Talk:PopMart Tour

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject U2 (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject U2, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U2 and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for PopMart Tour:


  • First LED screen at State Fair of Texas (monochrome? color?)


  • Additional concert dates
  • Initial announcement of Sarajevo performance

Set design

  • Detail on the 3 companies that manufactured video screen
  • Plexiglas stage
  • Add sub-section for technical specs
  • Create SVG image of LED pixels from U2 Show

Title of tour[edit]

I'm under the impression that the correct title of the tour was PopMart, not Popmart. This article may need to be moved.

Note the spelling from [1] --Madchester 21:26, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Profitability of Popmart[edit]

Presently, the article asserts:

Like Zoo TV, Popmart was another huge success in terms of revenue, although it was not profitable for the band. Despite taking $80 million in revenue, the show cost $100 million to run. Drummer Mullen Jr. said that the only thing that saved the band from financial ruin was T-shirt sales.

I am pretty sure this is untrue, but as I do not have any sources at hand right now, I haven't edited the article just yet (instead, I posted the factual dispute template). One problem is the often conflicting information about Popmart.

This is what I understand to be true:

1. The t-shirt sales comment was made about ZooTV.

2. U2 actually made a considerable profit out of Popmart. Their promoter promised the band US$100 million and if there was a shortfall, U2 would still receive that figure, with some money coming straight out of the promoter's pocket - in other words, U2 were not going to make a loss and all the risk went to the promoter. The tour cost a significant amount of money to run (I believe somewhere in the vicinity of US$200,000-$250,000 a day regardless of whether or not there was a concert) and lasted just under eleven months. The gross was US$171 million, the total operating costs were $70 million, and thus U2 received their $100 million and the promoter received the remaining million. - Axver 07:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Response to 1.[edit]

  • If Larry made such a statement, surely the interview (print or tape) can be found and cited. The onus is on the person asserting that he made such a statement -- we can never prove he didn't say it. (I have also only ever heard the T-shirt story in relation to ZooTV and suspect the individual is misinformed -- this would not be the only U2 article on Wikipedia to contain bogus, uncited information.) Recommend: removing the statement until such time as a verifiable citation is provided -- [| per Wikipedia policy]. 00:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Response to 2.[edit]

  • Link to a Rolling Stone article discussing the "$250,000 a day" figure and saying the band was guaranteed $115 million by the promoter, Michael Cohl.
  • Link to Guardian article discussing cost of tour as 100 million pounds per week, with an expected tour return of 300 million GBP.
  • Link to Boston Globe article also mentions a $115 million guarantee from the promoter (although it claims U2 will make $50-$80 million, which seems at odds with the prior statement); also states the first U.S. leg (spring 1997) made $48 million. Add the European, second North American, and "Rest of World" legs and $150-$200 million gross seems reasonable.)
  • Link to atu2 article says PopMart only grossed $138 million, the $100 million figure for what the promoter paid U2, but still uses the $250,000 per day operating expense, leaving just over $50 million in overall profit to be split between the promoter and U2, however they worked it out.
  • Clearly, most of these conflict. What are the sources for your figures (knowing that most of the sources above are not themselves explicitly cited in the stories linked to above..but are at least verifiable). 00:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Popmart TourPopMart Tour — The correct spelling of the tour was "PopMart," such as in its video release, PopMart: Live from Mexico City. The tour's logo (Image:popmart.gif) featured "MART" written small in the middle of the "O" in "POP," which should indicate its proper spelling. The spelling is also visible in this article. Crashintome4196 14:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move[edit]

Survey - in opposition to the move[edit]


Add any additional comments:
  • Not sure what the .gif demonstrates, as "Mart" is written all in caps. The spelling isn't an issue. U2's official site seems to shout it all in caps as well, and obviously we won't be doing that. There's a case to be made for CamelCase spelling given that it's in support of an album called "Pop", but I see plenty of references to it which don't capitalize the M, including 6-4 in in favour of a small "m" on the first page of a GoogleSearch (for "popmart u2" without the quotes). The U2 article also refers to it in lower case. No strong feelings, but if obliged to choose, would leave it where it is. --DeLarge 08:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
lol - wikipedia is so big that there are so many more important things to spend time on. Eds' time should really be spent on more important things. Merbabu 12:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 14:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Help with article layout[edit]

I'm working on this article, hoping to get it to GA-status soon, and I'm running into a bit of a problem. I have all my references and information, but I just can't decided on the best way to structure the article layout. There are a lot more topics that need to be addressed into this article, and I'm not sure how to sort them all, or what order to put them in. Usually, I base articles I'm writing off of featured articles of a similar subject, but I can't find any concert tour articles above B level status. I feel as if I can't continue writing this article until I get somewhat of a solid structure formed, because recently all my updates have been constantly shifting around the article, and I feel like its just going to become one big mess. If I could get some help on this, I would really appreciate it. –Dream out loud (talk) 03:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


If the table says that the height of the set is 98 feet, why does it go on to mention that the cocktail stick is 100ft?--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)