Talk:Millennium Dome

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Millennium Dome article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details

Architecture Portal This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Johannes Itten. 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. B This article has been rated as b-Class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. This article is part of WikiProject Engineering, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, join the project, visit the project portal, and contribute to the project discussion. B This article has been rated as b-Class on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance.

Contents 1 Advertising in this article 2 Attendance 3 AD -> CE 4 The O2 5 Source for this? 6 Idiotic move 7 Duplicate 8 The Exhibits 9 Grid Reference 10 Chronology 11 largest? 12 Requested move 12.1 Survey 12.1.1 Survey - in support of the move 12.1.2 Survey - in opposition to the move 12.2 Discussion 13 Split 14 Up to date photos 15 Requested move 15.1 Survey 16 Requested move(new) 16.1 Survey 16.2 Discussion 17 Arena Capacity 18 First music venue in London 19 Requested move 19.1 Survey 19.2 Discussion 20 LIARS!!! 21 A slightly more scientific approach to 'what is the most common name' 22 Splitting into two articles 23 Website Domains including www.Dome.co.uk 24 Past & Present Tenses 25 Merge 26 RFC: Should the article, Millennium Dome and The O2 be merged. 27 3 articles? -opinions 28 Should the merge proposal tag be removed now? 29 NPOV 30 TV adverts

[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)

The word "bonham" doesn't currently appear in the article, so this seems to have been addressed. Agyle 23:11, 24 July 2007 (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 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. Jeeves 15:13, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it stands for Anno Domini, not Anno Dominum. As long as we're going to nitpick ... 140.147.160.78 (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

• 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)

There's something slightly iffy and perhaps biased about the paragraph. It could be argued that many Tories were delighted that New Labour found the Dome project to be rather troublesome: it was a Conservative Party idea, and it went and bit New Labour on the arse. Subsequently when one reads the above paragraph, it seems that the writer is suggesting New Labour entirely buggered it up by themselves, and that somehow things would have been different under the Conservatives. Some would conversely argue that the Dome was a booby trap inheritance that the Conservatives left behind, like a nasty smell. Who is to say that the Tories would not have also buggered the project up?

[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. MRSC 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. MRSC 09:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)this is also a pile of crap

??? Dumb comment to be sure, but anyhow. I agree that it's pointless to have two articles on one structure. To me, what went on, and will go on, inside is merely the history of the structure itself. I think there should be one entry entitled simple The Dome with all the other names being forwarded to this one entry. Then within that there would plainly be sections on it's various incarnations, and what went on, is going and, and may go on in future inside it... --Amedeo Felix 12:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[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 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? Peter S. 18:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The dome is larger in area, but smaller in volume, than the Tropical Islands. There are many buildings with a larger area listed in List of largest buildings in the world, but with no indication of whether they are "single-roofed structures." The article List of world's largest domes should include the Millennium Dome as the largest, but does not yet. I think the article should say it's the largest dome in the world, unless someone can provide a citation for its being the largest single-roofed structure.

Millennium Dome internal diameter=320 m (from The O2 Venue Trivia), area=pi*r^2, or 3.1416*(320/2)^2, so internal area = 80,425 m².

Millennium Dome external diameter=365 m, so external area = 104,635 m².

Tropical Islands length=360 m, width=210 m. Irregular shape, but the most its area could be, even if it were a rectangle, would be 210*170, or 76,650 m².

Volume for the dome, given as "3.8 billion pints of beer," is roughly 2.2 million m³, assuming imperial pints. So it would be smaller in volume. The Dome's roof is 50 m max, while the Islands' is 107 m, so that makes sense. Agyle 22:31, 24 July 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)

1. 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)

[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)

Haha, The O2 *is* the Millennium Dome.

Splitting off Millennium 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)

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

Question: Are there two entries each (I'll look after posting this out of curiosity) for say... The PanAm Building, now called MetLife Building?? The main building at Rockefeller Center known from inception and for most of it's life as The RCA Building but now called the GE Building?? --Amedeo Felix 12:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The answer is no, as you can see from the links I have added to my statement above... To me that argues that there should be only one Dome entry. --Amedeo Felix 12:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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? Paulbrock 14:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Snow Patrol (+ Ash supporting!)Paulbrock 19:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

hello exuse me for the thrid time in 2 days i have to point to you that the o2 and the Millennium Dome are two different places and they have dififerent names please leave the wirtting about it being the o2 and the Millennium Dome becaues its correct thank you and please do not delete it thanks.

Question: Are there two entries each (I'll look after posting this out of curiosity) for say... The PanAm Building, now called MetLife?? The main building at Rockefeller Center known from inception and for most of it's life as The RCA Building but now called the GE Building?? --Amedeo Felix 12:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move(new)

[edit] 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.Tbo 157 18:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The official website says "The O2 arena" has "up to 20,000 capacity...," while the "indigO2" (within "The O2") is "a more intimate enviornment." Its Events and Conferencing page describes "The O2 arena" as "with a capacity of up to 20,000 depending upon your chosen configuration...," while the indigO2 seats 2,350 or 3,075, depending on how you interpret their wording. The references elsewhere to 23,000 capacity may be the sum of the arena and indigO2. (There are also other venues within "The O2" as a whole). Agyle 22:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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! 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...Paulbrock 09:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

[edit] 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.[3][4] FOR SHAME!!! 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). 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. 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? 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. -- Warpfactor 16:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It has been called The O2 officially since 25th May 2005. It's only the slow dim-witted public who haven't. Feudonym 01:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Try this on for size: "O2 Greenwich" gets 317,000 hits on Google[5] whereas Millennium Dome Greenwich gets 280,000 hits[6]. 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? 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. --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. Keith D 17:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Please please PLEASE list or quote any media report/news article that refers to it as the Millennium Dome, without the o2 in parentheses. Oh, and something from the past couple of months preferably please. On the contrary, I've only seen it quoted as the O2, and rightly so, as I'm afraid that is the correct name.

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. -- Chris j wood 17:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

How about this for a reason.. Because it's called the O2. The fact that you thought it was a hoax when seeing the The O2 name in July 2007, is frankly puzzling. Do you not read the news much? Feudonym 01:29, 11 August 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". 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. 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.Tbo 157 22:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

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

No company called the Gherkin bought the naming rights and hence it has never been offically called the Gherkin. Feudonym 01:29, 11 August 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. 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. 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.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. 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.Tbo 157 11:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

One other thing we need to be aware of. The "The O2" name results from the mobile telephone company O2 purchasing naming rights. That company has since changed its name to Telefonica O2. So I suspect there is a pretty good chance that by the end of the year the big dome shaped building in Greenwich will be called "The Telefonica" or something equally inane. I think a coolling off period of a year to make sure the new name actually sticks would be prudent. -- Chris j wood 16:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Here are results from a different approach to google.co.uk searches, searching for the phrases "millennium dome" vs. "the o2" rather than the words "millennium" and "dome" vs. "the" and "o2", on 2007-07-24: "The o2" returned 1,190,000 results (the majority seem to be about the molecule and phone company). "Millennium dome" returned 639,000 results. Agyle 23:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 big 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. -- 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?Tbo 157 14:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Identification of common names using external references suggests a few other possibilities. Not sure any will help here. -- Chris j wood 16:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

To me the "suprisingly close" factor seems more than enough reason to move this article back to The O2. We have much less popular (but correct) names in their right place because they have been proven to be correct (i.e. Clock Tower, Palace of Westminster). "Big Ben" is wrong, it even says so on the article. Why should this article be any different, especially when the correct name is much more popular compared to the Clock Tower? Reginmund 18:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned before Google tests are unreliable. User:Husond has said that in the case of requested moves, the wikipedia community are a good enough source for the common name as they give their own opinions. Alot of people still refer to it as the Dome given this evidence. The O2 has only been opened for a few weeks and although it may already be well known in London, this may not be the case elsewhere, particularly in other countries. Other encyclopedias online such as Britannica are also still referring to the building as the Millennium Dome. I am sure eventually The O2 will replace the Millennium Dome in common usage due to the mass advertising and promotion campaign throughout Europe and the notable events there.Tbo 157 23:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

We cannot assume that all Wikipedians agree on this matter and even if they did, it is not up to the Wikipedians to decide the name of the structure. The final authority should be the owner of the structure itself. Titling this article "Millennium Dome" contradicts Wikipedia in many ways. The purpose of this encyclopaedia is to provide knowledge and if we report on something that is wrong, we would be contradicting ourselves. Neo-Wikipedians might question the reliability of Wikipedia due to the article being titled the Millennium Dome, yet the article also states that the name was changed. If we were to go by the opinions of the general public, we might as well state that all urban legends are true. Wikipedia also shouldn't report on opinions. Our vocation is to present facts in their purest form. The defences to keep it at the Millennium Dome are the following:

I don't think that many people in or outside of London know that the Dome has been renamed the "O2".

-TGC55

If they don't know that and they research the subject on Wikipedia, they will still be misinformed, thus contributing to Wikipedia's unreliability.

No-one calls it anything but "the Dome".

-Js farrar

Please move this back to the Millennium Dome, which is how it is universally known.

-86.136.0.145

Yes. I'm inclined to agree. The O2 should be the redirect as it is a rarely used term for this structure.

-Mrsteviec

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.

-(Anonymous)

*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.

-NeilTarrant

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.

-Johnbod

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".

-Masaruemoto

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. Without the "" it still gets only 213K. Case proven I think.

-Johnbod

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.

-NeilTarrant

According to Chris j wood's less vague Google test, "Millennium Dome" and "The O2" are close rivals with the "Millennium Dome" receiving 624,000 hits and "The O2" receiving 582,400 hits. "Millennium Dome" concludes to be less than %2 more popular than "The O2".

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.

-Kbthompson

By this projection it seems that "the Dome" is more popular that the "Millennium Dome". In this case, we are going half-assed by naming it "Millennium Dome" by being "somewhat proper" but not completely. Calling The O2 a geographical feature would put much emphasis on it seeing as it is only a building. The sponsor of the "geographical feature" should be the final authority on naming it. Otherwise, I propose naming the Transamerica Pyramid the "Big Pointy Building". I don't see why renaming it would disregard the former history as we would report on the history without hesitation, regardless of its name.

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

-NeilTarrant

The shortening of the United States instead of the United States of America is merely a shortening of its official name which is acceptable by the American Government[7]. The same case applies to "New College, Oxford", "Cowes Week", The appendage of "Original Series" is enforced because of its common usage today to represent a defunct television programme. Football Conference musn't be too enthusiastic about their official name, especially when their website is at footballconference.co.uk[8]. Pelé is how the footballer is outspokenly known and unless that changes, the article on him shouldn't.

Reginmund 00:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I am only trying to advise you according to wikipedia policies. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) explains that the common name should be used i.e. what the majority of the population wordwide use, when there is a naming conflict. The proposed move to The O2 does not have the unanimous approval of the wikipedia community and this is the way Wikipedia works. I suggest that we leave the article name for now, avoid disputes and try the requested move again at a later date, rather than creating a pointless argument as it is clear that this page will not be renamed in the near future due to the strong opposition.Tbo 157 00:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

hello exuse me for the thrid time in 2 days i have to point to you that the o2 and the Millennium Dome are two different places and they have dififerent names please leave the wirtting about it being the o2 and the Millennium Dome becaues its correct thank you and please do not delete it thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.201.246.87 (talk • contribs) 19 July.

The "common name" is much to close to say that it is superior to the correct name. According to Chris j wood's Google test (the most accurate), "Millennium Dome" is less than %1 more popular than "The O2". Give or take, it should not be considered more common. As for the opposition to move this page to The O2, it is 4 against 4... not as strong as you think. From reading the reasons given, the sentiment seems to be stronger in favour of moving it. Now the score seems to be about even. I reckon if we had another opinion, say... Telefónica O2's (which should be considered the final authority) this page would be where it belongs. Since the sentiment for moving it is even with against it and the usage is split down the middle, it seems necessary to move this in favour of its namesake... Telefónica O2. What do you think that they would have to say about this superfluous banter? Reginmund 01:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Somewhere in the above stream of comment, Reginmund says:

it is not up to the Wikipedians to decide the name of the structure. The final authority should be the owner of the structure itself.

I think Reginmund has actually, and possibly inadvertently, hit the nail on the head here. Read literally, this statement is absolutely correct. Wikipedia has no right, and indeed no interest in determining the name of the structure; that is entirely down to the owner. And if Reginmund has in somehow got the impression that this is a bulletin board advising Anschutz Entertainment Group on what they should call their property, I apologise.

However what we are actually discussing here is the primary name of a Wikipedia article. And absolutely the only people who have the right to decide that is the Wikipedia community. We do that by combination of discussion, research, and policy, and hopefully reach a consensus. The owner of the subject of a Wikipedia article does not have any kind of right to determine the name of that Wikipedia article. -- Chris j wood 09:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The owner, of course, doesn't edit the pages under superior authority, but as responsible Wikipedians, we should name it as they would to ensure Wikipedia's integrity. However, I think that this controversy is over as the article has already been split. Reginmund 00:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Reginmund made two statements, the first is certainly correct. Wikipedia has no right or interest in naming this structure. The second is however completely different. English is not a language in which we have to bow to some authority in our use of the language, the authority, and the right to decide on somethings name rests with the users of the language, not commercial interests. Thehalfone 08:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, on Wikipedia, we implement the proper name. Sure it can be called the Millennium Dome, but now it is deemed incorrect. Reginmund 20:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Splitting into two articles

I had been thinking about the name issue here without first noting the discussion on this page (!), but my view is that we actually need to split it into two articles. The (Millennium) Dome was one venue, with outbuildings and public areas, etc. and the (O2) Dome is a totally new venue that happens to be at the same location. The sole thing it shares is the skin of the dome itself; the insides were completely removed, the outside areas likewise. We wouldn't expect to squeeze everything about other locations which have had multiple buildings upon them into one article (cf. NYC World Trade Center, World Trade Center site and Freedom Tower so why should we here? Whilst the outer fabric is the same here the buildings are entirely different in use, audience, purpose, ownership, structure, everything. --AlisonW 15:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Also note that the current mess of what name to use results in incorrect content in the article; "The O2 was featured in the pre-title sequence of the 1999 James Bond movie The World Is Not Enough," is completely incorrect as, at that time, it hadn't even opened as the Millennium Dome and O2 had no involvement whatsoever, so by definition could not be the location for the film. Calling it the O2 then is retconning of the worst order. --AlisonW 15:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a well argued case. I hadn't appreciated the amount of physical change undertaken in converting the Millennium Dome into The O2, and the level describes certainly suggests two articles would not be unreasonable. And Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Dealing with historical contexts does seem to apply here when it says:

Note that it is not always necessary to use a contemporary name to refer to a historical place. For example, there are two distinct articles Edo and Tokyo, even though the two are essentially the same geographic entity.

Shall we go for it?. -- Chris j wood 16:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Unless anyone pipes up to the contrary, I'll do the split in an hour or so. I'm doing some additional research now ... 1st January 2005 appears to be the right date to place the split at. --AlisonW 16:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

agreed with the splitTbo 157 17:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Split completed --AlisonW 17:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You didn't leave much time for anyone to pipe up abbout what has been a hotly contested issue here. An hour and 33 minutes! Thehalfone 08:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid it was a case of my looking at the too'ing and fro'ing of the past and concluding that discussion per se wasn't getting anywhere so it time to "Be bold". I think it was the right decision :-) --AlisonW 22:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that sense prevailed. I have always considered to O2 and the Millennium Dome to be two different entities because the Millennium Dome was completely gutted and emptied of virtually all original contents. I went to the auction and was dumbfounded as to why they were bulldozing all the internal substructures (did they knock down all the three storey 'core buildings'. The grounds around the Dome contained completely different areas including the SkyScape building. I personally have been calling the O2 since for at least a year or two. I visited the O2 in July 2007 and it was very busy. The beach was just a pile of sand next to a digger (was this sand from Brighton?) K9ine 20:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the inside of the Dome was flattened entirely. Brighton doesn't have any sand; it is a shingle coastline and beach. --AlisonW 22:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

correction Brighton does have sand it is only visible at low tide.--Lucy-marie 22:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, perhaps it was Weymouth, I remember a southern news article about the sand being taken and that it would be returned after it's use but it may have NOT have been for the Dome. K9ine 23:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Now under review see merge discussion.--Lucy-marie 12:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Website Domains including www.Dome.co.uk

I have noticed that the www.dome.co.uk is no longer properly indexed on the Internet Archive Wayback Machine. It used to be reasonably intact but I have not looked at it for over a year and most pages seem to attempt to redirect to an obsolete domain provider. Did anyone else archive these pages? I think we should contact the Internet Archive and request that they fix the links and perhaps turn it into a 'Web Collection' to preserve it. Perhaps it should be preserved elsewhere, eg The National Archives? Were there any other domain names that should be recorded eg did www.nmec.co.uk exist? Who owns the copyright to NMEC items, did it revert to the Millennium Commission or the government or just become obsolete? K9ine 20:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at lots of printed NMEC material which, all of which I've seen calls it just 'the Dome' and never the 'Millennium Dome'. The article mentions 'MEX', which I assume means Millennium eXperience. Should this be in the article? K9ine 23:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Past & Present Tenses

Look, now it is true that the title Millennium Dome is passé, however the structure of the dome itself clearly is extant. As such it must be referred to in teh present tense. The opening statement is about the structure and not the "presentation", and that structure being still in existence MUST be referred to as "is" not "was"... --Amedeo Felix 00:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Except it isn't. You can't visit "The Millennium Dome" any more. You can't even travel to "The Dome" either. All the former names are exactly that: former. Clearly, therefore, stating "is a large dome-shaped building housing a major exhibition" is wrong. There is no exhibition, nor is it a single building - rather it is now a weatherproof covering for the new buildings under that skin. This whole article is about a building of the past - The O₂ article is about the present building on that site, hence the use of the past tense in the opening para (and throughout) is grammatically and chronologically correct. --AlisonW 09:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I have just noticed that Amedeo Felix has changed the tense to the present. I will not revert the edit to prevent an edit war but I do agree with AlisonW that "was" is correct. As the user has said, there is no longer a dome structure which houses the millennium exhibition. The dome structure itself is called "The O2" now. This article as well as many others state that the dome was renamed to The O2. Thanks Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 12:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 12:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

After thinking about this, I have changed the part of the sentence to "is the former name". This is what is done with the article, Edo which is Tokyo's former name. It also seems to make sense but please feel free to revert the edit if you do have any disagreements. Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 12:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Bravo! Now that's what I'm talking about. This is now a fully correct statement. I'm sorry but as previously worded it was patently incorrect to refer to the structure as being in the past tense, because the structure still exists. The statement as worded previously referred not to the structure's identity, but to the structure itself. This correction is first rate, and is proper to be placed in the past tense. --Amedeo Felix 12:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Im glad you agree. Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 12:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

The article should be merged with the O2 Millennium Dome because they are exactly the same building just under different management. The two articles implies they are two completely different buildings. The name of the article should be the address of the building like the articles on the "canary wharf tower" which is One Canada Square and "the gherkin" which is 30 St Mary Axe.--Lucy-marie 12:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. The current address of the building is The O2, Drawdock Road. I dont think it has a number. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 12:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The argument to merge is valid none the less. See my posts on the PanAm Building and RCA Building, and note from these links what happens even though they have changed identity too... --Amedeo Felix 12:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Both the PanAm Building and RCA Building have not changed in significantly since the renaming. However in the case of the Millennium Dome and The O2, the change is quite significant as the entire interior was completely rebuilt. To be more precise the Millennium Exhibition was demolished and replaced by new buildings. The only feature that remains unchanged is the structure of the dome. Also looking at previous arguments with this controversial matter, I don't think it would be easy to establish a clear consensus on if the articles should be merged and what the merged article should be entitled. Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 13:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I personally think not enough time was given to the original decision to split the articles. I think that the article should be Drawdock road or similar as the building appears to be the only structure located there. Please correct me if i am mistaken, note i am not including public transport buildings here. The original editor was referring to being bold and stuff which is valid but just 90 mins of debate is insufficient. I say that unless the while building was knocked down and started from scratch were are still talking about one building and its history. As opposed to Wembley stadium which has two articles because they knocked down the old stadium and started again.--Lucy-marie 13:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Quite. The exhibitions were not the dome itself, but merely what was contained within. Assuming teh interior of the PanAm Building were completely refitted to teh point where it is unreconizable from its original state would that too constitute a new building then? no, I think not. --Amedeo Felix 14:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't be against merging the articles but what bothers me is what the merged article should be entitled. I don't think Drawdock Road should be the title as this would be referring to a road. Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 15:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem with calling it what it is officially called right this minute (the same as on the MetLife Building page), and redirecting all other names to that (as well of course as mentioning those names on the page) - e.g. Millennium Dome, and The Dome. --Amedeo Felix 23:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Noting that I was the person who realised the split needed to be made - for all the previously stated reasons but - most importantly - Lucy-marie is entirely incorrect in stating that this is just the same building under two different managements. It is Not. The skin and twelve support points of the Dome structure are the same, but that is all that is the same. There is no other part of the building that was once called The Millennium Dome that is congruent with The O₂, and that is the prime reason why the split was made and should remain. As I note above we have multiple articles for addresses where there have been multiple buildings, and Lucy-Marie concurs that two "Wembley Stadium"s should likewise have multiple articles. Please everyone be aware that the buildings within the dome fabric; the entrances; the environment; everything except that stretched fabric has changed. These are two separate structures that share a common history but are otherwise entirely separate. Given the entirely different uses the structures within and without the dome environs are now being put to (as opposed to Wembley being a football stadium before and after) then even more so are the two separated articles justified. On a purely 'cosmetic' note, a primary consideration for the earlier split was that the article had got too long and unwieldy and needed splitting for structural reasons. --AlisonW 06:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

That's an opinion, and an erroneous one too. What you speak of is not the dome itself but buildings within the dome. the things in the dome were never the dome itself. So remove them and build new ones the Dome is still the Dome. I would incidentally not have separate pages for old and new Wembley Stadium, because it is a rebuilding of the same entity/identity. --Amedeo Felix 10:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't really mind if the article is merged or not but Alison W's argument is quite convinving. It is true that the Dome and The O2 are 2 completely different structures. It was mentioned above that if the interior of the Panam building was completely changed, it would still be the same building. But in most buildings like the Panam building, the exterior structure is some how connected with the interior structure. In the case of the Dome and The O2 however, the dome structure is independent from the interior. Therefore if the interioo is demolished and new independent buildings were built under the dome structure, as it was, it is a new complex just like the new Wembley stadium. The O2 can still exist without the dome structure as the building inside are independent buildings with their own roof. It is like a street under the dome structure. What was buiklt under the independent dome structure therefore is a rebuilding. Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 10:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to say something here. If a country is invaded by another eg Us in Iraq and the government is changed and the constitution re-written and institution renamed the country itself has not changed, but the management has not changed. We do not have to separate articles, we have one article, not two eg, we don't have one article on the Baath Party socialist Iraqi republic and one on the islamic republic of Iraq. There are separate articles on the leaders and events such as Saddam Hussein and the invasion of Iraq. but one article on the country itself.

We can have separate articles on the new owners of the dome such as Philip Anschuz. In my opinion unless the building is completely knocked down and restarted the history lineage needs to be kept in one article and not spread over two articles just because of new owners changing the interior. It is like moving the bathroom form downstairs to upstairs in a house it is still the same house.

Consensus also seems to be building towards merging back as only one editor has come out fully in favour of the original split, the original proposer, who acted hastily and without complete consensus, on this controversial issue.--18:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

There are only 4 editors involved. Perhaps an RFC would be a good idea since this has in the past been a very controversial topic. Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 19:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur.--Lucy-marie 19:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It should NOT be merged. The venue's present status is completely different to that of its former use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomGreen (talk • contribs) 20:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC: Should the article, Millennium Dome and The O2 be merged.

The two articles were recently split following the long controversial arguments of whether the article should have been named the Millennium Dome or The O2. See above discussions. Now, some users are appealing against this split. Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 21:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Correction The split not the merge is being appealed--Lucy-marie 22:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the mistake. Ive corrected that now. Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 11:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I have notified users on the talk pages of Wikipedia:WikiProject London and Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture of the RFC so that as much user input as possible can be gained. Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 11:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep 2 articles. Both articles are predominantly about the content, not the dome structure - Millennium Dome details the political fallout and content of the Millennium Experience held between Jan 1 2000 and Dec 31 2000, and The O2 discusses a new entertainment complex/music arena, its facilities and events held there. There is very little overlap, and other than a link at the top of each page, as there currently is, people are unlikely to be looking for detailed information on both the Millennium Dome and The O2. Wembley Stadium is a useful analogy, part of the infrastructure remains (wembley way, the tube station) but the structure is completely different, and Wikipedia should distinguish between events at the 'old' wembley, and at the 'new' wembley. Paulbrock 10:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep 2 articles. As per Paul. Although the articles are about one structure, it does represent two distinct phases in its use. Kbthompson 12:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Merge the articles. I feel it more sensible to have one article on one structure with a FULL history on that one page. --Amedeo Felix 13:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Merge the articles It is simpler to have one article and it will prevent a dispersal of information unnecessarily. I think that the overall building is the same is just being used for different purposes.--Lucy-marie 14:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep 2 articles. This started with lots of discussion about what to name a single article given that, in reality, there were two completely separate articles trying to be heard; one about a government-sponsored exhibition site, the other about a private corporation's music and entertainment venue. These two are co-incidentally on the same site and have the same protective 'umbrella' over them to keep people dry, but other than that the site layouts, buildings, purposes, etc. are all entirely different, with little overlap. The name change reflects that dichotomy and to try and force the two articles to a single one just makes for problems. My decision to split was not rushed, but was based on the evidence of long discussions and the history of the North Greenwich peninsula. This is not a matter of "one article about one structure" but two articles about two entirely different groups of structures. --AlisonW 08:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Merge the articles. More sensible to have a sinlge article with all of the information in one place and logically ordered so that readers can see it all at the same time without having to switch between articles. Keith D 09:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge the articles Splitting articles because agreements can't be reached is silly and just dodging the issue - It's also frowned upon by a guideline (See WP:POVFORK). I don't understand the problem with the name - the usual solution for buildings, is we take the current name as that of the article and refer to previous names in the article. There was some controversy concerning the original dome, but I'm not convinced this an argument for two articles - Scottish Parliament building seemed to manage it in one article with a similar controversy. If there is so much content it is making the article too large, a legitimate content fork such as Millenium Dome controversy summarised in Summary style could be used. --Joopercoopers 09:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment I don't think WP:POVFORK applies here. The O2 and the Millennium Dome are related topics but not the same. Refer to WP:POVFORK#Related articles. Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 16:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep 2 articles Both articles cover different stages in its history - for all intents and purposes, the Millenium Dome no longer exists. The entire history would be far too long to condense into one article. AlisonW sums it up best with "there were two completely separate articles trying to be heard; one about a government-sponsored exhibition site, the other about a private corporation's music and entertainment venue." RHB - Talk 18:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• One article or three. Either one article for the building and everything within it, or one for the building ("Millennium Dome", "New Millennium Experience" and "The (sponsored name)"). The building itself remains "the Millennium Dome", no matter what the sponsors want you to believe. LondonStatto 23:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Finding a precedant elsewhere on wikipedia might help. It's a difficult one. Both ways have good reasoning --Neon white 00:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• One article about the building, the landmark, its creation, and its entire history. If necessary, separate articles for things that have been housed within the building, such as the New Millennium Experience, or the O2 entertainment venue, but the building has not changed; it's still just a big tent by the Thames. MartinBrook ^talk 12:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• 3 articles? I'm actually coming round to the idea of 3 articles, as suggested by Martin, and LondonStatto. Stuff like the construction and design (plus events like Chrisis at Christmas and the Ministry of Sound new year's parties) would fall under Millennium Dome, whereas the political ramifications are best dealt with in New Millennium Experience. The O2 complex and events are then also separate. Sounds like a plan! Paulbrock 14:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment That might be a good idea since the exterior structure has always been the same but the interior was completely changed during the transition from The Millennium Dome to The O2. The idea has also been suggested before on this page. Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 15:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the two articles They are entirely seperate entities. Only the physical fabric dome is the same. If the articles are to be merged, the merged article MUST be title The O2, with a section referring to its former use and name as the Millennium Dome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomGreen (talk • contribs) 09:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the two articles and add third One article for the structure itself, and the two existing articles dealing with the "tenants", as it were. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seaserpent85 (talk •

contribs) 19:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep the two articles It would be too long as one article. I consider the interiors and usage to be significantly different thus justifying two articles. I believe people interested in the O2 do not wish to see extensive details of it's former use on the same page. I also believe it could confuse people as to what is inside and around now and previously. Most architecture articles on Wikipedia mention history, construction and basic use and nothing more. The Millennium Dome and the O2 articles are ostensibly about the interiors. The Millennium Experience was inside the Dome NOT the O2. Wembley stadium was a football ground before and after, tower 42 and the MetLife Buildings were office blocks before and after their name changes, they did not have a year of total internal and partial external construction. The Baltic Exchange is a separate article as I believe it should be although it's address was 30 St Mary Axe. K9ine 21:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Two articles The current building is still overwhelmingly referred to as "The Dome" as a landmark and to have "The Dome" not point to the current building article would be incorrect. How about having the main article on the building linked under both "The Dome" and "The O2" with a section titled "The Millennium Experience" giving a summary and a link to an article of that name. 88.107.215.91 14:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

keep them separate they are two different things 62.3.232.8 14:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3 articles? -opinions

Looking at the discussion above some users, later in the RFC, mentioned the possibility of 3 articles. Im personally not sure but I would like to hear the opinions of other users. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 11:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep two articles. Three articles are not a bad idea in theory, but I see several problems:

1. The historical background and chronology of the Dome and its exhibition, including funding issues, are not easily separable. The building and the original exhibition were conceived as a single project. Criticism of the project's financial management was equally applicable to both components.
2. The name New Millennium Experience seems to relate to the company running the exhibition, not the exhibition itself. Unless a better name can be found, I don't think we have any acceptable title for the new article.
3. The opening sentence of the present article suggests that the building is no longer called the Millennium Dome, i.e. the whole structure has become The O2. However, user Londonstatto claims above that "The building itself remains 'the Millennium Dome', no matter what the sponsors want you to believe." If that's true, we need a good source to verify it, otherwise we'd be making a fundamental mistake in the title of our new "Millennium Dome" article.

Since the contents of the building have only been changed once (at great expense), it doesn't really qualify as a multipurpose exhibition centre. Therefore I would keep the two articles, but make clear in The O2 article that the outer shell of the present dome is described under Millennium Dome. A similar example would be Bankside Power Station and the Tate Modern: clearly no good case for a third article in that example. Mtford 00:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I can see what you are saying. Most sources do clearly state that the building itself has been renamed to The O2 and it would be difficult to define the scope of each article if there were to be 3. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 19:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should the merge proposal tag be removed now?

It seems like a clear consensus wasn't reached in the discussions above. Both sides of the argument make good points. In my opinion, keeping the merge proposal tag on the article for longer will make no difference. Alot of merge proposal tags end up staying on the tag for over a year and so I think it may be sensible to remove the tag but I won't do it if anyone disagrees. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 11:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC) The merge tag has now been removed by User:Chris j wood. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 19:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

The Financial and management problems seems to be a little one-sided... Now I'm not suggesting that the Dome was a roaring success, of course there was significant criticism, but most of the section is unsourced and doesn't present any responses from the parties involved. The first line in particular is very very negative and should be reigned in a little, or left till later in the section Paulbrock (talk) 02:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TV adverts

Who remembers that later in the year 2000, it was seen popularly as such a poor experience, they ran TV adverts where someone was shown criticising it then someone would ask if they'd actually been and they'd say they hadn't. And that was it. The closing tagline was something like 'don't knock it until you've tried it'. It's quite desperate to advertise something by having to suggest (only suggest) it might not be as awful as everyone thinks it is. Around that time the place was condemned to the skies but it was probably more to do with the politics, finances and management of it than its contents or operation. Oh, and I did go and it wasn't as bad as people thought it was, but the show in the middle was quite unfathomable. 195.137.30.238 (talk) 08:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)