Talk:Rogers Centre/Archive 1

SkyDome/Rogers Centre Questions and Answers
Q: 37,000 +? - Doesn't it seat a lot more than 37 000 people? I thought it was capable of seating about 55 000 or so. Not that it ever does anymore... Adam Bishop 17:32, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

A: You're right, I fixed the figures. - SimonP 18:24, Aug 13, 2003 (UTC)

Largest Indoor Musical Event at the SkyDome
Found this musician, Roger Sause's website: http://www.rogersouse.com/bio_01.htm. He says that when he was playing/touring with the Christian singer, Michael. W. Smith, that the concert at the SkyDome in 1994 broke all attendance records for any indoor musical event at the SkyDome. Anyone have any info on it or know how many attended?

Kona1611 05:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

SkyDome or Sky Dome?
Is it SkyDome or Sky Dome? -- Zoe

It is usually SkyDome - SimonP

I'm not sure the SkyDome is the only stadium with a retractable roof any more. How about Reliant Park in Houston? Or the Millenium Stadium in Cardiff? DJ Clayworth 16:55, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC) There are at least 3 rectractable roof stadiums in the US Smith03 17:03, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

37,000 +?
Doesn't it seat a lot more than 37 000 people? I thought it was capable of seating about 55 000 or so. Not that it ever does anymore... Adam Bishop 17:32, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * You're right, I fixed the figures. - SimonP 18:24, Aug 13, 2003 (UTC)

Giant toilet bowl
It's also probably the only stadium in the major leagues where you feel as if you're inside a giant toilet bowl. And how about those 18" wide seats for the unwashed? At least at the "wholly inadequate" Exhibition you could sit between two people without having to hold your arms in front of you like a trained seal. The grandstand at the Ex was a great place. Pay a buck to get in with your Dominions ticket, or a deuce if you shopped at Loblaws, get better seats than the people in the expensive sections, get protection from the sun unlike the expensive sections, and home plate was only a mile or so away. TronTonian 02:17, 22 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I took the POV about the Ex out (although I have to admit the expensive sections there did not offer value for money &#8211; especially beyond the right field fence) and added a bit of what my aging memory recalls about why the Ex was replaced. TronTonian 03:00, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Usage
And the Canadians I live among do not have any standard way of referring to the (sic) Skydome; sometimes they use the article and sometimes they don't. TronTonian 13:32, 22 May 2004 (UTC)


 * And I read some accounts of Jays' games this weekend which referred to the Skydome. TronTonian 00:25, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Skydome Name controversy
There is signifigant public criticism regarding changing Skydome to Rogers Centre. It should be kept in. Agree / disagree?


 * Probably only that first sentence should be kept ("There is significant public opposition..."), also it would be a good idea to combine it with "until recently called SkyDome". Colonel Cow 00:54, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Personally I am upset with the new name, but we'll see in the next few days whether there is indeed "significant" opposition, since this was just announced yesterday. But either way I'm sure most people would rather have the original name. --130.15.194.113 18:52, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Checkout Toronto Star's discussion on this matter. Looks pretty signifigant to me. http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1107342420103&call_pageid=968867503640&col=970081593064

It's been ingrained in our culture for a good 15 years. It'll take a while for the name to settle in (if ever). The new name's just so bland. --Madchester 00:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My god, those people at Rogers are ego-centric idiots.

From all of the offical sites (Jays, MLB, Rogers) it seems that all the occurrences of the word "Skydome" was replaced by "Rogers Centre", except for any explicit historical reference to the name itself. Should we now comb through Wikipedia and do the same? Canadian popcan 05:46, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that's a corporate decision more than anything else. Then again, everyone calls it the (Molson) Amphitheatre and not the Forum, even though there was a lot of backlash back then. --Madchester 17:49, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)


 * Hey, the forum was a different (round) structure which was torn down and replaced by the new Molson Amphitheatre. --Greg 19-Jul-05


 * Disagree: One newspaper "We asked you" editorial hardly justifies "significant public opposition". Frankly it sounds like POV to me.  I think most people could care less. Both SkyDome and Rogers Centre are rather unimaginative names.  Until there are demonstations at the stadium protesting the name change, leave it out.  DoubleBlue 13:42, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * A cursory read of Globe and Mail editorials shows many anti-Rogers Centre editorials and comments, but few pro-Rogers Centre editorials and comments. Since everybody calls it the SkyDome, let's call it the SkyDome (officially named Rogers Centre). We need more criticism of the name in this article. Let's not give in to the Rogers corporate empire, buy a competitor's cell phone, and continue to call the SkyDome the SkyDome. If anyone calls 40 Bay Street anything but 40 Bay Street, I'm going to scream and fly WestJet. Andrew pmk 00:45, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * What if I call it the Hangar? :)  Double Blue  (Talk) 14:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't we call it SkyDome in the article for all events before 2005? EX: The first retractable roof stadium was called SkyDome, Rod Robbie and Michael Ellen designed SkyDome, not the Rogers Centre. --MJR 02:29, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe it's enough to say that SkyDome was the original name. It is quite correct to say that the Rogers Centre was designed by Robbie and Allen. They did design it. It's also true that the Rogers Centre has the world's first mechanical fully retractable roof. Only the name's changed; the major features of the building have not. Double Blue  (Talk) 02:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I also think that it should be referred to as SkyDome when you are talking about events that happened while it was the SkyDome. They even seem to do that during a lot of Jays telecasts. -priester 11:44, 5 Sept 2005

At the very least the article should say when the name was changed, so we know that Radiohead actually played in the SkyDome (there must be t-shirts around to prove this). To do otherwise is far too Big-Brothery revisionist. I see it gives a date of the Rogers announcement buried further down, but it should say "before Feb 2005 called the Skydome" instead of "formerly called the skydome". (And BTW I don't like it and will continue to verbally call it the Skydome). -Greg 19-Jul-05 -

Yes: the renaming is, sadly, a fait accompli and usage in Wp should appropriately reflect that. I wonder whether everyone's interests would've been served if Rogers renamed the complex to Rogers SkyDome. Ah well! E Pluribus Anthony 19:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Alas, SkyDome was smoother in your mouth. Roger's attempt in advertising will probably cause its sales to drop. Duinemerwen 15:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Tallest and most massive MLB stadium?
Can anyone verify this new line: "It is the tallest and most massive stadium used by any Major League Baseball team" ? Double Blue (Talk) 22:49, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rogers Centre is the site of several major high school and collegiate sporting competitions
Rogers Centre has been the site but what major high school and collegiate sports championships are upcoming? The Vanier Cup was at Ivor Wynne last year and will be there again this year and in 2007 and 2008. Next year, it will be at U. Sask. For the foreseeable future, then, Rogers Centre will not be the site of the Vanier Cup. A reference for you: http://www.oua.ca/news/?id=2330 Double Blue (Talk) 23:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

So that means that it is still one of the site of the Vanier Cup. I fixed it to reflect that. Just like London is an Olympic city even though it hasn't hosted one in 50 years and won't be hosting another one until 7 years from now. --70.29.1.197 03:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * How does saying the Rogers Centre is the site of the Vanier Cup reflect that it's not anymore? I can see that it's contentious for some reason to say "once was", however, so I'll try a different construction of the sentence entirely. :-( Double Blue  (Talk) 18:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

roof
Regarding the "first stadium to have a fully-retractable motorized roof", here is a list of "retractable roofs" before SkyDome:
 * 72 The Roman Colosseum
 * 1961 Pittsburgh Mellon Arena
 * 1976 Montreal Olympic Stadium (retractable in 1988)
 * 1988 Melbourne Rod Laver Arena
 * (1989 SkyDome)

So, what is "fully retractable", what is "motorized" and what importance to we give "stadium" vs. "Arena"?

Regarding motorized, we can agree that the Colosseum is not a candidate.

Fully retractable might mean that when the roof is fully retracted, the largest playing surface has no roof directly above it. In this case, Mellon Arena is not a candidate, Montreal might not be a candidate, and the Rod Laver Arena might be a candidate though labeled "arena".

IMHO, the statement "first stadium to have a fully-retractable motorized roof" is true. I think the other stadiums listed above can say they are the "first some kind of retractable roof" and be able to have it accepted by the world at large. Maybe if Category:Retractable-roof_stadiums had a companion page like Tallest_buildings but ordered by date of operability, then what is marketable and what is fact might bring things to light.

--Mbubel 16:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

-- Themepark
 * Well Mellon Arean was only partially retractable, Montreal Olympic Stadiums roof didn't work until after SkyDome opened, and the Melbourne Areana is a tennis court, not a full fledge stadium as defined by N. American/European standards - and Rome Colossem doesn't really count -too small. The roof wasn't weather proof creating a sealed environment, just kept the sun off the crowd.

Skydome hijinks?
Am I the only person who recalls that during some game, there was a couple who had sex in one of the rooms that was visible, at least on camera, to folks in the park? I believe this was sometime in the 90s, but I'm not sure.


 * This has actually happened on more than 1 occasion. Is it really worth putting into the article though? 128.100.89.51 13:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Sadly, you are not alone ... and neither were they! :) Yes: I think, if cited sources are included, it is substantial enough an occurrence that it should be briefly included in the article.  Perhaps (for added value) such a statement could have wikilinks to privacy, legality, public spaces, criminality, and the like. E Pluribus Anthony 22:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

-With regards to needing a citation for the bit about the masterbatory incident, would this page count? http://www.pubclub.com/toronto/postparty.htm --Curtis 02:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

CN Tower
I know that when the dome is open people looking through the glass floors on the observation decks can see down into the stadium. The day I was there the dome was closed though. JesseG 18:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Skydome Trivia
In the trivia section it said that "The retractable roof was a demand made by the Blue Jays, who hoped that it would kill the deal so they could make their own park exclusively for baseball". I remember watching a Modern Marvels episode that discussed Skydome, and it said that the whole idea for the roof was so that they could enjoy outdoor baseball when it was warm and indoor baseball when it wasn't. I never remember ever hearing about the whole idea for the roof was just so they would have the idea rejected. Jayann 23:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It was in the book "Diamond Dreams: 20 Years of Blue Jays Baseball" that the Jays were planning their own baseball-only stadium and demanded the retractable roof hoping it would kill the SkyDome project, so they could go forward with their own. Priester 18:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Recent v. Future developments
How much of Future would go in the recent development? Do they Have more to go? slu2008 10 April 2006

Restructuring
This article seems to need some restructuring. The history/futurey section seems to need some help. The other content needs some work too. Until I changed it, it still had the jumbotron in present tenses. TheHYPO 11:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Faster Roof?
I thought I remember hearing that they had either made improvements or simply decided it was safe to move the roof faster, and it could now make it's journey quicker than 20 minutes.


 * According to the current Blue Jays official Rogers Centre A-Z Guide http://toronto.bluejays.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/tor/ballpark/a_z_guide.jsp, "Total time to fully open or close the roof is 20 minutes." --Curtis 03:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Stadium Firsts
I was looking at the articles for other MLB stadiums, and some of them have a list of "firsts" for the stadium(see Minute Maid Park or Jacobs Field). Although the first win and the first homerun are listed in the trivia sections, it might be an idea to include a similar table for the Rogers Centre. If I get time, I may start one. Aericanwizard 21:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If I get to it before you, I can do that :) I have an old Blue Jays media guide with a table of SkyDome "firsts". Canadian popcan 04:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Jumbotron image
An image halfway down the page is captioned "The center field Jumbotron was one of the largest of its kind in the world." - however, the image is of the new screen and not of the former Sony Jumbotron. TheHYPO 15:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it officially called the "Jaysvision" now? Is it still called that during non-baseball events? Canadian popcan 04:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It is officially called the "Rogers Centre Videoboard", but is called "JaysVision" during baseball games"70.49.90.200 20:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Larger variety of images,
Instead of just having Jays pictures, can we get some pictures from other events? Such as Toronto Argonauts football?--J3wishVulcan 01:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Larger variety? There are only 2 images in the article that are inside the venue (and happen to be baseball. I don't see a reason to complain that that 'isn't enough variety'. It's one thing to want to see football mode, but another to say that there is a problem with the existing images. I don't see the latter. TheHYPO 04:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * feel free to add as many images as you want: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:SkyDome —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Themepark (talk • contribs).


 * I added the only image I could find on flickr of a football game being played at Rogers Centre. It's not the greatest quality. It would be nice if somone could take some nice photos of the 2007 Grey Cup/Vanier Cup for us next year!! heqs 19:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * is it my imagination or does the same pano appear twice in the article Chensiyuan 03:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Removed. Thanks.--J3wishVulcan 03:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Financial Crisis
Excuse me, but wasn't it Mike Harris who sold the SkyDome at a discounted price? Are you sure it's Bob Rae who sold it to Interbrew? --Louiechefei28848888 16:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Journalism Hijack...or we didn't get credit
Just thought you guys should know, your work appeared in print.Coffeepusher 20:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys,

Don't know where else to put his but...

I noticed some striking similarities between this Toronto Star article: http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/279429 and the associated Wikipedia article, especially under the Financial Problems section: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rogers_Centre&oldid=172826443#Financial_problems_and_fallout (01:52, 21 November 2007)

What's especially telling is the sentence containing "massively discounted", it's almost lifted word-for-word. Chozan (talk) 03:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

After looking into it, I sent the following letter to the editor...


 * To: Publiced@thestar.ca
 * Sent: Dec 3, 2007 13:44 Subject: Wikipedea not cited


 * Dear Editor,
 * Although we at wikipedia love to see our work recognised, especialy with all the bad coverage we have gotten, Lisa Wright neglected to properly cite us when she cut and pasted our article for Rogers Centre (I am refering to the history archives, November 21) into a report she did on November 24, 2007 titled "Sky Dome was profitable when Jays Won World Series."(http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/279429). With few changes in word selection, and no changes in order this article is more our work than her's. Now we do offer tutorials for citing our web site, and mabie your staff would benifit from such a training.
 * Although we havn't done an extensive serch for other uncited collaberations between our orgonizations, I am shure that shuch a serch would prove many writers have benifited from our shared interests.
 * Finaly, since wikipedia is a hobby for us, if you should choose to add us to your payroll the web site gladly accepts donations which can be given through the link on our home page, anyone who wants to donate will be welcome to.
 * Wiki editor "coffeepusher"

They said they were looking into it...no word on the donation, but it dosn't hurt to ask.Coffeepusher 20:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Archiving
Due to some extremely old comments on this talk page, I set up archiving.  jj137  ♠ 04:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:RogersCentreLogo150.PNG
Image:RogersCentreLogo150.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Overuse of "citation needed" inline tags
The article is overloaded, there's one at the end of virtually every paragraph. It makes the article look like an absolute mess. Considering there's already a "additional citations needed" tag at the top of the article, I don't think THAT MANY are necessary. Some of the facts should be very easy to find sources for, that should help cut down on what looks like a junkyard. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge 500 Level to Rogers Centre
The page 500 Level describes the upper deck at Rogers Centre. Since many things may have a section called "500", especially stadiums, that page name is ambiguous. There is also no evidence that the 500 level of Rogers Centre is independently notable - the page currently features only two sources, neither of which mention "500 level". The page 500 Level should therefore either be merged to Rogers Centre or deleted. (Note that the page was proposed for deletion on 19 February 2010, but that proposal was contested.) Cnilep (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I vote No. I tried that originally, and it got deleted... everything was the same, so it will be better if we keep it the way it is now.B LUE J AYS F AN 32 (T ALK 18:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If it got deleted before and everything the same, that's more support for the fact that this isn't independently notable. A merge or a deletion is the best course of action here. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 22:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - No reason for the top level to have its own article. And while we're at it, delete half the content as opinion and unencyclopaedic. Canterbury Tail   talk  23:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * see 700 Level. should that be deleted too? thats where I got the idea from.B LUE J AYS F AN 32 (T ALK 13:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That article should be merged with Veterans Stadium. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 15:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have proposed just such a merger. See Talk:Veterans Stadium. Cnilep (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note any information merged into this article must be notable and have reliable sources. The information was previously deleted from this article as it lacked both. Isaac Lin (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The article should be merged per above reasons . The article should be deleted, since there is nothing to salvage from there into here. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 03:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything worth merging in that mess. After removing the crap about brawls, all that's left is ticket prices and a list of long home runs. I'm putting it up for deletion at AfD.  caknuck °  needs to be running more often  08:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Facts and Figures
The last entry makes reference to it formerly being the most expensive stadium, but it incorrectly reports the price of Olympic Stadium as $2.48 billion in 2011 dollars. However, ignoring the fact that $1.6 billion is incorrect, that was the 2006 price when it was finally paid off and not the original cost in 1976. 184.145.201.116 (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Tenants
Please remember that where it lists "tenants" that a tenant for a stadium is an organization that uses the stadium/arena as their "home" venue. Things like Wrestlemania or even a championship game for a league (like if Rogers Centre hosted the Super Bowl) aren't considered "tenants" since they only used the stadium for a very short time (like a few weeks) and were never based at the stadium like a sports team. Stadiums and arenas host many events (concerts, rallies, conventions, other sporting events, etc.) from outside groups that aren't tenants. For Rogers Centre, the actual tenants are the Blue Jays and Argonauts with the Raptors and the International Bowl as past tenants. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Seating capacity
Can anyone provide corroboration for the seating capacity changing every few years? I find it unusual that it would change by so much each year. isaacl (talk) 01:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There should be a discussion to how the number of seats change every year. Since it came from a book, it should mention about the seat number changes.  Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 02:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The citations to web pages don't seem very authoritative to me. One of them seems to be a link farm (with a rounded off number for number of seats), another is just a box score. Does anyone have the Blue Jays media guides over the years, which should contain the seating capacities? isaacl (talk) 03:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems that only the first few seating changes were from a book. We need to find Blue Jays media guides as well for the more recent seat number changes.  Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 14:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Retractable roof
Regarding this edit: I'm not sure if the degree of roof retraction between Pittsburgh's Civic Arena and SkyDome is a sufficient notable difference to call SkyDome the first sports arena with a fully retractable roof. (Technically speaking, the roof at Rogers Centre does not fully expose the entire playing surface to the sky directly above, either.) In any case, though, I think it would be reasonable to change the sentence to refer to SkyDome as being the first stadium with a retractable roof, as opposed to an arena, particularly given that in common North American usage, stadiums are not typically referred to as arenas. Thus I propose that the sentence be changed back to the previously proposed wording. isaacl (talk) 02:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree. Rogers Centre is definitely a stadium, not an arena. Also, "to sport" a functional, fully retractable roof sounds odd.  "To feature" might be better.  Thanks. Richard Apple (talk) 03:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Have to agree, the Rogers Centre isn't an arena so changing it back to stadium would be prudent. Not to mention the section itself is called Stadium features. -DJSasso (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * As the one who made the reverse edit, I'm fine. I mainly did it on the basis that the comparison to Pittsburgh Civic Arena isn't a comparison due to the difference between a retractable roof and a fully retractable roof. So yeah, feel free to change it again. Canterbury Tail   talk  18:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your co-operation! isaacl (talk) 00:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Hatnote needs editing
Part of the hatnote for this article--"Not to be confused with Rogers Arena, in Vancouver, British Columbia"--should be removed. One of the purposes of a hatnote is to distinguish two articles that have similar titles, where one of the articles is disambiguated. A search for "Rogers Centre" or "Rogers Arena" both lead directly to those articles, not to a disambiguation. Furthermore, are "Rogers Centre" and "Rogers Arena" really that similar?? Should "Rogers Sugar" be included too?? This part of the hatnote is a distraction, and may even "unintentionally" advertise the other Rogers venue. Furthermore, Hatnote states: "the hatnote should not overload the user with extraneous information", and should follow the principle "less is more". It should be removed. Thanks for your input. Richard Apple (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "Centre" is similar to "Arena" since the two words are synonyms. "Centre" isn't similar to "Sugar".  The use of hatnotes isn't restricted to cases of disambiguation.  In this case both titles aren't ambiguous but they are quite similar and it is not unreasonable to expect someone looking for the arena in Vancouver to end up here.  In similar situations American Airlines Arena and American Airlines Center have hatnotes pointing to each other.  TDL (talk) 23:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems like a reasonable hatnote to me. Two sporting venues bearing the Rogers name in the same country. It could lead to confusion so I think it should stay. Canterbury Tail   talk  01:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to agree, as both are professional sports venues in Canada named after Rogers Communications. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 01:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Suspicious Name Usage
Notice how in the early sections of the article where it discusses the stadium while it was still called SkyDome, the author(s) have gone out of their way to avoid using the original name as much as possible (the name SkyDome only appears twice in the sections leading up to the acquisition). The article quickly glosses over the stadium’s pre-Rogers history, expertly avoiding the original name, then quickly moves on to the acquisition and suddenly the name Rogers Center appears very frequently, often once per paragraph if not once per sentence. This is not an accident or consequence of grammar, it is a purposeful action on the part of Rogers marketers to mask the original name and promote their own brand. (Then again, all articles on Wikipedia that have to do with Rogers are clearly ads written by Rogers employees.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.10.117.240 (talk) 03:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Stadco
When reading through this article I noted the sudden appears of Stadco in the Opening and Financial problems and Fallout sections. It is used 6 times within 3 paragraphs and is never defined. A quick Google has lead me to believe that Stadco is a crown corporation that was created to manage the Rogers Centre when it was created. It is unclear to me if Stadco is still around but under new ownnership. The main question is where should we put a brief description of what Stadco is? Adding in the Opening section or the financing section would seem to be appropriate to me, as would the history background section. But I cannot see anywhere that a parenthetical insertion would not distract from it before it's first usage.

What would be the best section to include this information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SVoid (talk • contribs) 15:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The best section to mention Stadco is the topmost of the relevant sections, as it would introduce readers to it. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 15:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Added. Semantic Void (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Natural grass
Two recent edits need clarification and a reliable source. The first edit stated that "Toronto is the only current major league city that has never seen a regular-season game played on natural grass". A subsequent edit changed that to read "Toronto is the only current major league team that has not played a home game on natural grass". Two sources were provided: the first was a book, Cathedrals, which is not available for free online; the second source did not support the edit. Any help confirming the second edit, or finding a reliable source would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I found out when the Rays played home games at Champion Stadium--confirmed via Baseball Reference. Editing accordingly ... HangingCurveSwing for the fence 16:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * My apologies; I had another source describing when the Rays had played at Champion Stadium, but forgot to include it. isaacl (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 22:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The Blue Jays played a series of home games on natural grass in Philadelphia: http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20100511&content_id=9963194&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb I have removed the bit about them being the only current major league team to have never played a home game on grass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.177.1.210 (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Good find! All in all, the "fact" was little more than trivia. The main important facts are that Rogers Centre will soon have natural grass and is one of the last remaining MLB parks that still uses turf. Even though both the Jays and the Rays have played "home" games at fields with natural grass, both teams have never played in permanent homes with a natural surface, and obviously the Blue Jays have been the longest. Those facts, however, would be more appropriate for the team articles than this one. --JonRidinger (talk) 23:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I had forgotten about that series. isaacl (talk) 02:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Seating capacity
An editor made changes today to the seating capacity section of the infobox, removing the number of "private boxes" available for baseball games. I agree with this edit and want to suggest others. Template:Infobox stadium suggests that the infobox contain the capacity of the stadium for each purpose. The infobox in this article does that, but also lists an "expandable to" capacity, but nowhere in the article does it explain how the capacity is expandable; to find that out you need to read the reference cited. Then if you go to the article, the capacity section is just raw numbers, with no explanation about how or why the numbers go up or down from year to year. Can I suggest some text be added to the capacity section of the article? Maybe a paragraph discussing how the capacity can be expanded for certain events, the number of box seats, the reason for the year-to-year variations, and so forth. Some of the "expandable to" numbers could be teased out of the infobox and added to the text. Just a suggestion. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The sourcing is poor for the section on capacity changes; as I recall, often just a box score indicating that many people attended, which of course does not reflect actual capacity. See Talk:Rogers Centre/Archive 1 for a little bit of discussion. isaacl (talk) 13:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Timeline template
Editors have occasionally added to this article particular bands that have played concerts at the Rogers Centre, only to have the band quickly removed as not being "notable enough", like this addition. Please look at the Cricket Wireless Amphitheater (Bonner Springs, Kansas), which uses an interesting template at the bottom of the article called "List of Concerts". Just wondering if others felt the Rogers Centre article would benefit from something like this. A timeline template would be inclusive rather than exclusive, and would be an easy way to document and preserve past concerts (without cluttering the main article). There's already 20 collapsible templates on the Rogers Centre article. Thanks for your input, and happy New Year. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, except that each entry needs to be reliably sourced. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 00:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The same should be done for Air Canada Centre as well. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 00:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 2 April 2015

 * The following is a closed 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: '''Not moved"' Mike Cline (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Rogers Centre → SkyDome – Per WP:OFFICIALNAME, SkyDome is the common name of the venue and should be recognized as such. Discussion originally started in the ECW Arena talk page where there is an ongoing debate on a similar matter. TheNewMinistry (talk) 18:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - as nominator TheNewMinistry (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Rogers Centre is by far the common name of the stadium.  Rogers Centre gets more than 10x the hits on Google News: .  Britannica also uses Rogers Centre: .  TDL (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I have a sentimental love for Skydome but alas media hits make it clear that Rogers Center is more prominent.--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I much prefer the name Rogers Dome, but as the other two said, the media, as well as Britannica, use the name Rogers Centre instead. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 02:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support WP:UCN ; SkyDome 694k v "rogers centre" 573k ; And if you look at google books SkyDome 26.4k v "rogers centre" 3.6k it is overwhelming. ; -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That Google test appears to be suspect when I see several of these results saying "SkyDome / Rogers Centre", "SkyDome or Rogers Centre", or a variation thereof. Another search result of SkyDome -rogers reveals that there are other places and things around the world named "Skydome" (including the other "skydomes" listed on SkyDome (disambiguation)), which could mean that the 694k number you got may actually be inflated and is instead counting those other "skydomes" not in Toronto. Furthermore, the Google Books results for "Skydome" is also questionable when there are several books that are not related to the stadium (for example, the first one that I see showing up is a book called The Firmament of the Sky Dome, a book related to biblical creationism). Since that evidence is suspect, the only things we have that that we are sure that are reliable are, as others have stated, Britannica and the majority of pieces coming from the sports news organizations in Canada and the US. Zzyzx11 (talk) 10:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A Google web search isn't useful since it searches non-reliable sources. See WP:UCRN: "a search of Google Books and News Archive should be defaulted to before a web search, as they concentrate reliable sources".
 * As for your Google Books search, in addition to including things that aren't about the Rogers Centre, as Zzyzx11 pointed out above, most of the books listed on the first page were published before the name change. The title of this article should reflect the current common name, not the common name in 1994, so the number of books referring to it as SkyDome in 1994 is really irrelevant.  Restrict your search to 2006 onwards and you will find there is no evidence than that SkyDome is still the common name.  This is why I cited a Google News search because it measures current usage, not decades-old usage.  TDL (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Besides WP:COMMONAME considerations mentioned by others, another factor in this article is the "Consistency" factor of WP:NAMINGCRITERIA ("the title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles"). Currently most articles on the other sports venues in the major professional sports leagues in North America (NFL stadiums, CFL Stadiums, MLB ballparks, NBA arenas, NHL arenas and Major League Soccer stadiums) use the current corporate name (if the stadium has some sort of naming right deal) for consistency. For example, you have what is now Sun Life Stadium, which has gone through multiple naming right deals; the consensus has been to keep it at that title. Last year, we have had Talk:U.S. Cellular Field, where consensus was to keep the corporate name in the title. The common reason cited is that most reliable sources like ESPN, TSN and other major national sports media sources in the US and Canada use the corporate name. In fact, for the past several years, whenever such a venue has undergone a name change, consensus has been to change the article name once reliable sources start using the name -- usually on the day that the name change officially takes effect. In these cases, "consistency" has eventually overridden the other WP:AT virtues. As WP:NC states, "When titling articles in specific fields, or with respect to particular problems, there is often previous consensus that can be used as a precedent". And that is what I'm citing here. And WP:AT also states that "it may be necessary to favor one or more of these goals over the others" (emphasis added). So unless there is a massive page move request to rename all current NFL, CFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, and MLS stadiums and arenas, there should not be a mixture of naming practices here on Wikipedia when all these media sources have a consistent one. Zzyzx11 (talk) 10:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, comparing this to ECW Arena is really an WP:OSE argument. As I mentioned, the Rogers Centre is one of the current venues in the major professional sports leagues in North America, and therefore generates a lot of news and visibility from the likes of ESPN, TSN, etc. As someone pointed out in that other discussion, the proposed title over there gets barely 413 results, which is not relatively significant to determine common name. Zzyzx11 (talk) 11:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, and while I personally think "SkyDome" is a better name, the fact is that Rogers has had their name on the wall for 10 years, as well as the foreseeable future.  PK T (alk)  12:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Clear commonname – Michael (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.

First line
The infobox includes both the "name" and "former names" of this stadium. There is also a lengthy discussion (above) about the stadium's "name".

But first line of the article reads: "Rogers Centre (originally known as SkyDome)".

Would it be more accurate if the first line read: "Rogers Centre (originally named SkyDome)? Magnolia677 (talk) 10:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 16:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Rogers Centre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100207014305/http://www.nationalpost.com:80/sports/story.html?id=2515955 to http://www.nationalpost.com/sports/story.html?id=2515955

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Dirt infield
It would be good to mention that the Rogers Centre joined the other 29 MLB stadia in having a dirt infield. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It has been added, though not by me. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 02:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Capacity
With the installation of a dirt infield for the Blue Jays, the original CFL and NFL configuration is no longer possible, as the seats cannot move. Because of this, I think it is misleading to leave the CFL and NFL capacities in the infobox, as we have no clue how they would configure the current field for those leagues. Should these be removed? They may have been correct a year ago, but not any longer. Harrison401 (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What does the dirt infield have to do with the capability of the seats moving? The bases were always dirt cutouts, it's just the area between the bases that is newly dirt, and it's hard to image how that could impact the seats moving.  Any sources which say the seats can't move anymore?  TDL (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No one has tried yet do it's still to be proven one way or another especially since it can still be covered over by astroturf or other floorings. Canterbury Tail   talk  22:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)