Talk:Pontiac Silverdome

Closed?
The article makes no mention of why or when or if the stadium has been closed, other than the infobox saying it was closed in March 2007. I think someone who knows about this could at least add a sentence or two of explanation. aLii 11:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course now the stadium is being auctioned with no reserve price. The objective is to get the stadium on the tax roles.

This article does not mention anything about the funders of the Silverdome or whether they made their money back. There is no financial information in the article.

This type of information should be included in articles that appear to praise construction regimes to act as a balance when the constuction terminates as it has done at the silverdome.Henryjoseph (talk) 14:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

New Orleans Saints playing there?
I never heard the rumor that the Saints would play there and I live 15 miles from the place. Without a citation the sentence should be deleted.

Dom316 00:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Toronto F.C. playing there?
No where in the linked article does it mention "secondary home for toronto f.c.". Without a citation the sentence should be deleted. 199.71.183.2 (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Pope attendance
Anyone got a cite for that number?76.226.104.188 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC).

Orphaned references in Pontiac Silverdome
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Pontiac Silverdome's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "slam": From WrestleMania XXIV:  From WrestleMania III:  From WrestleMania IX:  From WrestleMania (1985):  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Attendance at WrestleMania III
The 93,173 figure invented by WWE wasn't possible, and has been refuted by various sources since the event, including the promoter of the event (Zane Bresloff), who released figures indicating that the actual paid attendance was 78,000 with 2,300 comps. The facility can only legally hold 80,300 without a special permit. WrestleMania III did not have a permit. The Cleanup Kid (talk) 04:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Provide a reliable source that indicates a special permit is necessary for more than 80,300 attendees. Also provide a reliable source (third party) indicating Zane Bresloff was in fact the promoter of the event. (meaning non WWE and non Dave Meltzer) I'm simply countering your argument which has been brought up several times (Talk:WrestleMania III/Archive 1 - Talk:WrestleMania III) and failed just as many. I do remind you that the 93,173 number is cited by numerous NPOV sources. Finally, I suggest you take the issue up with WP:PW @ WT:PW. Cheers!-- Unquestionable Truth -- 05:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Provide a reliable source for 93,173. WWE fiction and your fellow marks don't count. The Cleanup Kid (talk) 07:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And since you asked for a cite of Bresloff's involvement with WrestleMania III, . This was provided by David Bixenspan over three years ago. I'm sure that won't stop you and your well-known sockpuppet army, but facts are facts, kid. The Cleanup Kid (talk) 07:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah the self-proclaimed smart mark, oh how we've seen them around. Listen "kid" (as that is part of your username), first and foremost... ahem your "facts" have been proven to be anything but over the many years the issue has been discussed, only trivia that has been part of an endless and ridiculous debate. Second... ahem your "link" seems to have gone under a rock and died. (dead link) Third, how about looking at the other side of the argument, you know, the one with 8 reliable sources in WrestleMania III and Pontiac Silverdome combined. As far as the accusation of sock puppet use, I invite you to run a check-user report on the users who have been reverting your edits for: lack of edit summary, removing large portions of text, removing sources, etc. Once again, I invite you to take the issue up with the entire Wikiproject at WT:PW. Cheers! -- Unquestionable Truth -- 07:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Have some more links, then:
 * 
 * Since it's you who seems to have a problem with being confronted about your bullying and lack of knoweldge, I'll leave it to you to take up your imaginary issues elsewhere. The Cleanup Kid (talk) 08:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for noting that two of your links provide the 93,000 number. However, WrestleView.com per WP:RS is not a reliable source as it provides a fourth recounting of certain events. Try again.-- Unquestionable Truth -- 08:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The 93,173 number is listed as "reported". This means that there is a dispute over the accuracy of that number. You still don't own any articles (and neither do your sockpuppets), and you are still a classic Wikibully. The Cleanup Kid (talk) 08:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way. Once again, I invite you to run a check-user case on the users who've reverted your edits for the reasons mentioned above. Now on to the sources. "Reported" means "reported" but you coming to the conclusion that their use of the word really means "disputed" is your original research. Additionally, I should also point out that one of your sources notes that WrestleMania III took place in Chicago... -- Unquestionable Truth -- 08:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As Bullet has said if you whould like to run a checkuser fell free to do so I have nothing to hide I will even give you the link to do so WP:SPI have a wonderful day.-- Steam   Iron  08:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The 80,000 capacity is it's attendance for Gridiron. That capacity does not include floor seating. An extra 13,000 folks could probably squeeze into the floor seating so the 93,000 mark is possible. My personal point of view is that the statements originally made about the attendance been around the 78,000 mark probably meant "paid attendance" but that is only my assumption. Point is that if only 78,000 fans were in attendance that day then there would have a lot of empty seats that day. Now, I'm not telling anyone to put this in the article, I'm just giving my two cents. Just don't trust everything the dirt sheets tell you. 94.196.235.232 (talk) 22:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Two mentions of the phony attendance figure for WrestleMania III are redundant, and a pro wrestling event is not a sporting facility tenant. Perhaps an admin needs to tell the marks at WP:PW about WP:OWN. The Cleanup Kid (talk) 06:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no case of WP:OWN and that so called phony attendance figure for WrestleMania III which is in the lead of the article is backed up by several sources so unless you can find a reliable source that says other wise quit removing sourced info. Also please read WP:lead -- Steam Iron  06:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

1985 Repairs Not As Described
The 1985 repairs were necessitated by a collapse of the orignal 1975 roof around 12N EST on March 4, 1985. Heavy, wet snow accumulated on the SW corner of the Dome and depressed the fabric panels low enough so that the fabric came in contact with a steel lighting catwalk that was positioned just below the inner lip of the roof's ring beam. The hole caused a loss of air pressure and the Dome deflated slowly - there were no injuries. The shift from a "dome" to "bowl" caused all the heavy, wet snow to slide down into the bowl and rupture more roof panels, collapse some precast risers in the SW upper deck, and dislodge more plastic seats "...than a Rolling Stones concert" according to Bob Haney the Dome's Operations Manager. Crews from Owens-Corning Fiberglas, the Dome's original roof installer were on site by 1:30 PM on March 4th. Repair operations began immediately but were interrupted for over a week due to high winds. During the high winds event nearly all of the remaining panels in the deflated roof, 100 in all, were badly damaged. The decision was made to replace the entire roof and incorporate some improvements to prevent a similar event from occuring in the future. Repair cost of the roof was just under $8MM.

The repairs were completed and the Dome reinflated at noon on My 28, 1985. It should be noted that a thunderstorm passed thrugh the Pontiac area the morning the Dome was to be re-inflated and a partial inflation, or "puff", was performed so that the scheduled inflation could occur in the presence of the many City and area politicians as well as number Corporate executives. The original-style, Teflon-coated fiberglass material was used to make the repairs - not canvas as described in the article. There were several snow melting and water-proofing improvements that kept the Dome inflated until the present day - over 25 years. That was one dedicated bunch of Ironworkers and Carpenters from Detroit's Union halls.

The reason I know all this is because I was there, every day, and every step of the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.27.92 (talk) 01:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a shame that this great description was left here a year and a half ago, by someone who ostensibly worked there, but none of it has been incorporated into the article. I'm inclined to believe this, on good faith. Are people actually holding out here from a potential lack of credibility? TheDork (talk) 04:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know how to incorporate it into the article - sorry. Yes, I worked there during the repair.  We arrived on scene about 2 hours after the roof deflated on March 4, 1985.  I hauled the first load of tools from our office in Toledo to the dome in my personal pickup.  It's all accurate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.200.167.23 (talk) 01:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi
Can the title be renamed "The Silverdome"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.54.49.59 (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It's Wikipedia's policy to leave off leading articles (a, an, the) from article titles. Look around and you'll see it's like that everywhere. __209.179.13.130 (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Bond debt
Is there any information as to whether/when the construction bonds were paid off? This stadium may not have outlived its debt. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Current condition
Yahoo has a set of photos of the stadium in a deplorable condition:http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/photos-of-ruined-pontiac-silverdome-are-haunting--heartbreaking-163732013.html. The accompanying text says the damage is a result of a 2012 storm. The article gives its sources as http://detroit.curbed.com/archives/2014/05/the-silverdome-54-photos-inside-the-ruined-nfl-stadium.php, which won't open on my slow computer. Kdammers (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Deflation
What does "deflation" mean in this context? Unless the roof was supported by air pressure, it doesn't fit any definition in my dictionary. Kdammers (talk) 02:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was supported by air pressure, which is explained at Silverdome. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I don't know how I missed that long section!Kdammers (talk) 11:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Was formerly a domed stadium?
I changed the first sentence from "...was formerly a domed stadium..." to "...is a domed stadium...". It's still a domed stadium. I saw it last week. Jameywiki (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Has a new roof been installed? The most recent photos I have seen (and many others) show the remains of the roof in tatters, so the stadium is no longer domed since it is open to the elements, which is what that phrase meant. If a new covering has been installed, then of course that should be updated here. But if not, it isn't accurate to say it's a "domed stadium" if it no longer has a roof. --JonRidinger (talk) 00:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Manual of Style
I have removed the parenthesis on the opening sentence only to have them replaced without explanation. When the information is easily part of the sentence, parenthesis aren't needed. If we verbally said the opening sentence, we'd say what's in the parenthesis as one complete thought, so a comma is more natural. Using parenthesis should be done sparingly and when the info in parenthesis doesn't fit the general flow of the sentence or where a comma would be confusing, such as in the case later in the lead where it says "National Basketball Association (NBA)". See MOS:B&P --JonRidinger (talk) 04:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Adding to that point in MOS:B&P it says: ''incorrect: Nikifor Grigoriev (c. 1885–1919) (also known as Matviy Hryhoriyiv) was a Ukrainian insurgent leader. Correct: Nikifor Grigoriev (c. 1885–1919), also known as Matviy Hryhoriyiv, was a Ukrainian insurgent leader.'' That's the same setup as the beginning of this article: "The Silverdome, formerly known as the Pontiac Silverdome, is a stadium..."

Also, including the country in the location is standard for Wikipedia articles since it is not simply for an American audience. You'll find the country name included in many articles, especially if it has had development beyond stub- and C-class and have been through the process to become Good and Featured articles. Wikipedia is for an international audience. Not all English speaking readers are familiar with US State names and locations since not all English-speaking readers are from or live in the US. Even the articles on Detroit and Pontiac, Michigan use the other option of "in the U.S. State of Michigan". It is the same for other countries that have states or provinces like Canada and Australia; the country name is usually included. Readers shouldn't have to go to another article to know that what they're reading about is in a particular country and adding that is minimal information. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pontiac Silverdome. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080329175927/http://www.wwe.com/shows/wrestlemania/history/wm3/factsstats/ to http://www.wwe.com/shows/wrestlemania/history/wm3/factsstats/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Funding?
How was this funded? Did taxpayers lose money on all this?&#39;&#39;Paul, in Saudi&#39;&#39; (talk) 14:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It was built with public funds, but as it was home field for the Detroit Lions for 27 years, it seems likely taxpayers made money on the deal (through sales tax revenue, income tax on salaries paid by the Detroit Lions, leases and so on). Jack N. Stock (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Silverdome2017.jpg
 * SilverdomeExit.png