Talk:Millennium Dome

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Architecture Portal This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Castle.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the assessment scale.

This article is part of WikiProject London, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to London. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles.

---

Contents 1 Requested move 1.1 Survey 2 Advertising in this article 3 Attendance 4 AD -> CE 5 The O2 6 Source for this? 7 Idiotic move 8 Duplicate 9 The Exhibits 10 Grid Reference 11 Chronology 12 largest? 13 Requested move 13.1 Survey 13.1.1 Survey - in support of the move 13.1.2 Survey - in opposition to the move 13.2 Discussion 14 Split 15 Requested move 15.1 Survey 15.1.1 Survey - in support of the move 15.1.2 Survey - in opposition to the move 15.2 Discussion

[edit] Requested move

Millennium Dome → The O2 – See this press release regarding the renaming. The Dome was renamed to The O2 on 25th May 2005 and now appears as such on maps. Obviously people will refer to it as "the Dome" for a long time to come, but I believe the article should be under the actual name.

[edit] Survey

• Support with redirect from Millenium Dome. David Kernow 11:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support + redir. from Millenium Dome SuperCoolAl 10:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Moved. —Nightstallion (?) 10:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advertising in this article

Why is there what appears to be a large plug for "The Bonham Group" at the start of this article? Artbristol 23:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attendance

The expected attendance of the Millennium Dome of around 12million was not unrealistically high.

To get an attendance at any event requires investment in the advertising and marketing. The reason the attendance was low was this figure was unrealistically low. This combined with a not fully thought out methodology and strategy for attracting people.

The attendance figures were never unrealistically high just the method to attain them unrealistically low, just a question of dynamic equilibrium.

Use of the Millennium Dome

The favourite use for the Millennium Dome was as MP2, Millennium Project Two, a global centre of excellence in environmental management.

This would have generated £50 billion per year in solving the problems of cimate change, planetary ecological collapse. loss of bio-diversity, pollution etc.

MP2 Applied Planetary Engineering

---

[edit] AD -> CE

The phrase "to celebrate the arrival of the third millenium AD" seemed to me to be rather strikingly supportive of Christianity, since AD means anno dominum (the year of our Lord). Ordinarily the casual use of BC/AD in WP articles doesn't bother me at all, but in a phrase worded in this manner which refers to a grandiose structure, I think it's better to use CE instead. I read the comments at the Manual of Style talk page, but the debate there did not seem to cover an important facet of the issue, which is that the BC/AD notation is becoming passé, and it may be part of Wikipedia's progressive role to help informal academic writing in general to move past it.

However, "CE" looked especially awkward when I previewed it, so I took out the abbreviation entirely. Obviously the dome was not built to celebrate the 3rd millenium BC/BCE so I don't think I'm creating ambiguity. Jeeves 15:13, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• The only time I've ever written 'CE' or 'BCE' is in Religious Education lessons when we were forced to, and I'm an agnostic. Writing 'CE' seems to me in the same league as wishing people 'Happy Holidays' instead of 'Merry Christmas'. I expect the original author's intention was to remove ambiguity, but I don't think there really is any ambiguity as to which millennium we're in.

[edit] The O2

I reckon that the article should stay at its current location until the new venue is about to open (if it does, etc, given that it isn't even due to do so until mid-2007 and might not have this name by then) at which point a new article could be created and this one become the 'history of the building' content. Especially given the way that telecoms companies change their names I wouldn't give much for the building opening under this proposed new name so seems pointless creating something other than a redirect (in place) this far in advance. --Vamp:Willow 15:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Interesting Points to Note: During the time that the Dome was being built and was open to the public, it was financed purely by a combination of private investment and funds from the UK National Lottery. Contrary to implications made by the UK tabloid press, no revenue from taxation was ever used to fund the construction or operation of the Dome and the exhibition inside it.

During 2000, whilst the Dome did not get as many visitors as originally anticipated, it was still the No.1 most visited tourist attraction in the UK. The net profit generated by the Dome was lower than originally anticipated, but despite the perception of many people, it did not make a loss.

The decision to close the Dome came as a result of huge public pressure, spurred on by a tabloid media hate campaign that had been ongoing since before the Dome opened. Many people who would normally have travelled to London to visit the Dome have said they changed their plans after reading bad reviews of the Dome in the newspapers. However, market research showed that the vast majority of people who did visit the Dome found it an enjoyable experience. The decision to close the Dome simply to placate a baying public resulted in no further profit being generated, and it is for this reason that the Dome started to require government funding. In other words, if the Dome is currently a "waste of tax payers' money" that's only because the "tax payers" wanted it shut down when it was still self sustaining!

My understanding was the the Millennium Exhibition had always been intended to last for one year only. In which case, the negative publicity the dome experienced had no impact at all on its opening duration, only visitor numbers. DWaterson 18:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source for this?

"The Dome project was conceived, originally on a somewhat smaller scale, under John Major's Conservative government, as a Festival of Britain or World's Fair-type showcase to celebrate the third millennium. The incoming Labour government elected in 1997 under Tony Blair, greatly expanded the size, scope and funding of the project. It also significantly increased expectations of what would be delivered."

That wasn't what Charles Falconer seemed to be saying - what is the soruce for the great expansion and significant increased expectations? Midgley 22:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Idiotic move

Please move this back to the Millennium Dome, which is how it is universally known. 86.136.0.145 17:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I'm inclined to agree. The O2 should be the redirect as it is a rarely used term for this structure. Mrsteviec 09:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, for years to come The Dome will be refered to as 'The Dome' - whatever its official name is. Perhaps one day after the O2 has opened as the O2 we should then consider moving the article

[edit] Duplicate

The O2 Dome - this article appears to duplicate this content. Mrsteviec 09:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)this is also a pile of crap

[edit] The Exhibits

Does anyone have any information about the exhibits? What they contained? Who they were designed by? --Richy 19:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I just added information regarding the lead designers for each Zone. (February 9, 2007)

[edit] Grid Reference

Here's the code i removed because it seemed clunky to me - i can't see where this fits nicely as the article stands, but i've kept it because someone must have gone to the trouble of looking it up!.....

grid reference TQ391801, 51°30′10.14″N, 0°0′11.22″E

Cheers - Petesmiles 00:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chronology

There's far too many insignificant events in the Chronology section. I'm going to prune it. --80.175.30.10 17:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've put the "insignificant events" back into the Chronology section. I feel that leaving some events (Pokémon Day), while pruning others (Earth Day) is a somewhat arbitrary, and a bit of a personal decision on what one views as significant. (February 9, 2007)

The list is way too long and full of insignificant crap that smothers the key dates. The future events listings are also not encyclopedic. I'm pruning it again. --82.45.163.4 20:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] largest?

According to the article:

"The Millennium Dome is the largest single-roofed structure in the world".

But on the article List of largest buildings in the world, the millenium dome is nowhere to be found. A quick estimate gives me 400.000 m3 for the dome, a lot less than the Tropical Islands' 5.5 million m3. I suggest we remove that claim - agreed? Peter S. 18:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

This article has been renamed from The O2 to Millennium Dome as the result of a move request.. Sorry for not appearing to close this debate at the time. --Stemonitis 11:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Split

Here's an idea - split the article into three:

• Millennium Dome - a short-ish article about the building itself and its history
• Millennium Experience - about the original exhibits
• The O2 - about current tenants ("The O2 is an entertainment venue housed in the Millennium Dome" etc)

Splitting off Millenium Experience is necessary anyway due to the article's current length, and splitting off O2 would solve the naming issues. --82.45.163.4 13:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that will fly. We're also not splitting AT&T Park into three articles because the name changes every other season. ~ trialsanderrors 03:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

But that article is already solely about the building, with separate articles covering the different tenants it's had. --Dtcdthingy 22:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

And in any case, there's no consensus over what that building is called ("Pac Bell", "Mays Field", and simply "The Park" all have greater currency amongst patrons of that facility than its official name...) There is, as has already been demonstrated, consensus that the Dome is still the Dome and probably always will be. I wouldn't object to a three-way split provided that all three articles are above stub-level, however. Js farrar 02:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Millennium Dome → The O2 — This is now the official name of the building. By the way if it is possible to subscript the 2 please do so. SuperCoolAl 11:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

[edit] Survey - in support of the move

[edit] Survey - in opposition to the move

1. Oppose Just decided. Common name wins out over sponsor name. ~ trialsanderrors 16:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose - Common name must win out. --Neo 16:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose - We had this discussion three weeks ago for fuck sake. --82.45.163.4 09:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose - No one has heard of The O2 outside of a select few in London, retain at its common name. Keith D 12:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
5. oppose This should be instantly closed, it has just been decided (see above)--Smerus 13:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

• Comment — this issue was discussed very recently (see above), and at that time, it was decided that under WP:NC(CN), the more widespread name of "Millennium Dome" took precedence over the official name of "The O2". --Stemonitis 11:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)