Talk:The O2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

refer to Talk:Millennium Dome for pre-article split discussions --AlisonW 17:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

The article should be merged with Millennium Dome the O2 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)[reply]

copied from the Millennium Dome talkpage
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)[reply]

Please refer all arguments concerning this to the current on going arguments on Talk:Millennium_Dome#Merge —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucy-marie (talk • contribs) 18:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O2 or O2?[edit]

Shouldn't it be called the O2 instead of the O2? Are there any typographical problems in this? Bjost 23:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to an anonymous edit summary to the article recently: `The 2 of the O2 name should only be subscripted when used in a graphical logotype.' Not sure where this is coming from - one could always chuck an email to their PR people and see if you get any response. --Neo 15:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The logo we have on the article page clearly shows the 2 as a subscript. --AlisonW 18:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a note on the company's article which says that the subscript is only for the logo, and not the company's actual name. I would presume the same for the dome. the wub "?!" 18:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the wub rightly pointed out two months ago, the company itself uses subscript only for the logo and not for normal typographic purposes. This applies both to the telecoms company's websites and other literature and to the publicity material for the entertainment venue. It also applies to other articles on Wikipedia, notably that on the main parent company, Telefónica O2. So why does this article persist in the use of subscript? If no one can give me a good reason, I'll (eventually) change it myself. Russ London 10:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listing artists[edit]

I'm noting that every time someone appears (or is announced to appear) at the O2 someone is adding to the entry. Leave alone that this could have some element of advertising, I'm not really sure it aids the reader looking for information about the building / venue to find a list of everyone who has performed there (which, of course, will by its nature be incomplete anyway). This doesn't happen with other venues and, to me, it wouldn't appear to be 'encyclopaedic'. Comments? --AlisonW 00:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually alot of articles do list all events. Some articles on venues seem to exist simply for promotional purposes. See Manchester Evening News Arena, Hallam FM Arena and Wembley Arena. Tbo 157talk 11:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The O2 arena written like an advertisement[edit]

A while back, the section on The O2 arena was tagged with {{db-spam}}. I am currently planning to rewrite teh section of the article. Although im pretty sure i know which parts are not written from a neutral point of view, I thought it would be a good idea to gain more input to ensure that the article is written from a WP:NPOV. Any thoughts would be grately appreciated. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) 17:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was me who added the tag, the main problem was the description of facilities as if inviting people to hold their event there. I tagged it, as it was a rewrite rather then just a copy edit job. will have a re-read & get back to you with some points. --Nate1481( t/c) 08:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) 20:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This section is a good example of the tone especial the last two lines
However there is only 1 tier and a VIP balcony level, which is a restaurant and bar, at the front of the arena, where the stage is normally located. The rest of the arena consists of 2 standard tiers, and 2 suite tiers which consist of 96 suites containing a bar, furniture and plasma TVs. There are two sizes of suites - one which can accommodate 15 people and another which can accommodate 18 people.
other bits
  • Section on acustics
  • "The arena was built to be versatile."
  • The list of bands and events.
Altogether it reads like a brochure. --Nate1481( t/c) 16:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list of performers always seem to go over the top in any venue article. The list should probably be reduced to some notable performers who have performed at the venue. Regarding the other bits you mentioned, I think it is the wording and the amount of unnecessary detail it goes into. This does also occur in some other sections of the article. I will try and get more opinions from relevant WikiProjects so that the article can be rewritten to a good quality. Tbo 157(talk) 17:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed some of the parts which sound like advertising but more work may be necessary to get it to comply with WP:NPOV. Tbo 157(talk) 18:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a large part of the whole article seems like an advertisement. So much of it is very short sentences listing facts... There's load of good information here, but it's disjointed and doesn't flow. EAi (talk) 01:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reshuffled most of it to make it flow a lot better. I think there was too much information that wasn't really relevant. Hopefully now it is a lot more informative in a concise manner. Trixxy (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have to read a LOT before you actually see what the bloody dome is used for. The begining is just about that it is called O2 arena and not O2 that or O2 that. It's honestly a lot of O2 in the text. I mean, who cares about what O2 did, is it really relevant? If it is, it can't be the most important thing about this dome. 83.183.101.240 (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got fed up reading 'o2' every 5 word so removed a lot or an unnecessary ones (may be more could go), found some broken refs for the PR man to go running for when they realise their brochure has been edited, sorry I'm feeling cynical --Nate1481(t/c) 11:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear that there are alot of concerns with the way this article is written and I do agree that there is alot of advertisement style writing, unnecessary information and short sentences listing facts. And so I will try to work on a rewrite for parts of this article, if and when I can fidn the time to do it. Anyone is welcome to help. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) 19:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Music list[edit]

I removed these, they either need turning into there own list article or moving as the list will grow and take over the article, source for them would be nice as well before we end up with people adding small bands to publicity. --Nate1481( t/c) 14:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some past and future performers and events include Bon Jovi, Snow Patrol, Andrea Bocelli, Justin Timberlake, Barbra Streisand, Keane, Scissor Sisters, Prince, The Rolling Stones, Elton John (with Sophie Ellis-Bextor as support), Disney on Ice, 50 Cent, My Chemical Romance, Foo Fighters, Kanye West, Take That, Led Zeppelin, The Verve, Madness, The Spice Girls, Bruce Springsteen & The E Street Band, Jeff Wayne's Musical Version of The War of the Worlds, High School Musical On Ice, Linkin Park, Smashing Pumpkins, Alica Keys, Westlife, The X Factor live tour, Celine Dion, Girls Aloud, Boyzone and Carlos Santana.

Thanks for the comment. A separate article is unnecessary. A separate article did once exist but was deleted per an AfD. I think we need more input on whether such a list is necessary and if not, to decide which performances are notable enough. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) 16:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote this part as I don't think it was sustainable in its current form. Trixxy (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC:Proposal to split "The O2 arena" section of this article (The O2) into a new article[edit]

It has been proposed by User:KelleyCook that "The O2 arena" section of this article should be split into a new article entitled "The O2 arena (London)" due to the size of the article, which is likely to continue growing. Tbo 157(talk) 18:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Support split This article is getting large and the arena itself is notable enough to be in a single article by itself. Tbo 157(talk) 18:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do it, man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.41.139 (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support But the new article should be named 'The O2 Arena' as there is no other O2 Arena anywhere it doesn't need the (London) suffix. UNI|SOUTH 17:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: O2 has been buying up naming rights for all sorts of stuff. See O2 arena (Prague). -- KelleyCook (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have listed this on RfC so that we can get more user input. Thanks.Tbo 157(talk) 15:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support the split into two articles - it looks to me like the arena has enough to say that it could stand by itself (in terms of, say, musical events). Alex Muller 18:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After a week, posting this on RfC pages and various wikiproject talk pages, there seems to be no opposition and so I will go ahead with the split in a few hours as long as there is no opposition by that time. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) 16:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Split completed. Tbo 157(talk) 19:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"First American style multi-purpose arena in London" ?[edit]

What about Wembley Arena, Earls Court One, London Docklands Arena ? Don't they all count as multi-pupose? (eg Rock concerts / Royal Tournament / Boat Show at Earls Court?) Jheald (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the others but I suspect Earls Court wouldn't count as 'american style'? However I'm not entirely sure what this means! I would have thought that the Docklands Arena in particular was very similar in usage and design to the O2, if not on the same scale.Paulbrock (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"It is often confusingly referred to by various names"[edit]

Not sure that is the case; a Google search for "The O2 dome" throws up far fewer results than "The O2" or "The O2 arena". Unless someone can provide a reliable citation for this statement, I think we should remove this sentence. DavidJones (talk) 10:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a great leap of imagination that people commonly refer to the whole site as the o2 Arena, rather than just the arena inside. I doubt anybody calls it the o2 dome, although I bet plenty of people also still call it the dome, adding to the confusion. But I have no clue how you would prove any of that with a source (or rather how to find one that specifically says that), so if it irks you that much, remove it I guess. *shrugs* MickMacNee (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Chronology of the site" section[edit]

Um... What do the performers at The O2 Arena have to do with the actual site? I think these little tidbits should go away permanently, but if they must stay, they need to go into the appropriate article. I Help, When I Can.[12] 06:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Isle of Dogs.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Isle of Dogs.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 20 September 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:O2 Arena Cutaway Image.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:O2 Arena Cutaway Image.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership[edit]

In 2009 it was reported that the O2 arena and the O2 (used interchangeably in the media but distinctively here) were bought by Trinity College Cambridge. I don't know if this info is still current (it is on the college's wiki page, which references a 2009 article) but on here it merely says it is owned ultimately by English Partnerships, which is a defunct govt agency. It feels as though the info regarding ownership is relevant, but as I don't have access to up-to-date sources, I cannot add it. If anyone knows, I think the article could benefit from its addition.

I had no idea about this, it sounded like a spoof but here's a source. [1] Paulbrock (talk) 13:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on The O2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on The O2. 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) 11:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

Why this place is called O2 ? It there a reason ? Oxygen molecule ? I can't find it in the text. Thks, --Marc-AntoineV (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's just promotional for the O2 phone company. This is mentioned in the intro. Wire723 (talk) 09:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Storm Eunice[edit]

My entry is a placeholder for what will be an ongoing event - develop as appropriate. Jackiespeel (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_O2&oldid=1210779253"