should be specified at the start of the article what exactly will be included. According to the dictionary definition "a public room or building where gambling games are played" all of the mentioned types should be included. --Cowgummi (talk) 22:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

useful article

here: http://www.silicon.com/research/specialreports/gambling/0,3800010160,39151555,00.htm

Listing cities in the article

This is an encylopedic article on the word casino. Why is it important to list cities that have clusters of casinos? What does this add to the article. Sure, mentioning the Place du Casino (Monte-Carlo Casino) is reasonable since it is so well know. But, are cities encylopedic within this article because they have a bunch of casinos? Does including cities help explain the word casino? I don't think so. Vegaswikian 02:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

If you're talking about deleting Biloxi, that city was considered the leading gambling center in the Southern U.S. The article on Biloxi even says so if you had bothered to read it. Mike H (Talking is hot) 02:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

If you had checked, you would have seen I also removed Laughlin. I was also thinking about Reno along with most of the others. But the question about why any of these cities needs to be listed is still on the table. How do they help understand the word casino? Vegaswikian 05:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it's helpful in understanding where the famous casinos in the world are. If you want an understanding on the word, go to Wiktionary. That's what it's there for. Mike H (Talking is hot) 07:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

But that is exactly my point. List some famous casinos and not cities with casinos. Vegaswikian 08:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with every casino in the world being listed, although, at some point we should break it off as a "list of casinos" article and provide a link. This would solve the problem of the list being "in the way". StuRat 20:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Which is already included in the 'see also' as List of casinos. Vegaswikian 00:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Good point, that eliminates the need for an internal list. StuRat 01:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Arguments for and against casinos

This talk-page section (seems to) concern WP coverage of social/political/economic/psychological/for-all-i-know-ethical-and/or-moral issues...

For discussion relating to whether the WP (article-namespace-page) "Casinos" should or shouldn't be or why-(as-it-may-happen)-it-is-or-isn't a Dab page, or a redirect to the Dab- or true-Article page with "Casino" as its title,

see Talk:Casino or Talk:Casino (disambiguation).^{WP:Terminal WP metadiscussion alert!}

--Jerzy•t 18:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

The cost benefit analysis in the 3rd reference is incredibly biased and unscientific. In his analysis of crime and gambling he doesn't mention at all what his sample size or error are in the figures or what correlation this implies. He arbitrarily chooses to evaluate the value of a job added at one half of what the other study found which could change hsi result by a factor of 2. His final paragraph contradicts itself. He first states that gambling provides recreatioanl value. Then he says that gamblers win money without providing anything useful, when clearly they have provided recreational value to others. He ends with the laughable argument that if we all made our money by gambling, we would starve. Of course the same could be said for any profession, so clearly jobs in general are just a bad idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.162.101.50 (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I have problems with this entire section. Much of what is included is option and not proven fact. The material is not directly about a casino, it is more about gambling and social issues. I'm thinking that if the material stays, it should be given an article, if it truly is NPOV and important, or merged into another article. But it does not belong here. Vegaswikian 20:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I will take any suggestions of where it should go (other than the trash, LOL). I was thinking it is more of an economics related section, with the casino investment vs. education and infrastructure discussion similar to the classic guns vs. butter economics question. The issue of an oversupply of gambling facilities in the Detroit/Windsor area is also an economics issue. I do believe it is directly about casinos, although some of the issues would also relate to gambling in other forms. Other issues are casino-specific, though. Lotteries and horse tracks don't typically have associated hotels like casinos do, for example. StuRat 21:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Economic and social impacts of gambling maybe? There appears to be additional material in various gambling articles. Not sure what categries it would be in, but I can see quite a few links to it as a NPOV article. Vegaswikian 21:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

And the vast majority of casinos in Vegas don't have a hotel either. Keep the discussion to the gaming area and you can address all of the associated forms. Vegaswikian 21:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I can't see anybody typing all that in, can you come up with something shorter ? Also, when I drive thru Vegas I sure see a lot of hotels attached to casinos. The same is true when I stay there. Are you sure that most of them don't have hotels ? StuRat 21:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

When I see a link that should be in other articles I use copy and paste. It will be findable when doing a search. It would be no where near close to the longest article name in wiki. But I believe that it would be a very accurate name for the article. It would be easy when you create the aricle to copy and paste in that links as appropiate. --- I would guess that in Vegas, there are likely almost as many casinos with a supermarket attached as with a hotel attached. Probably casinos with a bar attached is the most common, but I don't have that break down. Vegaswikian 22:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I say we leave it where it is for a few days to elicit more commentary, then move it if we get a consensus. The section is written explicitly for casinos, so perhaps a casino section could be added to the new article. Please include links to other sites you have found which contain text you think should also be moved to the new article and I will take a look. StuRat 22:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Racino for one. Gambling advertising for another. Searching for economics and gaming gives quite a few hits. Any of the Las Vegas area articles have material that could be included from history or economics. Vegaswikian 23:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look at those. Please list any others you come across. StuRat 23:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I would change the name, at the very least, to "Economic and social impacts of gambling". I see no reason to accept the gambling industry's euphemism for gambling, as it can easily be confused with games which don't involve wagering. StuRat 22:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be called "Economic and social impacts of legal organized gambling" to distinguish it from a penny-ante game of cards between friends and from bookies. StuRat 23:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Just create the article with a reasonable name. It can be moved if there is a problem. If you think it needs to include legal, then do it. However your text already discusses how this interacts with illegal gambling so maybe it would be best to stay with what was suggested. Vegaswikian 23:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

It interacts with illegal gambling, but that doesn't mean the section is about illegal gambling, any more than it is about prositution, illegal drugs, or theft. I still want to wait a few days and hopefully get some other voices here before doing the move. StuRat 00:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Eight days and no further discussion. Time to move that text? Vegaswikian 05:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Casinos around the world

No mention of Monte Carlo (and the song), recent changes in UK laws on casinos etc.

There should be mention of legislation on casinos in various states of the world and attitudes etc: the sort of games played, membership etc.

Netgmbler's guide: legitimate or spam?

We have seen numerous attempts to create a link to http://www.netgamblersguide.com by 66.90.92.106 (contributions) and [[User::Geirn]] (contributions). To me, this link blatantly violates the external link guidelines, as it is extremely commercial. Every time this link is removed, it is immediately replaced. Several different users have attempted removing this link, so presumably it's not just me. The next step would appear to ban 66.90.92.106 and Geirn, but this is a drastic step and I'd like to have the support of the community before attempting to escalate this.

So: does anyone other than Geirn and his/her clones agree with keeping the link? Agree with progressing this matter with the aim of banning? Comments welcome. --Mike Van Emmerik 02:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Time to lock article?

Rather then reverting changes multiple times a day, should this article be locked for a while to discourage the spammers? Vegaswikian 03:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks like moments after I posted the above, our spammer was warned once, warned twice, then banned. Let's see if another user pops up with the same behaviour first. --Mike Van Emmerik 04:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Lawyer promo link

Please tell me why it isn't promotional. --Nnp 21:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about. It's a relevant link covering content that can't be put in the article itself. It;s obviously not "promotional", whatever you mean by that, jeez. Please don't make random edits to the article. 2005 21:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Definition #2. --Nnp 22:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. The link is obviously not self promotion (and you know this unless you amzingly haven't evn look at how the site has gambling laws for every US state) so dishonestly labeling it as such is not editing in good faith. Please refrain from such actions in the future. 2005 22:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Nnp, the definition of promotion that you posted doesn't apply at all to the site in question. (It's not an advertisement for legal services; it's an outline of gambling laws.) The closest thing to an "advertisement" on the site is a picture of the webmaster and his contact information, which is information commonly available on many good quality websites.Rray 22:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I can easily see why Nnp had a problem here. The entry page has a pretty large bio of the lawyer who created the site, along with a solicitation, and there is very little content on that first page. There's a pretty nice site behind the links at the top of the page, however, and I think that it's comprehensive and informative enough to be included here. Kuru ^talk 00:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Come on. The lawyer bio is not large at all. Saying that the link should be removed because it fits better in the Gambling article makes sense, but being unable to distinguish between a useful resource and an advertisment or self-promotion is something else entirely. Most reputable websites explain who is the author of the site, and that site is no different.Rray 01:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Eh? It's fully a third of the linked page. While I agree that the link is a useful resource, it's very easy to see how someone could presume spam without cliking on a few links. Agreed also that it would more properly fit the gambling article. Kuru ^talk 01:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's skip the silly stuff please. It's one-third of a page on a 200 page website! It's ludicrous to call that "promotion", and obvious the link was removed without the person caring to look at the website. What we had here is someone unfamiliar with the topic randomly removing a valuable link that is on topic and not promotional in any sense. External link policies are pretty darn clear and a dislike of lawyers is not a reason to remove one. In this case the link is totally relevant to the article, and no content reason was mentioned for removing it. The encyclopedia is here to deliver quality content to users, not as dislike of lawyers platform. The fact the website makes money of course is of no consequence at all -- it's the quality of the content, and the consideration that obviously we can't have articles on the laws about casinos in every state in this article. It's a perfect example of how linking SHOULD be done in the Wikipedia. However, the additional consideration is that there are other resources out there that are more fully-casino focused, rather than just the law part, so adding other links that are even more relevant is a good thing, and can render this link unneeded here since other resources can mention legalities (even if not as in depth) while dealing more in depth with "casino" topics. 2005 03:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of self-promotion or not, why is that link here? This entry is about casinos, not gambling or gaming law. Wouldn't the link be more suitable there? A link to someplace like ildado or casinocity would be appropriate here. FeldBum 23:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It's obviously relevant to link to the law about casinos in all the US states, and could use similar links for other countries if similar such sites exist. Links to ildado or casinocity would make even more sense, but that doesn't comment on how one about casino laws isn't appropriate also. I'm adding a link to the Dmoz brick and mortar casinos category, which is probably better than casino city, but that could be added too. 2005 23:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Casino City and World Casino Directory both are listed in the DMOZ category, so it doesn't seem like an additional link would be needed. (I thought about adding the Casino City link but checked the DMOZ category first.)Rray 01:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep the links on-topic here folks. The gambling law link is more appropriate for the Gambling article, and I see it's already there. It doesn't need to be here as well. If someone wanted more information on gambling, they should start with the gambling article, and if necessary follow the law link from there. I'm removing the link from this article. Remember, external links should be added sparingly - we should direct readers internally long before we point them elsewhere. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 01:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The link is obviously on topic, let's not pretend otherwise. And, given zero other external links, it was appropriate here. It only makes sense to remove it if other external links are added that cover the territory better, as in 1) lists and descriptions of casinos, 2) regulation and limitation of games offered in various jurisdictions. We clearly can not internally list minutae of casino law in every state, or descriptions of restaurants and specific games for every casino in Timbuktu. That's why external links should be used sparingly. In this case, this extremely broad topic article could easily use four or five good external links. The Dmoz link is a good start, but others could easily be added. This is not a narrow focused topic, and we have over one hundred articles linking off this one way or another, but the topic still is even broader than that. 2005 03:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Believe it or not, it's OK for an article to have zero external links. This article has plenty of other links internally, which give readers a wide range of other informative and related topics to peruse here at Wikipedia. I'm not advocating removing the link from Wikipedia entirely; it's still in the article Gambling, thus negating the requirement for it to appear here. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 03:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

And believe it or not it is okay to have external links. That says nothing. The article has many internal links. The topic also merits links external links. The fact that a link is in another article is irrelevant to its value to this article. The priorities are user friendliness, comprehensiveness and quality of information, not agendas against attorneys or foolishness about how much text on one page of a site is devoted to a bio about the site owner. Some editors need to remember the priorities of the encyclopedia and not act on their private agendas. 2005 05:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Dan here. This link is accessible via a person clicking on "Gaming Law" or "Gambling", where it is applicable. Perhaps if there was a page about U.S. Cainos it would make sense to place the link there, but not on a page about casinos in general. -- FeldBum 13:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

What probably matters the most is that links in this article should be for information about the topic, that is 'Casino. Vegaswikian 05:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I added a link to the Casino City directory earlier today, and it was since deleted. I am planning to add it back in again after completing my explanation here. I see that there was some support previously for adding a link to the casino city directory, but someone decided that since casino city was listed in odp, it was not necessary. I would like to point out that the link I put in before, and an going to add back, is not the same link as that given in ODP. Rather, it is a direct link to the directory of casinos within the casino city website. This website location is absolutely the best place to go on the web for a directory of casinos. It covers many more casino locations than any other source on the web, and is only rivaled in print by the gaming business directory (which is published using the same database as the casino city website). I do want to be clear that I am involved with Casino City (I am its CEO), but I also want to be clear that is it an objective fact that the Casino City directory is updated and maintained on a daily basis by a large content team, and really is the best resource to use if someone is interested in how many casinos there are in the world and where they are located. Finding this information via ODP is painful substitute. Please, before deleting the link I have added again, take a look at the other external links provided versus the casino city link. I believe you will agree that the Casino City link will directly take you to better organized information than either of the other previously existing external links.--Michael Corfman 20:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Disappointing

This article is woefully short. Coffee 01:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

By all means, please expand it. Rray 02:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Saying 'by all means expand it' is all well and good, but for some the reason they came to the page in the first place was to find out about casinos as they are unfamiliar with this subject. Case in point being I was directed here when I typed in "pit boss". Sadly I'm still in the dark as to what this job entails. For all the discussion on this page the actual article *is* woefully short. --Crydwyn 23:49, 07 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was a bad redirect from pit boss in my opinion. I slapped together a stub that really needs some references to support what I wrote. Vegaswikian 23:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

added stub --190.17.213.33 21:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Native American gambling enterprises

Perhaps should be a redirect under the stub native casinos? I work at Mystic Lake casino which is run by the (sharp inhale) Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community. Here is a semi biased history lesson http://www.mysticlake.com/history.html

Any questions about the casino such as Check cashing (done by a club card, credit card or Bally's Casino Market Place), chip transactions, Title 31, counterfeit money investigations, ticket in ticket out systems, comps, coin sorting, positions in the casino or any other aspect of a casino that does not include procedures with money movement or paperwork I would be glad to talk about.

Native casino section deleted

I took the liberty of deleting the stub on native american casinos, seeing as how there was nothing in the article to begin with.Ultima22 19:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The management topics are needed

Management of gaming / gambling / casino industries is crucial that the process of the money coming in / out for entertainment are clean, legitimate and ethical. Therefore, the article for the management is essential and necessary for the public awareness.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.62.138.24 (talk) 01:33, 10 September 2007

Please make this front article linking to the management topics— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.62.138.24 (talk) 01:31:19 & 31:46, 10 September 2007‎

Deletions

The line under the "History" section regarding Pleasure Beach in Blackpool, England needs to be deleted. I looked up the site and there is no information showing that this is legitimate. The only aspect of the park even linked to Casinos is the "Casino Bar" a resturant available for patrons. --Jackie Hoogland —Preceding unsigned comment added by JhooglandEIU (talk • contribs) 15:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Also, under the "security" section it seems illogical to require employees to not socialize or speak in general outside of the work place. I cannot find any evidence to support this claim and will delete it Friday if no one else can prove this comment is legitimate. --Jackie Hoogland

TO EVERYONE THAT MAKES DELETIONS

TO EVERYONE THAT MAKES DELETIONS... please inform everyone of the deletion and check for credibility BEFORE being arrogant, Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JhooglandEIU (talk • contribs) 01:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Clubs in NSW

Would Clubs (RSL, sports) in New South Wales, Australia, be considered 'casinos'? If you're a Sydney-sider you'd know what I'm talking about. Many sports or other social clubs in NSW will often run gambling operations with pokies and table games. In addition there are usually dining and entertainment options. However, the big differrence is that they're clubs, they're not open to the general public; only members are allowed or in the company of a member. How would you classify these places? -- Htra0497 (talk) 09:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there a main article on these clubs? That would be a good first place so that everyone could see what you are talking about. From what you have said so far, I have no idea of the status as casinos. Off hand I would consider them akin to a charity night, albeit longer running. But then I'm lacking a lot of information. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ambiguity

Here are the figures for casinos in the US.

1. 1. Las Vegas Strip $ 6,121 Billion
2. 2. Atlantic City $4,545 Million
3. 3. Chicago region $4,545 Million
4. 4. Connecticut $1,571 Million
5. 5. Detroit $1,360 Million

Should those commas be decimal points? I think so, because its hard to believe that the Strip does 6 trillion dollars of business every year. That would be like a third of the US total economy, no? Anyway, I would change it, but I'm not sure. The numbers could reflect every single bet regarless of whether it wins or loses or something. 169.231.32.17 (talk) 04:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Non-American Perspectives

Well I sure learned a lot about American casinos, even down to how much money they are raking in. Are there casinos anywhere else in the world? Are they different than in America? This article could benefit from a broadened perspective. 19:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Alex 0888 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex 0888 (talk • contribs)

I agree, nothing about casinos in Europe, such as Monte Carlo. Czolgolz (talk) 20:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

ODP link

The ODP listing of casinos is abysmal.

This can easily be confirmed.

Is there any intent to inform, or just to pass things off onto an inadequately maintained third-party site for no other reason that it is (not really) 'open'?

Example:

[1]

3 casinos in Henderson, Nevada

cf. [2]

29 casinos in Henderson, Nevada.

The ODP link is a joke. There's no Green Valley Ranch, no Wynn Las Vegas, only a handful of casinos listed for most destinations. Why link to it when a vastly superior link is available with far more info on each location? Sumbuddi (talk) 03:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• And that is a valid reason to push a commercial site with pop ups? Vegaswikian (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is. They provide content that it useful and unique. There are plenty of other commercial informational sites linked to on here - IMDB, Allmusic, to name two. I don't think there's any ideological opposition to commerce here. Certainly if the sites were comparable then it would make sense to link to the free one, but they are not, not even close, so the ODP link is redundant.

(BTW, I am unable to find any popups on that site.) Sumbuddi (talk) 04:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

What about a discussion of the behavioral psychology techniques modern casinos use to entice / fleece gamblers?

I recently watched Ocean's Thirteen and was fascinated by one of the DVD extras - namely, a featurette on modern casino techniques used to entice prospective gamblers into staying and spending.

Things like free drinks when gambling heavy and no clocks or windows was an obvious point mentioned. However, the featurette also talked about floorplan layouts having lots of stairs to other levels, curved hallways, corners and crannies for the visitor to explore because it forces people to wander around and explore rather than be able to take in the gambling floor all in one quick glance.

It even talked about things like the selection of background music, carpet patterns, flattering lighting, and how those are designed to give the player confidence in his/her attractive appearance while glancing in mirrors. This confidence supposedly then shows up on the gaming floor with daring bets at the various games of chance (which are mathematically designed to favor the house anyway).

Other things were mentioned like how slot machines at the edges of the gaming areas are programmed for frequent but low payouts (attention getting with all the jackpot lights and sounds). However, as the players wander deeper into the slot sections, those adjacent machines are programmed to be much more stingy. Another thing with slot machines - they are programmed to come up with a lot of near misses. In other words, a player may have a final display of Lucky 7, Lucky 7, Lemon bunch (with the third Lucky 7 just visible as the next position). This kind of behavioral psychology was spearheaded by B.F. Skinner back in the 1960s was it not?

It was a quick and dirty little DVD extra, but I came here to Wikipedia in the hopes of finding an article or links to more of this fascinating information. Is there anything like this? Or do we need to create it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.154.44.15 (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Should the disambiguation of the singular title "Casino" and that of the plural one "Casinos" be done as a single Dab page, or as two separate ones?

   While i don't recall -- in my nearly decade and a half of editing -- another instance on WP where Dab'g of the singular and plural forms of the same word have been carried out on two respective dab pages (and thus suspect doing so is just a Bad Idea, except perhaps in cases of some irregular plurals), this instance has been let-be long enuf to perhaps deserve explicit discussion. I think i'm going to carry out a merge the two Dab pages, since they say ev'rything can be undone on a wiki, and (since having two concrete versions -- a one-page version, and a two-page one -- easily accessible should facilitate discussion. For the time being, my mechanism for making them both accessible will be creating a link to the soon-to-be-(perhaps only temporarily)-obsolete-but-as-i-write-current revision of the primary-Dab page Casino (disambiguation), and cut-and-pasting content from the now-current revision of the Dab page Casinos into newest (but provisional) revision.
--Jerzy•t 20:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Casino Employee Occupational Health and Safety

I'm adding an occupational health section to address casino employee health concerns and prevention strategies. My goal is to focus on common conditions seen in casino employees or conditions that are more frequently seen in casino employees than in the general public.

I previously posted this yesterday and it was deleted in its entirety for "WP:UNDUE (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight) 29,000 characters on OH? The article is about casinos, not about alcohol or second-hand smoke. Please summarise." The undue characteristic appears to be for giving undue influence to a particular view point and not having a neutral perspective. If other contributors have other perspectives, then I just welcome them.

Undue does not appear to be intended for "this is too long," which is what I understood "29,000 characters on OH?" to mean. Again, I welcome feedback on my work. HarvardOcDoc (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Undue weight also applies to excessive detail ("Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and imagery"). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm new to wikipedia, but reading the referenced page, the quoted sentence is in the context of reporting minority and majority viewpoints as discussed in the preceding paragraph and is why the following sentence to the one quoted states "In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." No one seems to be saying there are missing viewpoints, just that it is too long, which I think is a misapplication of this policy. I've made this topic a subpage and am happy leaving it there. HarvardOcDoc (talk) 05:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

"Deleted in it's entirety" - well, I reverted the edit. My edit summary invited summarisation. I do not mean to try and exclude this material entirely, I just don't think it should be allowed to dominate the article.

The right person to summarise the material is not me; it is a person that is familiar with the material and the sources. HarvardOcDoc would seem to be a suitable candidate. MrDemeanour (talk) 07:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

It appeared deleted in its entirety when it was reverted, which is why I reached out to you under the talk option that wikipedia suggested. Thanks for redirecting the conversation here. HarvardOcDoc (talk) 05:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, I see that HarvardOcDoc has again added a large amount of material on occupational health of casino workers; I would say it amounts to at least a third of the article. My view remains that this is still undue weight. I'm not interested in going to war over this, so I have not reverted the new edits, but I do not think that adding this much material on Occupational Health is likely to gain consensus.

Incidentally, I note that this material currently follows the Gallery section. It is customary for the Gallery section to follow the main content sections. MrDemeanour (talk) 07:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what "going to war' means, but I'm also not interested in doing so. I split up the information in an effort to see if we could narrow the topics you or others users were taking issue with. Based on the redactions, it seems like either most of it or the quantity. I put the information after the gallery since it seemed like that would give the pictures more prominence and those not interested in reading any more could just stop, but I guess someone new to the community just can't find a winning approach on this platform. I'm hoping most can live with a sub-page (not sure if that's the correct term). HarvardOcDoc (talk) 05:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

So I have now reviewed in a little more detail the (repeat) contributions of HarvardOcDoc. It appears likely that he has re-added his original 29K-character contribution, but in smaller pieces. I continue to hold the view that this enormou8s contribution is out of proportion with the rest of the article; as if the most important fact about casinos is that they pose a risk to the health of their staff. Every industry poses a risk to the health of its employees' health. Heck, the IT industry (trailing cables, RSI, eyesight); the movie industry (risk of rape?); just forget about seriously risky work, like mining, construction and steel manufacturing.

I note that a large amount of this new material is sourced to a two-page pamphlet published by something called WorksafeBC, offering tips on things like how to make a bed without harming your back. The material sourced to this pamphlet is much greater than all the text in the pamphlet itself.

It's worth noting that the majority of the citations in the article are now in support of this Occupational Health obsession - it looks like all of the sources 37-124 are entirely about Occupational Health. I have asked the contributing editor to summarise this material; his response was to re-add it, commenting that it was already a summary. He has also ignored my remark about the placing of the material after the Gallery section.

I am not inclined to try to summarise all this stuff myself; why should I? this appears to be the contributor's specialist subject (see his contribution history and user page), he is much better placed to summarise it than me. I intend to remove the lot again, if the contributor is not willing to shorten this material to give it due weight. MrDemeanour (talk) 13:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

As MrDemeanour suggested in a note to me, I think the best place for this information might be in a daughter article about occupational health in the casino industry. I'm surprised at how little there is in Category:Casinos, tbh, and I think that this might be a good addition to the topic. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I sourced the ergonomic portions of this to several 2-page handouts because I thought they'd be more accessible to those who wanted to look at them than citing a textbook or medical articles, which are not always freely available online. I'm happy to provide others if those are useful, but then my work is also getting critiqued for taking up too many sources ... this appears to be a classic catch 22. Ian, thank you for creating the "daughter" page and resolving this miserable experience. HarvardOcDoc (talk) 05:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I have just edited the article twice, and i have to say i cannot believe the amount of detail and excessive wordage on something which is purely related to US casinos, irrelevant to any others in the world/article, and of comparatively little encyclopeadic value. "All out of proportion" seems the only appropriate phrase. I suggest that it needs to be drastically pruned or summarised; i daresay i shall come back and do that, or possibly remove it if someone with greater interest in the subject doesn't. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 10:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for working to make the article better. This is not just a US casino issue as the working conditions in casinos in other countries (especially related to second hand smoke) put workers globablly at risk. Are there other concerns you have for the health and safety of casino workers around the world that you feel should be addressed? HarvardOcDoc (talk) 05:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Apologies

Apologies for messing with the page. I had an idea, but it won't work with a page this large. User:Ian (Wiki Ed)/Guettarda (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Why is the gambling industry called "Gaming industry"?

It's pretty confusing. Most readers are going to associate "gaming industry" with video games. CatcherStorm ^talk 03:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

"Gaming" has referred to gambling since before the word "gambling" was even coined, and certainly long before video games were invented. If readers are confused about that, hopefully they'll learn a little something from Wikipedia and end up less confused. Toohool (talk) 06:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I m not 103.175.8.28 (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Design section of this article is written oddly

I can't edit this page without an account. The article currently says "Alan Hirsch, founder of the Smell & Taste Treatment and Research Foundation in Chicago, studied the impact of certain scents on gamblers, discerning that a pleasant albeit unidentifiable odor released by Las Vegas slot machines generated about 50% more in daily revenue." This is not what the linked source says. An *intentionally* unidentifiable blend of fragrances was pumped into the *room* via external means by the casino operators. The slot machines do not produce pheromones. 73.41.228.149 (talk) 05:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)