Talk:Millennium Dome

Latest comment: 1 month ago by Danikat in topic Missing detail in the intro

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Millennium Dome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Article abandoned?

edit

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? 47.71.2.160 (talk) 08:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

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. --kingboyk (talk) 04:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Referencing and references are terrible

edit

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. --kingboyk (talk) 04:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Missing detail in the intro

edit

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. Danikat (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

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." Danikat (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply