Talk:Astrodome

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:NRG Astrodome)

Turf[edit]

The article correctly mentions that the Astrodome had Astroturf installed many years ago, but the Astroturf article states that Astroturf is now obsolete, replaced by other brands of artificial turf. So what kind is currently installed in the Astrodome? --LostLeviathan 13:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It still has the original astroturf in it. It is removable for rodeos, Monster truck rallys, ect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.148.88 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 30 July 2005

there is no turf currently in the dome. it is a naked, concrete surface.Derek840378 20:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i agree that the article should be called 'astrodome' or 'the astrodome'.


also more could be made about the scoreboard and its details. also nothing is mentioned of 'brewster mcleod' the robert altman film starring bud cort, sally kellerman and shelly duval that was based in the astrodome. also nothing about the thrill shows in the 80's that included demolition derbys and also resulted in death of at least one stuntman. also nothing about how roy hofheinz (i'm pretty sure) lived in the astrodome in a private condo inside the building. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denverjsmith (talk • contribs) 10:11, 17 June 2007

Yes, there needs to be more information about Brewster McLeod. I would like to add that information to the AstroWorld article as well because various scenes were filmed within the park and on some of its ride attractions. And, yes, the Judge did take residence within the Astrodome for a period of time. I would like to see photos and information about his private suite(s). Jay77tx 16:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox tenant list has some unintentional humor[edit]

I don't know if the Hurrican Katrina Survivors should be considered "tenants" in the same sense a list of sports franchises and rodeos, but I'm not certain enough to make the edit. -- Bobak 20:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was added originally on 9/1/05, and while I'm sure it was well-intentioned, it seems silly and trite. There is plenty of info about the Katrina situation in the article, and while the Dome was a temporary homeless shelter for its victims, calling them "tenants" is a serious stretch. It be gone. Wahkeenah 20:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well... the City of Houston did issue the Astrodome its own postal zip code during the period in which the hurricane survivors took shelter within it. Seems like worth a mention to me. Referring to the survivors as "tenants" is a BIG stretch. Jay77tx 16:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name of article[edit]

The name of this article should be "Astrodome", not "Reliant Astrodome". When the park originally opened, and throughout the majority of its lifetime as a Baseball/Football stadium that's what it was referred to as. Corporate sponsorship didn't come into play until the Astrodome's last years. Even during the Hurricane Katrina crisis in 2005, the dome was refered to as the "Astrodome" without a corporate name. The takehome point is that it is known as the Astrodome. Darwin's Bulldog 08:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The key point would be, what is its current name. When Busch Stadium "I" was razed, its name effectively reverted back to "Sportsman's Park". But the Astrodome still stands. What is its current official name? Wahkeenah 11:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I know, it is the Reliant Astrodome. Reliant Energy has naming rights to the whole stadium. WhisperToMe 04:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • i agree w/ keeping the article name. darwin's bulldog, when the dome was opened it was not called "the astrodome", but "the harris county domed stadium"Derek840378 20:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they demolish the stadium, this article should revert some variation of "Astrodome". I don't care if it's just Astrodome or The Astrodome or even the Houston Astrodome -- as long as the name Reliant goes away. Jay77tx 16:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of name, does anyone know when the name was originally changed to "Astrodome" and why? Was it because the Colt 45s changed their name or the other way 'round? Ttenchantr (talk) 03:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as Harris County officially announces that it is going to be demolished, the name of the page should be simply "Astrodome." The referendum to save it has failed and demolition may only be weeks away. It was only named Reliant Astrodome after all of the professional teams had moved out and so keeping the Reliant name would be confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.172.40.53 (talk) 10:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

roof[edit]

Why is one section of the roof significantly darker than the rest? I was under the impression that all the windows were painted over, not just one section. User:69.91.80.137 19:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Only two sections were painted. It was done that way early in its existence, trying to compromise between helping the outfielders, and still allowing the grass to grow. The grass died anyway, and thus was AstroTurf born. Wahkeenah 20:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stadium Floor[edit]

i deleted this sentence "The floor of the stadium was never paved with a hard surface, like other stadiums. The AstroTurf was laid upon the dirt surface of the once natural grass playing field." because i have been on the floor of the 'dome and it is, in fact, concreteDerek840378 19:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC) i remember during football and possibly other events they would sell 'weezers' that were round propeler toys that you would throw like a frisbee and they would come back to you like a boomerang. i always wondered if they had those in other parts of the country. also nothing was mentioned of the beatles playing there. i think in 1964. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denverjsmith (talk • contribs) 10:16, 17 June 2007[reply]

Oh, man... the toys and souvenirs were some of the best things about going to an event at The Astrodome! Jay77tx 13:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judge Roy Hofheinz[edit]

There should be some description of what Judge Roy Hofhheinz did to get the funding for the Astrodome and get it built. As I understand it, he even had a luxury apartment for himself built in the Dome.Hanksummers (talk) 04:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold! Postoak (talk) 07:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that the Galleria was the first air conditioned shopping mall. That is not true. It was Sharpstown Mall. I think it opened in the early 1960's, but I am not sure. Gulfgate Mall, the first so-called mall, opened in the mid 50's, but it was not enclosed and air conditioned. Galleria did not come along until about 1970. I remember seeing A Clockwork Orange there in early 1972. B. Bailey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.193.18.188 (talk) 12:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oilers Game that was Cancelled[edit]

I made the statement more specific as to why the preseason game between the Oilers and San Diego Chargers was cancelled in the mid 90's. It is important to note that the field was dilapidated and run down, and that this condition caused the cancellation. To simply say it was "deemed unplayable" doesn't give enough information as to why the field was considered unsafe for a football game (could have been due to flooding, a concert the night before, etc.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChargersFan (talk • contribs) 18:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should we include baseball League Champion Series in 1980?[edit]

The NLCS between the Astros and the Phillies is considered a classic. Several of the games going to extra innings, Nolan Ryan pitching in the 5th and decisive game (back then the LCS was a tigher 3 out of 5), the Phils hitting off Nolan, and then winning in the 10th. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC) http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=804NAAAAIBAJ&sjid=z20DAAAAIBAJ&pg=3094,2177356&dq=astros+phillies+nolan&hl=en (Astro pitchers game 5 in the 8th: Nolan Ryan, Joe Sambito, Ken Forsch)[reply]

From a book from Phillies Third Baseball Mike Schmidt, http://books.google.com/books?id=KVvi5G_rlB4C&pg=PA61&dq=%22Nolan+Ryan%22+%22Joe+Sambito%22+%22Ken+Forsch%22&hl=en&ei=M2hQTLnAAYK88gaC-oXoDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22Nolan%20Ryan%22%20%22Joe%20Sambito%22%20%22Ken%20Forsch%22&f=false game 3 in Houston was on Friday, Oct. 10th, 1980 (page 62 in Mike's book) games 4 and 5, also in Houston, were then presumably on Saturday and Sunday. (in game 4, 4th inning, Phillies had two men aboard, no outs, a soft comebacker to the mound, did Houston pitcher Vern Ruhle catch the ball, or did he trap it? Houston first baseman Art Howe ran to second to complete an apparent triple ball. Had time already been called? A 20-minute argument, umpires conferring, including consulting with National League president Chub Feeney. A double play was ruled.) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A NBA game was played there 2/04/1969 Detroit vs. Cincinnati, won by the Royals 125-114 attendance : 41,163 . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.69.75.174 (talk) 00:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firsts[edit]

There was a rather glaring error in the first paragraph. This was not the world's first domed sports stadium. An interesting list of some famous large domes can be found at the List_of_largest_domes_in_the_world. If anyone wants to revise whatever it was first at, though (first stadium with a dome over a sports "field" or first air conditioned baseball stadium or whatever), have at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.99.10 (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More sources[edit]

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism in "Referendum" section[edit]

The text of the "Referendum" section appears to be directly lifted from an article available on multiple sites online, including http://sports.yahoo.com/news/astrodome-may-see-1-last-162229306--spt.html. The copy-paste job is evident from the formatting of that section, which neither matches the rest of the article nor conforms to Wikipedia's style guidelines. I suggest that the section be re-edited and re-formatted to correct this problem. 86.212.120.143 (talk) 00:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I formatted it. The paragraph contains quoted material by the commissioner which appears on many, many articles including the yahoo article you provided. Postoak (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus, so the page is restored to Reliant Astrodome, which was its stable title until it was moved in March 2014. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


NRG Astrodome → Houston Astrodome – I understand that the stadium still has a naming rights agreement (As to how a stadium that has been closed for almost a decade still has an active naming rights agreement is beyond me.), but the stadium will likely be demolished at some point. Even if it isn't and is preserved, it's likely not going to reopen for any major events. The stadium was known as the Houston Astrodome for most of its active history, and this is what most people would refer to it as such, if not just simply Astrodome. --Relisted. walk victor falk talk 02:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC) Jgera5 (talk) 07:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – but plain Astrodome might be even better. Dicklyon (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed - Just wait for it to be demolished. No need to change it before then. The general naming convention for stadiums still standing has been to use the current name, which was discussed back in 2007 when it was still called the Reliant Astrodome. When/if the Astrodome is torn down, then the article would revert to the plain Astrodome name (the most common name), similar to Riverfront Stadium, Sportsman's Park, Shibe Park, and Tiger Stadium, all of which had multiple names in their existence. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the relevance of whether it's standing or not. What happened to WP:COMMONNAME? Why was it moved without discussion to a new "official" name before the name became common in sources? I don't see how the brief 2007 discussion overrides normal titling guidelines. The NRG prefix does not contribute to any of the WP:CRITERIA. Dicklyon (talk) 03:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've also filed a technical move request to undo the undiscussed move to NRG Astrodome. The source cited for that name does not support it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This link and this link show it as the "NRG Astrodome" as the agreement includes all the buildings, including the arena and the former Reliant Stadium. The standard for other stadiums which have undergone name changes due to sponsorship reasons has been for the article title to reflect the current name without a formal move request needed and then redirects from the previous and/or common names. In addition to WP:OFFICIALNAME there is also WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, which states "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject" and "The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles." All other articles of stadiums still standing reflect their current name. OFFICIALNAME would be used if an official name were unusually long and thus never used in the vast majority of sources. For instance, the "official" name of the Cleveland Browns' stadium is "FirstEnergy Stadium, Home of the Cleveland Browns", but the article is titled "FirstEnergy Stadium" (with the Cleveland disam) since that's how it's referred in game summaries and other articles. --JonRidinger (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we ever see NRG Astrodome in a game summary or other articles (other than ones that say the renaming has just been approved), we can consider it at that time. For now, it's either back to Reliant or some other more recognizable name. Dicklyon (talk) 20:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support WP:UCN and remove advertising from Wikipedia. Wikipedia uses common names, not official ones per WP:OFFICIALNAME. And we should avoid advertising, since the advertising caused by the sale of naming rights can be avoided if there's a common name that doesn't use it, we should just try to avoid it. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 05:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed - Support - I moved the original article from Reliant Astrodome to NRG Astrodome based on several press conferences that I attended that mentioned that the Astrodome would be included in the naming rights. Apparently this is not so. I support the name move to Astrodome. Reference provided above supports naming rights will be applied to all structures within NRG Park. Maybe even consider moving "Six Flags AstroWorld" to the original name of Astroworld. Postoak (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That move was obviously premature. Even if the renaming has happened, and even if we had a source that said it had been done, as opposed to saying it's approved and about to happen, we should wait until we see secondary sources using the new name. We are not a crystal ball, and we are not supposed to lead in such things, but follow. I'm OK giving more weight to sources after the rename, but there have to be such sources. In any case, WP:COMMONNAME suggests that we can ignore the official name altogether if there is a more recognizable commonly used name ("Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred."), like Astrodome, which carries no ambiguity. I don't think this needs to consistent with things like FirstEnergy Stadium which had no distinctive well known name otherwise. Dicklyon (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The FirstEnergy Stadium example was because the "official" name was unusually long and not likely to be used in any secondary sources. COMMONNAME is to prevent articles being named things that are largely unrecognizable to most readers or are simply unwieldy as a title. "NRG Astrodome" vs. "Astrodome" isn't a major difference, especially in light of the article being named "Reliant Astrodome" for several years. According to the Houston Chronicle, the deal was approved March 19th. Perhaps the initial page move was done early, but by now, that's a moot point. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying there are now sources referring to the Astrodome as NRG Astrodome? I find nothing since the news of the renaming approval. Dicklyon (talk) 04:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that the renaming is still new and it's for a facility that is not being used by any team or organization, there aren't going to be many sources that mention it period, but especially right now. I have already provided three sources that mention the new name was approved and that it includes the Astrodome. In other words, it's not speculation and is reliably sourced that the name has changed. It's still new enough that the Reliant Park and Harris County websites haven't been updated. Even Reliant Park's Facebook page hasn't been updated with the new name, though they have a post from March 19 that says "Our home is now called NRG Park..." --JonRidinger (talk) 05:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the ground-breaking type of stadium architecture has a "greater enduring notability and educational value" than the bubble on top of WWII airplanes that nobody has ever heard of. Dicklyon (talk) 02:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I take issue with "no one has ever heard of" comment. It's not just WWII airplanes, these navigation domes pre-date WWII, and were in use after WWII as well. They fell out of use as radio navbeacons were deployed across the world (VORs, etc) and navigators disappeared from the cockpit of commercial airliners. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 04:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was exaggerating. I'm sure there are some folks of my age and older who have heard of this astrodome; but I haven't, so I'm going to say it's probably not primarytopic over "the" Astrodome. We can do a disambig page if you insist that the Houston Astrodome is not primary either. Dicklyon (talk) 05:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too could also hyperbolically disparage the Houston stadium as "a piece sub-par architecture known only to Texan rednecks" while hailing to the skies the astrodome as "crucial ground-breaking technology for aeronautic navigation, familiar to anyone on the planet with a passing interest in aviation or science-fiction." However, I have no need for that, merely to point out that the original concept is usually considered the primary topic both by policy (wp:primarytopic) and precedent (minesweeper, corvette), unless a case for an exception can be made that the derivative concept is overwhelmingly a more common name than the original. walk victor falk talk 07:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If only there was a way of figuring out what the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is. Oh wait, there is. (Let it be noted that "being first" has literally nothing at all to do with primary topic. Having enduring significance does, but not simply being first.) Play around with the case-sensitive ngrams--the Astrodome is WAY more often referenced in books. [1] Red Slash 18:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the case where the only way to determine a primary topic is exclusively quantitative, say between Jane Doe the film star and Jane Doe the pop star, one would need a clear prevalence in the favor of one or the other. A mere majority would not suffice, but a minimum of an order of magnitude would be necessary. The Ngram referred to is on the 1 OOM scale, and insufficient when taking into account the "educational value" of astrodome. walk victor falk talk 03:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An order of magnitude is about what we see; that's more than many (most?) successful primarytopic claims. Still, I would not object to Astrodome as a disambig page if that helps; certainly the dome thing can't be primarytopic. Dicklyon (talk) 03:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usually the educational value is about the same. But in certain cases we disregard from numbers, like with Avatar, despite the Hindu mythological concept having a much lesser number of hits than the movie or even Avatar (computing), the graphical representation of a person on-line. walk victor falk talk 03:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, Avatar was a discussion about the relative importance of pageviews. Obviously most books referred to the Hindu concept of an avatar, and therefore that concept "won the discussion". This is not even remotely parallel because most books containing the word "astrodome" refer to the Houston building. This is not even close. As opposed to "avatar" where the less-searched-for concept is far more significant on a long-term scale than the other(s), here the more-searched-for concept is far more significant as measured by mentions in print sources. To make it explicitly clear, for Avatar, book results disagreed with pageviews. But here they agree and there's no question that the Houston building is the primary topic. Dude, I just don't get what you're getting at here. Red Slash 23:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's wrong. The most widely used book topic was the computing topic of avatars, not the Hindu concept. -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, a hotly contest case like Avatar is in no way a useful precedent for anything. Dicklyon (talk) 00:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I've explained above, the Houston stadium is not the wp:primarytopic, so the fact there is a redirect is erroneous. walk victor falk talk 07:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect means it's established as a primary topic. I've seen you express an opinion that the aeronautical concept is primary, but I haven't seen evidence presented to support that argument. --BDD (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Direct RM[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. We have a strong consensus over the course of two RMs that "Reliant Astrodome" (and "NRG Astrodome") are not preferable titles and some move is necessary. We further have solid consensus that the stadium is the primary topic of "Astrodome" over Astrodome (aeronautics). A number of editors suggested "Houston Astrodome" would be a superior (or at least acceptable title) but I do not detect consensus for that over just "Astrodome", which would remain a redirect anyway. Cúchullain t/c 19:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Reliant Astrodome → Astrodome – As per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE as well as WP:RECOGNIZABLE. The stadium is most commonly referred to simply as the Astrodome (a title which already redirects here). I'll include the ngram as a courtesy but obviously this is what people call the stadium. (In case you were wondering, yes, we just got done with a move request from another sponsored title to this sponsored title. Looks to me like most people supported just moving it to "Astrodome" but consensus was apparently not clear enough--no slight intended to the closer. So I'm saying, let's do a straight-up yes-or-no discussion on moving it to Astrodome.) There is a theoretical case to be made that the astrodome (aeronautics) takes away from the stadium's WP:PRIMARYTOPIC claims to Astrodome, but I think Ngrams make it pretty clear that the stadium's the primary topic. Thanks. Red Slash 02:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ping victor falk, Jgera5, Dicklyon, JonRidinger, Postoak, Red Sl... oh, wait a minute..., and BDD. My apologies if I missed you. Red Slash Red Slash 02:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per wp:primarytopic, A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term., which means quantitative factors might be ignored if motivated. walk victor falk talk 02:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Survey[edit]

  • Strong oppose per my arguments in the move request closed above, and WP:TITANIC (a stub of an essay written many years ago by yours truly). One thing to consider when evaluating quantitative factors is inflation due to WP:SYSTEMICBIAS, as this fine stadium is designated for activities sportive and North American. walk victor falk talk 03:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support for the reasons discussed in the previous RM. This place is obviously the primarytopic for Astrodome, no matter how you count. Dicklyon (talk) 03:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but I do think the how of how the count is done matters; how do you personally do it exactly, if you don't mind? walk victor falk talk 05:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Astrodome" or "Houston Astrodome". WP:UCN, removes promotionalism on Wikipedia, and per opinions in the last requested move just prior to this one. (Though "Houston Astrodome" might be more common... either way, it's not "Reliant") -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 04:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It's certainly not "Reliant" anymore. One leg at a time (talk) 06:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. COMMONNAME and primary topic. --B2C 06:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support, but I think there is also a case for Houston Astrodome [2]. Zarcadia (talk) 06:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose NRG Astrodome, support Houston Astrodome. Per Wikipedia policy, sports venues no longer in use revert to WP:COMMONNAME. The stadium was never officially known as simply the Astrodome, so the common name among the names that have been the official name of the stadium is Houston Astrodome - the move to Houston Astrodome also dodges the issue with the aeronautical meaning of the word. In addition, I oppose a move to NRG Astrodome because we have no source stating that this is the new official (corporate) name of the stadium, and in any case the stadium is partially demolished and will never host any events under the NRG Astrodome name. Finally, corporate-sponsored official names are not always used as the article name - see Arena Football League and Kentucky Derby for examples of articles that kept the common names even when corporate-sponsored names were introduced. ONR (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Follow-up comment by same user: Within the United States, from 1965 onwards, the primary definition of "Astrodome" has been the stadium. In addition, the stadium has historical context as the first domed stadium in Major League Baseball, making it likely that the stadium will continue to be the primary definition for as long as baseball continues to be a major American sport. The argument that the aeronautical definition is worth a disambiguation page, or an outright move to "Astrodome", is frankly ridiculous. In any case, for the reasons I detailed above, the article on the stadium should be named "Houston Astrodome" with a redirect from "Astrodome", and should keep the note about the aeronautical definition of the word. Also, once we clearly decide on a name, the article should be move-protected to prevent this nonsense from popping up again. ONR (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Data makes it clear that the opposing statements are disconnected from the reality of COMMONNAME. Dicklyon (talk) 05:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Common name and already redirects here. Houston Astrodome would also be fine. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

  • In the end, wikipedia is an encyclopedia. When Diderot called his opus "Encyclopedia: or a Systematic Dictionary of the Sciences, Arts, and Crafts, by a Company of Men of Letters, arranged by M. Diderot of the Academy of Sciences and Belles-lettres of Prussia: as to the Mathematical Portion, arranged by M. d'Alembert of the Royal Academy of Sciences of Paris, to the Academy of Sciences in Prussia and to the Royal Society of London.", technical and technological items such the astrodome would have had an assured place, while it is not so certain a stadium would have been included had he lived today. Now, wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, so we can have lavishly detailed articles about all sorts of things. But if Denis had to make an editorial choice between the two, which would he make? Directing readers to articles is not (and should not) be solely about lazy convenience above all else, but implies an editorial duty to be didactic when possible to so unobtrusively, a crucial and central encyclopedic objective. walk victor falk talk 03:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's true that the data is in favor of simply Astrodome. But WP:BIGNUMBER is not the end all and be all of determining the wp:commonname, in that case we'd have the president of the United States at Obama instead of Barack Obama.
The "Astrodome" may be the idiom for the large Texan city stadium in the southern USA or even in the whole of North America, but it is certainly not so in the rest of the English speaking world. walk victor falk talk 16:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like a popular idiom in British English, too. Dicklyon (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Google ngrams are not very reliable for variants of English, as they can be heavily biased by how classification was made when the databases were compiled; it works well enough for older publications, when the whole corpus is in the public domain and is a representative body of English as written at the time, but it can't be considered definitive for modern usage, especially in cases where there the coverage includes a high proportion of newspapers and commercial periodicals such as this one.
  2. Notwithstanding the reliability issues of that data, again having a graph where one curve is above the other is not a definitive answer per se, it has to be interpreted. Just like when if you write about Barack Obama, you won't use "Barack Obama" every single time, but alternate and more often use short-hand like "Obama" and "Barack". So of course you can't help but have a higher curve for "Obama" than "Barack Obama", especially when the latter is a subset of the former, just as "Houston Astrodome" is a subset of "Astrodome". As an example of the usage of two separate sets, see this ngram; it shows that "U.S." is more prevalent than "United States" (and "United States of America" together, since the former is included in the latter, and notice how the query has been processed to discard "US"), yet that's no reason for moving United Stated from where it is now. walk victor falk talk 23:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree about all that. But you had asserted that The "Astrodome" may be the idiom for the large Texan city stadium in the southern USA or even in the whole of North America, but it is certainly not so in the rest of the English speaking world. I didn't see a better way to look for the basis of that assertion than the book n-grams. What have you got? Dicklyon (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I asked those blokes at the pub (; Seriously, if polled my guess is that most would answer "Eh... some kind of astronomical or spacecraft device?", rather fewer the fully correct "the plexiglass dome for navigation" and then some "Oh, that stadium where they had all those Katrina refugees", this last option diminishing as the media impact of the hurricane fades into history. walk victor falk talk 19:10, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you're getting at. A British person would have no idea what Fenway Park is and likewise an American wouldn't recognize Old Trafford. These are still both significant stadiums with documented histories and just because you don't understand its importance doesn't mean it's not. Zarcadia (talk) 04:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That, and the fact that this was not near Katrina. Dicklyon (talk) 05:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fenway Park proves my point. It is at Fenway Park, even if "Fenway" redirects there. I'd be happy for the same solution for this article, being at Houston Astrodome with "Astrodome" redirecting there, and leaving astrodome (aeronautics) where it is, since there doesn't seem to be a consensus about its wp:primarytopicness. walk victor falk talk 06:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Brewster McCloud[edit]

Shouldn't there be a reference to the Altman film Brewster McCloud somewhere? I would do it if I knew how. Bluefox79830 (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a reference is already there, in the "Teams and notable events" section? Postoak (talk) 03:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second Home?[edit]

"It served as the second home to the Houston Astros...and Houston Oilers." Wasn't it those teams' primary home statium? If not, what was the first home? 70.174.128.14 (talk) 21:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is in reference to the chronological order. The Astros (Colt .45s) played at Colt Stadium first before moving to the Astrodome. Minute Maid Park is their third home. For the Oilers, the Astrodome was their third home stadium. There is probably a better way to word that, however, since it does sound like it is saying the Astrodome wasn't either team's primary stadium. --JonRidinger (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Astrodome. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Archived source found in diff as [3]. Checked; working. Dschslava Δx parlez moi 00:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Astrodome/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

potential GA Postoak 22:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 19:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC). Substituted at 08:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Astrodome. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 09:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Astrodome. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Astrodome. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 15:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Astrodome "was" the world's first...[edit]

As far as I know, the Astrodome has not been torn down. Had that been the case, I think "was" would be correct but I think it should read "the Astrodome IS the world's first..." as it is still standing.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Astrodome&oldid=1195563712"