Talk:Millennium Dome: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 14:04, 18 July 2007

Latest revision as of 14:19, 2 January 2025

(214 intermediate revisions by 82 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Talk header}}

{{Architecture|class=B|importance=Mid}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|

{{WPLondon|class=b|importance=high}}

{{OlympicsWikiProject|class=BWikiProject Engineering|importance=lowmid}}

{{WikiProject Architecture|importance=Mid}}

----

{{WikiProject London|importance=high}}

}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}

|maxarchivesize = 75K

|counter = 2

|minthreadsleft = 4

|minthreadstoarchive = 1

|algo = old(28d)

|archive = Talk:Millennium Dome/Archive %(counter)d

}}

{{archives|search=yes}}

== Article abandoned? ==

==Advertising in this article==

Obviously nothing happend at the Dome/O2 since 2008 except the Olympics? Or nobody cares? This discussion page is 90% about renamimg, merging, splitting and moving, which is of absolutely no interest to readers, but key information is just missing. A typical case of the WP community navel-gazing - discussing unnecessary things instead of working on an encyclopedia? [[Special:Contributions/47.71.2.160|47.71.2.160]] ([[User talk:47.71.2.160|talk]]) 08:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

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

:This article is about the Dome as was (or should we call it "the white elephant"?). Recent events should be covered in [[The O2 Arena]]. --[[User:kingboyk|kingboyk]] ([[User talk:Kingboyk|talk]]) 04:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

== Referencing and references are terrible ==

==Attendance==

I was hoping to 'borrow' a few citations for another article and have discovered that the referencing here is pretty awful - some poor sources, some references poorly formatted, and important parts of the story on the background and the political debate about whether it should be built and who should pay for it are missing, or present but not referenced at all. --[[User:kingboyk|kingboyk]] ([[User talk:Kingboyk|talk]]) 04:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

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

== Missing detail in the intro ==

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 introduction to the article includes this paragraph: "In a 2005 report, the cost of the Dome and surrounding land (which increased to 170 acres from the initial offering of the 48 acres enclosed by the Dome) and managing the Dome until the deal was closed was £28.7 million." I'm not sure what's missing, but ''something'' is missing from the middle of that sentence. The cost of the Dome and land...was what? what deal is it refering to? I'd check the original source but there isn't one, and I don't know enough about the topic to guess at what's missing. [[User:Danikat|Danikat]] ([[User talk:Danikat|talk]]) 17:20, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

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

: I found the full version of the same paragraph further down in the 'Redevelopment and rebranding' section, but I can't edit the article myself. Here's the full text: "A report in 2005 by the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee found that the cost of the process of selling the Dome and surrounding land (which increased to 170 acres from the initial offering of the 48 acres enclosed by the Dome) and managing the Dome until the deal was closed was £28.7 million. £33 million were expected to be returned to the taxpayer by 2009. The value of the 48 acres occupied by the Dome was estimated at £48 million, which could have been realised by demolishing the structure, but it was considered preferable to preserve the Dome." [[User:Danikat|Danikat]] ([[User talk:Danikat|talk]]) 17:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 January 2025 ==

Use of the Millennium Dome

{{edit extended-protected|Millennium Dome|answered=yes}}

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

The dome opened on 31 dec 1999, which the table correctly stated. However it states this was 24 years ago. It’s actually 25 years ago now.

Likewise for the domes closure. [[Special:Contributions/195.213.165.155|195.213.165.155]] ([[User talk:195.213.165.155|talk]]) 09:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

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

:{{Already done}}, both durations are recalculated automatically whenever the page is refreshed, which seems to have happened since this request was made. But the 31 December 2000 closure is not yet 25 years ago. --[[User:Belbury|Belbury]] ([[User talk:Belbury|talk]]) 10:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

MP2 Applied Planetary Engineering

-------

==AD -> CE==

The phrase "to celebrate the arrival of the third millennium 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 millennium BC/BCE so I don't think I'm creating ambiguity. [[User:Jeeves|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.

==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. --[[User:VampWillow|Vamp]]:[[User_talk:VampWillow|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. [[User:DWaterson|DWaterson]] 18:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

== 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? [[User:Midgley|Midgley]] 22:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

==Idiotic move==

Please move this back to the [[Millennium Dome]], which is how it is universally known. [[User:86.136.0.145|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. [[User:Mrsteviec|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

==Duplicate==

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

==The Exhibits==

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

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

== 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!.....

[[British national grid reference system|grid reference]] {{gbmappingsmall|TQ391801}}, {{coor dms|51|30|10.14|N|0|0|11.22|E|type:landmark_region:EG_scale:5000}}

Cheers - [[User:Petesmiles|Petesmiles]] 00:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

== Chronology ==

There's far too many insignificant events in the Chronology section. I'm going to prune it. --[[User:80.175.30.10|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. --[[User:82.45.163.4|82.45.163.4]] 20:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

== 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 millennium 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? [[User:Peter S.|Peter S.]] 18:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

== Requested move ==

<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:polltop -->

:''The following discussion is an archived discussion of the {{{type|proposal}}}. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. ''

[[The O2]] → [[Millennium Dome]] — Move back to original title under common name rule. Millennium Dome is still by the most recognized name. Even the article uses it throughout. [[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] 04:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

===Survey===

:''Add &nbsp;<tt><big><nowiki># '''Support'''</nowiki></big></tt>&nbsp; or &nbsp;<tt><big><nowiki># '''Oppose'''</nowiki></big></tt>&nbsp; on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. Please remember that this survey is [[Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion|not a vote]], and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.''

====Survey - in support of the move====

#'''Support''' as nominator. ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] 04:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

#'''Support''' I think anyone who doesn't live in London would know that the name of this building has been changed. Return it back to what it was.[[User:Zeus1234|Zeus1234]] 23:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

# '''Support''', despite mine being the previous single vote to rename to "The O2". I guess I must've feeling formal that day! &nbsp;Regards, [[User:David Kernow|David Kernow]] <span style="font-size:90%;">[[User talk:David Kernow|(talk)]]</span> 00:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

# '''Support''', I don't think that many people in or outside of London know that the Dome has been renamed the "O2". However, keep a redirect to "O2". --[[User:TGC55|TGC55]] 10:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

# '''Support''' - no-one calls it anything but "the Dome". [[User:Js farrar|Js farrar]] 03:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

====Survey - in opposition to the move====

# '''Oppose''' - The O2 is now the official name of the building, redirect Millennium Dome to the O2 and move the article! Makes perfect sense to me. I think most people understand the building has changed names! [[User:SuperCoolAl|SuperCoolAl]] 10:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

===Discussion===

:''Add any additional comments:''

*Note prior survey with a single vote above. ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] 04:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:pollbottom -->

''This article has been renamed {{{{{subst|}}}#if:The O2|from [[The O2]] to [[Millennium Dome]]}} as the result of a [[wikipedia:requested moves|move request]].''. ''Sorry for not appearing to close this debate at the time.'' --[[User:Stemonitis|Stemonitis]] 11:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

# '''Oppose''' - All other music venues (e.g.: [[MEN Arena]]/[[Metro Radio Arena]]) are known by their current official names on Wikipedia. Consistency is required on Wikipedia and I do not see the harm in having a redirect to The O2. It is far more logical. TomGreen 20:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

== 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 Millennium Experience is necessary anyway due to the article's current length, and splitting off O2 would solve the naming issues. --[[User:82.45.163.4|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. ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|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. --[[User:Dtcdthingy|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. [[User:Js farrar|Js farrar]] 02:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

now listen punks i dont know what game you think your playing here but im afrad that you will have to listen and write that the o2 and the Millennium Dome are different so please dont delete it thanks

==Up to date photos ==

I'll be heading up there next week for one of the gigs - any requests for particular photos of the new O2? [[User:Paulbrock|Paulbrock]] 14:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

cool who u seein? [[User:Y2J RKO|Y2J RKO]] 18:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

: [[Snow Patrol]] (+ [[Ash (band)|Ash]] supporting!)[[User:Paulbrock|Paulbrock]] 19:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

==Requested move==

Millennium Dome → The O2 – See [http://www.theo2.co.uk/250505.html 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.

===Survey===

* '''Support with''' redirect from [[Millennium Dome]]. [[User:David Kernow|David Kernow]] 11:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

* '''Support''' + redir. from Millennium Dome [[User:SuperCoolAl|SuperCoolAl]] 10:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

:Moved. &mdash;[[User:Nightstallion|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Nightst</span>]]<font color="green">[[User:Nightstallion/esperanza|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">a</span>]]</font>[[User:Nightstallion|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">llion</span>]] [[User talk:Nightstallion|''(?)'']] 10:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

==Requested move(new)==

<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:polltop -->

:''The following discussion is an archived discussion of the {{{type|proposal}}}. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. ''

{{{result|The result of the {{{type|proposal}}} was}}} '''No consensus to move'''.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>[[User:Husond/Esperanza|<font color="green">ö</font>]]<font style="color: #082567">[[User talk:Husond|nd]]</font></strong> 19:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

*'''[[:Millennium Dome]] → [[:The O2]]''' —(''[[{{{4|Talk}}}:Millennium Dome#Requested move|Discuss]]'')— this is it's new, correct name. It's gained more publicity since the first band played there on Sunday. The arguement for it being better know as the Dome is redudant. For example, the Beatles eponymous album is on here as [[The Beatles (album)]] and not it's more well known name of [[The White Album]] —[[User:Lugnuts|Lugnuts]] 11:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

===Survey===

:''Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with'' <code><nowiki>*'''Support'''</nowiki></code> ''or'' <code><nowiki>*'''Oppose'''</nowiki></code>'', then sign your comment with'' <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>''. Since [[Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion|polling is not a substitute for discussion]], please explain your reasons, taking into account [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions|Wikipedia's naming conventions]].''

*'''Support''' It is now officially known as The O2 and the media have referred to it as The O2 since its opening. Most other venues on wikipedia are also known by their current names despite any changes. I've also heard it being referred to as The O2 by some.[[User:Tbo 157|Tbo 157]] 15:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

*'''Support''' but to [[The O2]], not [[the O2 Arena]], which refers to the arena inside the dome. (even the BBC mistakenly uses O2 Arena! - See pretty much every page at www.theo2.co.uk). It's the new name, within a few weeks/months even the news services will stop adding "formerly the Millennium Dome".

**'''Comment''' Ah, an easy mistake to make! I've tweaked the target move page in the above text. [[User:Lugnuts|Lugnuts]] 17:45, 27 June

*'''Support''' The official name should be followed instead of the colloquial (and incorrect) name. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 17:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

*'''Support''' It should not matter what people refer to it as since it will redirect to the O2 anyway, so that's a ridiculous nonsensical reason to bring up/quote. The O2 is the official name, has been for the last two years, has not changed yearly as someone else suggested, and the sooner people start to realise this, the better. I'm guessing the people who refer to it as the Millennium Dome havent been near it/heard any of the events that have taken place since the turn of the century and the subsequent name change. Frankly, I'm baffled as to why the name of the article is so outdated in a resource such as Wikipedia which is usally updated by the minute, and hence felt compelled to vote.[[User:Feudonym|Feudonym]] 00:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

* '''Oppose''' while I understand why you feel this should be done, I still refer to it as ''the dome''. The intro could be better worded, but essentially I agree with it. I find it difficult to understand the propensity to attempt to rename geographic features according to whomever sponsors it at the moment. It confounds confusion with other places sponsored by the same group, and denies the building's former history. If it were a new building, I'd propose a straightforward split. [[User:Kbthompson|Kbthompson]] 13:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

* '''Oppose''' *for now* 'the dome' is the more common name. Maybe in 6 to 12 months people will call get used to calling it by the official name, but lets not get ahead of ourselves. --[[User:NeilTarrant|Neo]] 20:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

* '''Oppose''' Per those above, and naming policy. It had so much (bad) publicity as the Dome, and has had so little of any sort as O2, that it will take a lot longer than 6 months for this to happen, but it will eventually - see [[Sellafield]]. Plus this is the '''fourth''' survey in four months; can closer please specify a cooling-off period now. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] 00:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' Obviously violates [[WP:COMMONNAME]] which is particularly relevant in this case; ''Wikipedia is not a place to advocate a title change in order to reflect recent scholarship. The articles themselves reflect recent scholarship but the titles should represent common usage.'' The only argument for moving this page is that O2 is the "official" name and the media use it. We don't name pages based on media usage, we base them on popular usage. There is no reason to ignore [[WP:COMMONNAME]] in this case. That doesn't mean the situation won't ever change, but it won't be for a long time, considering this is an important part of British culture that most people still refer to as the "Millennium Dome". [[User:Masaruemoto|Masaruemoto]] 04:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

===Discussion===

*'''Comment''' ''I still refer to it as the dome''. And? Do you still refer to [[Snickers]] bars as Marathons? Your local pub to the name it was before it was done up? This article should be it's correct name and not it's former one. [[User:Lugnuts|Lugnuts]] 18:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' The common name does '''not''' reflect the correct name. Millennium Dome is not the correct name anymore. This is probably the only article on Wikipedia (unfortunately) that refers to an article incorrectly. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 19:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

:Apart from [[United States]], not [[United States of America]], [[Star Trek: The Original Series]] not [[Star Trek]], [[New College, Oxford]], not 'College of St Mary, Oxford', [[Pelé]], not [[Edson Arantes do Nascimento]], [[Cowes Week]], not Skandia Cowes Week, [[Football Conference]] not [[Blue Square Premier]]... I could go on --[[User:NeilTarrant|Neo]] 13:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

:: Yes, and those examples are very relevant right? because calling 'The O2' the 'Millennium Dome', is just like shortening the United States of America, to the United States.. And dont get me started on Pele.. [[User:Feudonym|Feudonym]] 00:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' it sounds like we should rename if/when The O2 supercedes Millennium Dome in popular usage - how will we actually be able to figure out when this is??! Seems like we're stuck with "Well MY friends call it x". [[User:Paulbrock|Paulbrock]] 14:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' Obviously Neo, you do not realise that these are common names reflected upon the original name. "Millennium Dome" again is not necessarily the common name any more. This may reflect on a Google search that lists 36,300,000 articles on The O2 compared to only 2,060,000 on Millennium Dome. This is a disgrace. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 22:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

:::However it is easy to see nearly all of these relate to the well known mobile phone company, or the even better known gas [[oxygen]]. "O2 Greenwich" gets an amazingly low '''341''' ghits [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&rls=GGLG%2CGGLG%3A2006-32%2CGGLG%3Aen&q=%22O2+Greenwich%22&btnG=Search&meta=]. Without the "" it still gets only 213K. Case proven I think. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] 23:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

::::Disagree... Greenwich is not always mentioned in articles (e.g. [http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article2686887.ece]) Also, "Millennium Dome" actually scores 130,000 hits (in speech marks). "O2 arena" scores 451,000 hits, and "The O2" with speech marks gets 1 million. '"The O2" London' gets 371k hits, '"The O2" arena" gets 163k hits. [[User:Paulbrock|Paulbrock]] 23:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::Just to add a little more chaff here, in News results from the past month "The O2" get 650 hits, "O2 Arena" gets 357 hits, "The O2" -Dome (i.e. excluding the word dome) gets 463, but some of these are relating to to the company ("The O2 Cocoon is an exciting new release that is a clam-shell mobile phone,"), and "O2 Arena -Dome" gets 263... Basically I'd conclude that in a lot of cases people in the News Media are still referring back to the dome to allow people to identify it. --[[User:NeilTarrant|Neo]] 09:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

::::::But on those criteria, "Millennium Dome" gets only 315, and "Millennium Dome" -O2 gives 118. [[User:Paulbrock|Paulbrock]] 10:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' Also note how everywhere else in Wikipedia refers to the venue as the O2 arena, or the O2, but just because people who aren't up to date with recent news, it redirects to an article with a 2-year old name. How very odd. [[User:Feudonym|Feudonym]] 00:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' Would it be appropriate to have two articles? A 'historic' article about the Millennium Dome, and a 'current' article about The O2? [[User:Nicgarner|Nicgarner]] 09:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

*'''Comment'''. It will need redirects from [[O2]] and [[The O2]] (with letter oh) and [[02]] and [[The 02]] (with zero), and likely a hatline redirect in [[Oxygen]]. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 08:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the {{{type|proposal}}}. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:pollbottom -->

== Arena Capacity==

Does anyone know the actual capacity of the arena? Capacity claims in different sources range from 16, 000 to 23, 000. Some sources also claim that it is the largest indoor arena in Europe but it is unknown if this is true.[[User:Tbo 157|Tbo 157]] 18:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

== First music venue in London ==

The "first venue built specifically for music in London"? The Royal Opera House? Also it's converted from the millennium dome not built specifically as an arena! [[User:Dieschoenemuellerin|Dieschoenemuellerin]] 22:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

:Well you're half right - the reference for that statement says first since 1871 (article now amended). The Arena is built INSIDE the dome, not converted from it, it's a building inside a building, and very impressive...[[User:Paulbrock|Paulbrock]] 09:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

==Requested move==

<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:polltop -->

:''The following discussion is an archived discussion of the {{{type|proposal}}}. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. ''

{{{result|The result of the {{{type|proposal}}} was}}} '''Speedy Close'''. This proposal has just been discussed last week. See above.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>[[User:Husond/Esperanza|<font color="green">ö</font>]]<font style="color: #082567">[[User talk:Husond|nd]]</font></strong> 02:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[[Millennium Dome]] → [[The O2]] — SHAME SHAME SHAME that this contemptable title still reigns over this article. —[[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 01:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

===Survey===

:''Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with'' <code><nowiki>*'''Support'''</nowiki></code> ''or'' <code><nowiki>*'''Oppose'''</nowiki></code>'', then sign your comment with'' <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>''. Since [[Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion|polling is not a substitute for discussion]], please explain your reasons, taking into account [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions|Wikipedia's naming conventions]].''

*'''Support''' - The common name shouldn't rule over the correct name especially when it is completely and utterly wrong. This cannot be compared to something like Spain vs. Kingdom of Spain as "Spain" is merely a shortening of "Kingdom of Spain". Besides it isn't the common name any more. Don't say that it is because '''you''' use it because I can just say that I don't. The media does NOT refer to The O2 as the Millennium Dome nearly as much as it refers to it by its correct name. 74,100,000 hits for The O2 on Google vs. a shabby 1,630,000 hits for Millennium Dome. Can we finally move this thing to where it belongs please? [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 01:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

*

===Discussion===

:''Any additional comments:''

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the {{{type|proposal}}}. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:pollbottom -->

== LIARS!!! ==

I won't OFFICIALLY request another move since it will end in a speedy close (like above) but as for what the retro Wikipedians are saying is wrong. The media now refers to it as The O2 and not the Millennium Dome. Google has 36 times more hits for The O2.[http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=The+O2&btnG=Search&meta=][http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Millennium+Dome&btnG=Search&meta=] FOR SHAME!!! [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 22:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

:I personally believe it should be renamed the O₂; that is the OFFICIAL name. Take for example [[30 St Mary Axe]], which the article has been named, despite the fact most people call it "The Gherkin". You would not walk around, and hear people say "Oh look, there's 30 St Mary Axe...what an odd building", and the people who would say that are just slightly odd anyway. Therefore, this article should be renamed to its OFFICIAL name, not its COLLOQUIAL name. (Sorry for all the caps, only way to out this point across). [[User:Gammondog|Gammondog]] 10:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

:Note: I have changed the opening paragraph to reflect the name chaneg; see what you think of it, I think it's suitable, but revert if necessary. [[User:Gammondog|Gammondog]] 10:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

:I was told we have to wait another month to give this article's dignity back (request another move) but I don't think we should wait that long. Is there any way we can do it now? [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 19:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

:The reason there are so many more google hits for 'the o2' is because google will pick up virtually any website with the words 'O2' and 'The' in it. Sites about the venue in question will be greatly outnumbered by sites about the company O2 not to mention that it is the chemical formula for oxygen, one of the most common molecules on the planet, and google will pick up all sites about that as well. Whereas, the vast majority of the google results for Millennium Dome will refer to the structure. As for the Gherkin argument. The Gherkin was never officially called 'the gherkin'. Its name is and always has been 30 St Mary Axe (just like [[Canary Wharf]]/[[One Canada Square]]). There is a difference between a colloquial name and an old name. The Millennium Dome was ''officially'' called that for many years. It has only been called the O2 officially for a matter of months and the overwhelming public in the country and around the world still call it the Millennium Dome. --

[[User:Warpfactor|Warpfactor]] 16:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Try this on for size: "O2 Greenwich" gets 317,000 hits on Google[http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=O2+Greenwich&btnG=Google+Search&meta=] whereas Millennium Dome Greenwich gets 280,000 hits[http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Millennium+Dome+Greenwich&btnG=Google+Search&meta=]. I just happen to live in London and I have heard the use of "The O2" dominate over the "Millennium Dome" through such outlets as the BBC, The Times, EuroNews, and even Fox. In fact, the most common substitute for "The O2" is usually just "the Dome" and not "the Millennium Dome". '''Now''' can we move this page pack to where it belongs? [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 16:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

:I live in london too. I don't dispute the fact that the media (BBC etc.) refers to it as The O2, but that doesn't mean that the majority of people call it that. Most people I know in london still refer to it as the Millennium Dome or The Dome for short. Not the O2. [[WP:NC(CN)]] clearly states: ''"When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?"''. I am pretty sure more people in the world would google Millennium Dome rather than The O2 even if the media uses the latter. --[[User:Warpfactor|Warpfactor]] 17:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

::Not living in London I must say that here is the only place I have heard it called the O2, even the media reports that I have seen do not mention O2 but refer to it as the Millennium Dome. [[User:Keith D|Keith D]] 17:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

:::That is my view too. My first reaction when I saw the O2 name was to think it was a hoax; the renaming had completely passed me by. I can see why Anschutz's PR department are desparate to rewrite history on this one, but I see no particularly good reason why we should help them. -- [[User:Chris j wood|Chris j wood]] 17:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

:Pretty sure? I am pretty sure that the peoople I know wouldn't. Tell me, would your friends use the name "The Gherkin" or "[[30 St Mary Axe]], and "Big Ben" or [[Clock Tower, Palace of Westminster]]. See, these inaccuracies are what bring bad publicity to Wikipedia and improve on its inaccuracy. It makes us look like a tabloid. The mere fact that the name has changed is something we should honour and just because some circumstantial evidence (i.e. the people you know call it "Millennium Dome") says differently, it doesn't make it right. Otherwise, we might as well state that all popular urban legends are "true". To conflict with the circumstantial evidence, I happen to know that most people in London call it the O2 and sometimes "the dome", much less "the Millennium Dome". [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 20:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

::The Dome is more commonly known as the dome. Most people In London and elsewhere still refer to it as the dome despite the media using The O2. I agree that the common name policy is a problem with wikipedia as most encyclopedias would use the official name over the common name but the policy still exists.[[User:Tbo 157]] 21:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

:Policy doen't say that the common name rules out over the official name. To say that most people refer to it as the dome is circumstantial unsourced evidence. I live in London and most people I know refer to it as The O2 ever since the name change. To say that the common name would rule out here is also wrong because in between "the Dome" and "the Millennium Dome", "the Dome" is much more common. In this case, if you want to go with the common name, change the name to "the Dome" or change it back to its proper name "The O2". This is also why "30 St Mary Axe" is in the right place. It creates much less confusion. Same with [[Clock Tower, Palace of Westminster]]. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 22:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

::I can understand what you are saying. I too live in london and have visited The O2. I wouldnt oppose a name change to either the Dome or The O2 if it was possible, as it makes sense, but the last 3 attempts at moving this page have failed. Most people i know from around London still refer to it as the dome mainly due to its bad publicity as the Dome and the fact that it is a well known symbol of London. A fair few do refer to it as The O2.[[User:Tbo 157|Tbo 157]] 22:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

:What makes this article any different than say... [[30 St Mary Axe]]? [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 23:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

::There have been no proposals to move 30 St Mary Axe to the Gherkin. However in the case of the Millennium Dome, the naming is controversial. In these cases [[Wikipedia:Naming conflict]] states that the common name should be used. I don't think The O2 is, as of now, the common name unless someone can provide a good enough source that The O2 is the common name. People may refer to the arena built within the dome as The O2 arena but most people i know still recognise the building itself as the Dome. [[User:Tbo 157|Tbo 157]] 23:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

What about the fact that "The O2 Greenwich" gets more hits than "Millennium Dome Greenwich". The Internet isn't only controlled by the media. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 00:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

::Not all websites refer to the fact that it is in Greenwich. Results present in searches for ''The O2 Greenwich'' would also be present in searches for ''The O2''. Searches for ''Millennium Dome Greenwich'' will also be present in searches for ''The O2 Greenwich''. Looking through the first 10 pages or so of search results for ''The O2'' and the ''Millennium Dome'', most search results for ''The O2'' are related to the mobile phone company. Some of the searches results in ''The O2 Greenwich'' also relate to the venues inside the dome such as the O2 arena or the indigO2 or completely unrelated topics.[[User:Tbo 157|Tbo 157]] 00:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason to add in Greenwich is because it would drop all ambiguous uses such as the molecule for oxygen. This way, Google will count the amount of uses in relation to the facility since The O2/Millennium Dome and Greenwich can have only one meaning. It shows that The O2 is still the more common name. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 02:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

::Although ''The O₂ Greenwich'' does get more results than ''Millennium Dome Greenwich'', alot of articles, if you look at the results, are not referring to The O2 but to the indigO2 or the O2 arena inside the dome. Some results are even wrongly referring to it as the O2 centre. You may be right about the fact that The O2 is the more common usage in London as I have heard people refer to it as The O2 but you also have to rememeber that the majority of these results are from English websites. I am not against renaming but another proposed move would only end up being closed with no consensus to move as the wider wikipedia community would vote against it, in particular, people who are not from London or England. In many countries other than England, I am sure most people would recognise The O2 as the Dome.[[User:Tbo 157|Tbo 157]] 11:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

== A slightly more scientific approach to 'what is the most common name' ==

I have done the following searches on Google. A search for the phrase "The O2" yields 1,120,000 hits, whilst a search for "Millennium Dome" yields 650,000 hits. However that isn't the whole story, since (as previously discussed) "The O2" is a much more ambiguous search phrase than "Millennium Dome". So what I then did was examine the first 50 results from each search. For "The O2", 24 out of 50 results actually related to the dome shaped building in Greenwich. For "Millennium Dome", 48 out of the 50 results related.

Now if we assume the same 'hit-rate' throughout the result stream, then the number of correct references to "The O2" is 1120000*24/50 = 582400, whilst the number of correct references to "Millennium Dome" is 650000*48/50 = 624000. That is (to me) surprisingly close, but it does seem likely that Millennium Dome is still the more common name for now.

This will change over time, and as the older name becomes more anachronistic. I'd suggest we repeat this exercise in a year or so. -- [[User:Chris j wood|Chris j wood]] 11:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

::While trying Google tests for myself, Ive realised that Google tests themselves produce ambiguous results. Google tests can be interpreted in so many different ways. Also inserting Greenwich or London to "The O2" and the "Millennium Dome", selecting UK pages instead of all pages from the web and which country's Google you use all affect the results of any Google test you try, even if you examine the first 50 results. Is there no other way of trying to figure out the common name?[[User:Tbo 157|Tbo 157]] 14:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)