Talk:Rogers Centre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag
Portal
 Rogers Centre is maintained by WikiProject Baseball, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of baseball and baseball-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
WikiProject Baseball To-do:
edit 

Contents

[edit] SkyDome or Sky Dome?

Is it SkyDome or Sky Dome? -- Zoe

It is usually SkyDome - SimonP

I'm not sure the SkyDome is the only stadium with a retractable roof any more. How about Reliant Park in Houston? Or the Millenium Stadium in Cardiff? DJ Clayworth 16:55, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)


There are at least 3 rectractable roof stadiums in the US Smith03 17:03, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] 37,000 +?

Doesn't it seat a lot more than 37 000 people? I thought it was capable of seating about 55 000 or so. Not that it ever does anymore... Adam Bishop 17:32, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You're right, I fixed the figures. - SimonP 18:24, Aug 13, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Giant toilet bowl

It's also probably the only stadium in the major leagues where you feel as if you're inside a giant toilet bowl. And how about those 18" wide seats for the unwashed? At least at the "wholly inadequate" Exhibition you could sit between two people without having to hold your arms in front of you like a trained seal. The grandstand at the Ex was a great place. Pay a buck to get in with your Dominion ticket, or a deuce if you shopped at Loblaws, get better seats than the people in the expensive sections, get protection from the sun unlike the expensive sections, and home plate was only a mile or so away. TronTonian 02:17, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

I took the POV about the Ex out (although I have to admit the expensive sections there did not offer value for money – especially beyond the right field fence) and added a bit of what my aging memory recalls about why the Ex was replaced. TronTonian 03:00, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Usage

And the Canadians I live among do not have any standard way of referring to the (sic) Skydome; sometimes they use the article and sometimes they don't. TronTonian 13:32, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

And I read some accounts of Jays' games this weekend which referred to the Skydome. TronTonian 00:25, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Skydome Name controversy

There is signifigant public criticism regarding changing Skydome to Rogers Centre. It should be kept in. Agree / disagree?

Probably only that first sentence should be kept ("There is significant public opposition..."), also it would be a good idea to combine it with "until recently called SkyDome". Colonel Cow 00:54, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Personally I am upset with the new name, but we'll see in the next few days whether there is indeed "significant" opposition, since this was just announced yesterday. But either way I'm sure most people would rather have the original name. --130.15.194.113 18:52, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Checkout Toronto Star's discussion on this matter. Looks pretty signifigant to me. http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1107342420103&call_pageid=968867503640&col=970081593064

It's been ingrained in our culture for a good 15 years. It'll take a while for the name to settle in (if ever). The new name's just so bland. --Madchester 00:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My god, those people at Rogers are ego-centric idiots.

From all of the offical sites (Jays, MLB, Rogers) it seems that all the occurrences of the word "Skydome" was replaced by "Rogers Centre", except for any explicit historical reference to the name itself. Should we now comb through Wikipedia and do the same? Canadian popcan 05:46, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think that's a corporate decision more than anything else. Then again, everyone calls it the (Molson) Amphitheatre and not the Forum, even though there was a lot of backlash back then. --Madchester 17:49, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
Hey, the forum was a different (round) structure which was torn down and replaced by the new Molson Amphitheatre. --Greg 19-Jul-05
Disagree: One newspaper "We asked you" editorial hardly justifies "significant public opposition". Frankly it sounds like POV to me. I think most people could care less. Both SkyDome and Rogers Centre are rather unimaginative names. Until there are demonstations at the stadium protesting the name change, leave it out. DoubleBlue 13:42, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
A cursory read of Globe and Mail editorials shows many anti-Rogers Centre editorials and comments, but few pro-Rogers Centre editorials and comments. Since everybody calls it the SkyDome, let's call it the SkyDome (officially named Rogers Centre). We need more criticism of the name in this article. Let's not give in to the Rogers corporate empire, buy a competitor's cell phone, and continue to call the SkyDome the SkyDome. If anyone calls 40 Bay Street anything but 40 Bay Street, I'm going to scream and fly WestJet. Andrew pmk 00:45, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What if I call it the Hangar? :) DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't we call it SkyDome in the article for all events before 2005? EX: The first retractable roof stadium was called SkyDome, Rod Robbie and Michael Ellen designed SkyDome, not the Rogers Centre. --MJR 02:29, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe it's enough to say that SkyDome was the original name. It is quite correct to say that the Rogers Centre was designed by Robbie and Allen. They did design it. It's also true that the Rogers Centre has the world's first mechanical fully retractable roof. Only the name's changed; the major features of the building have not. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I also think that it should be referred to as SkyDome when you are talking about events that happened while it was the SkyDome. They even seem to do that during a lot of Jays telecasts. -priester 11:44, 5 Sept 2005


At the very least the article should say when the name was changed, so we know that Radiohead actually played in the SkyDome (there must be t-shirts around to prove this). To do otherwise is far too Big-Brothery revisionist. I see it gives a date of the Rogers announcement buried further down, but it should say "before Feb 2005 called the Skydome" instead of "formerly called the skydome". (And BTW I don't like it and will continue to verbally call it the Skydome). -Greg 19-Jul-05

Yes: the renaming is, sadly, a fait accompli and usage in Wp should appropriately reflect that. I wonder whether everyone's interests would've been served if Rogers renamed the complex to Rogers SkyDome. Ah well! E Pluribus Anthony 19:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Alas, SkyDome was smoother in your mouth. Roger's attempt in advertising will probably cause its sales to drop. Duinemerwen 15:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tallest and most massive MLB stadium?

Can anyone verify this new line: "It is the tallest and most massive stadium used by any Major League Baseball team" ? DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:49, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rogers Centre is the site of several major high school and collegiate sporting competitions

Rogers Centre has been the site but what major high school and collegiate sports championships are upcoming? The Vanier Cup was at Ivor Wynne last year and will be there again this year and in 2007 and 2008. Next year, it will be at U. Sask. For the foreseeable future, then, Rogers Centre will not be the site of the Vanier Cup. A reference for you: http://www.oua.ca/news/?id=2330 DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

So that means that it is still one of the site of the Vanier Cup. I fixed it to reflect that. Just like London is an Olympic city even though it hasn't hosted one in 50 years and won't be hosting another one until 7 years from now. --70.29.1.197 03:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

  • How does saying the Rogers Centre is the site of the Vanier Cup reflect that it's not anymore? I can see that it's contentious for some reason to say "once was", however, so I'll try a different construction of the sentence entirely. :-( DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] roof

Regarding the "first stadium to have a fully-retractable motorized roof", here is a list of "retractable roofs" before SkyDome:

  • 72 The Roman Colosseum
  • 1961 Pittsburgh Mellon Arena
  • 1976 Montreal Olympic Stadium (retractable in 1988)
  • 1988 Melbourne Rod Laver Arena
  • (1989 SkyDome)

So, what is "fully retractable", what is "motorized" and what importance to we give "stadium" vs. "Arena"?

Regarding motorized, we can agree that the Colosseum is not a candidate.

Fully retractable might mean that when the roof is fully retracted, the largest playing surface has no roof directly above it. In this case, Mellon Arena is not a candidate, Montreal might not be a candidate, and the Rod Laver Arena might be a candidate though labeled "arena".

IMHO, the statement "first stadium to have a fully-retractable motorized roof" is true. I think the other stadiums listed above can say they are the "first some kind of retractable roof" and be able to have it accepted by the world at large. Maybe if Category:Retractable-roof_stadiums had a companion page like Tallest_buildings but ordered by date of operability, then what is marketable and what is fact might bring things to light.

--Mbubel 16:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well Mellon Arean was only partially retractable, Montreal Olympic Stadiums roof didn't work until after SkyDome opened, and the Melbourne Areana is a tennis court, not a full fledge stadium as defined by N. American/European standards - and Rome Colossem doesn't really count -too small. The roof wasn't weather proof creating a sealed environment, just kept the sun off the crowd.

-- Themepark

[edit] Skydome hijinks?

Am I the only person who recalls that during some game, there was a couple who had sex in one of the rooms that was visible, at least on camera, to folks in the park? I believe this was sometime in the 90s, but I'm not sure.

This has actually happened on more than 1 occasion. Is it really worth putting into the article though? 128.100.89.51 13:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Sadly, you are not alone ... and neither were they! :) Yes: I think, if cited sources are included, it is substantial enough an occurrence that it should be briefly included in the article. Perhaps (for added value) such a statement could have wikilinks to privacy, legality, public spaces, criminality, and the like. E Pluribus Anthony 22:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

-With regards to needing a citation for the bit about the masterbatory incident, would this page count? http://www.pubclub.com/toronto/postparty.htm --Curtis 02:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CN Tower

I know that when the dome is open people looking through the glass floors on the observation decks can see down into the stadium. The day I was there the dome was closed though.
JesseG 18:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Skydome Trivia

In the trivia section it said that "The retractable roof was a demand made by the Blue Jays, who hoped that it would kill the deal so they could make their own park exclusively for baseball". I remember watching a Modern Marvels episode that discussed Skydome, and it said that the whole idea for the roof was so that they could enjoy outdoor baseball when it was warm and indoor baseball when it wasn't. I never remember ever hearing about the whole idea for the roof was just so they would have the idea rejected. Jayann 23:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It was in the book "Diamond Dreams: 20 Years of Blue Jays Baseball" that the Jays were planning their own baseball-only stadium and demanded the retractable roof hoping it would kill the SkyDome project, so they could go forward with their own. Priester 18:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Recent v. Future developments

How much of Future would go in the recent development? Do they Have more to go? slu2008 10 April 2006

[edit] Restructuring

This article seems to need some restructuring. The history/futurey section seems to need some help. The other content needs some work too. Until I changed it, it still had the jumbotron in present tenses. TheHYPO 11:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Faster Roof?

I thought I remember hearing that they had either made improvements or simply decided it was safe to move the roof faster, and it could now make it's journey quicker than 20 minutes.

According to the current Blue Jays official Rogers Centre A-Z Guide http://toronto.bluejays.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/tor/ballpark/a_z_guide.jsp, "Total time to fully open or close the roof is 20 minutes." --Curtis 03:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stadium Firsts

I was looking at the articles for other MLB stadiums, and some of them have a list of "firsts" for the stadium(see Minute Maid Park or Jacobs Field). Although the first win and the first homerun are listed in the trivia sections, it might be an idea to include a similar table for the Rogers Centre. If I get time, I may start one. Aericanwizard 21:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If I get to it before you, I can do that :) I have an old Blue Jays media guide with a table of SkyDome "firsts". Canadian popcan 04:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jumbotron image

An image halfway down the page is captioned "The center field Jumbotron was one of the largest of its kind in the world." - however, the image is of the new screen and not of the former Sony Jumbotron. TheHYPO 15:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


Is it officially called the "Jaysvision" now? Is it still called that during non-baseball events? Canadian popcan 04:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Larger variety of images,

Instead of just having Jays pictures, can we get some pictures from other events? Such as Toronto Argonauts football?--J3wishVulcan 01:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Larger variety? There are only 2 images in the article that are inside the venue (and happen to be baseball. I don't see a reason to complain that that 'isn't enough variety'. It's one thing to want to see football mode, but another to say that there is a problem with the existing images. I don't see the latter. TheHYPO 04:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
feel free to add as many images as you want: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:SkyDome —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Themepark (talk • contribs) 05:44, 3 December 2006.
I added the only image I could find on flickr of a football game being played at Rogers Centre. It's not the greatest quality. It would be nice if somone could take some nice photos of the 2007 Grey Cup/Vanier Cup for us next year!! heqs 19:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
is it my imagination or does the same pano appear twice in the article Chensiyuan 03:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Removed. Thanks.--J3wishVulcan 03:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/o/g/Talk%7ERogers_Centre_2d53.html"