This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S.
historic sites listed on the
National Register of Historic Places 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.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Event Venues, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Event VenuesWikipedia:WikiProject Event VenuesTemplate:WikiProject Event VenuesEvent Venues articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Houston, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.HoustonWikipedia:WikiProject HoustonTemplate:WikiProject HoustonHouston articles
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject University of Houston, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.University of HoustonWikipedia:WikiProject University of HoustonTemplate:WikiProject University of HoustonUniversity of Houston articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
baseball 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.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Association football 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.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
college football 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.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject College Basketball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
college basketball 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.College BasketballWikipedia:WikiProject College BasketballTemplate:WikiProject College Basketballcollege basketball articles
Astrodome is within the scope of WikiProject Professional wrestling, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to
professional wrestling. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, visit the
project to-do page, or visit the
project page, where you can join the project and contribute to
discussions.Professional wrestlingWikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestlingTemplate:WikiProject Professional wrestlingProfessional wrestling articles
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Rodeo, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.RodeoWikipedia:WikiProject RodeoTemplate:WikiProject RodeoRodeo articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject American football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
American football 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.American footballWikipedia:WikiProject American footballTemplate:WikiProject American footballAmerican football articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Football League, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
NFL 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.National Football LeagueWikipedia:WikiProject National Football LeagueTemplate:WikiProject National Football LeagueNational Football League articles
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? --
LostLeviathan13:18, 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
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).
Jay77tx16:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)reply
The infobox tenant list has some unintentional humor
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. --
Bobak20:33, 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.
Wahkeenah20:50, 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.
Jay77tx16:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Name of article
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 Bulldog08:44, 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?
Wahkeenah11:49, 12 May 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"
Derek84037820:01, 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.
Jay77tx16:48, 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
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:69.91.80.13719:56, 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.
Wahkeenah20:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Stadium Floor
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, concrete
Derek84037819:56, 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 2007reply
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
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
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?
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
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
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.
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.walkvictor falktalk 02:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Jgera5 (
talk)
07:17, 4 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
SupportWP: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.
walkvictor falktalk07:53, 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 Slash18:47, 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.
walkvictor falktalk03:03, 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.
walkvictor falktalk03:26, 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 Slash23:33, 13 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
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.
Cúchullaint/
c19:15, 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 Slash02:58, 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.
walkvictor falktalk02:44, 28 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
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
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.
walkvictor falktalk03:47, 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.
walkvictor falktalk16:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
walkvictor falktalk23:28, 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.
walkvictor falktalk19:10, 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
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.
"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
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}}).
YAn 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.
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.
Last edited at 19:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC).
Substituted at 08:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
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: 5 June 2024).
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.
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: 5 June 2024).
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.
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: 5 June 2024).
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.
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.