Talk:Millennium Dome
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Architectural history. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating 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 |
[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)
[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)
[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!.....
Cheers - Petesmiles 00:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
