Talk:Rogers Centre/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  SkyDome/Rogers Centre Questions and Answers 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Largest Indoor Musical Event at the SkyDome 

message: 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)
thread_title:  SkyDome or Sky Dome? 

message: 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)
replies: text: I took the POV about the Ex out (although I have to admit the expensive sections there did not offer value for money – 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)
thread_title:  Giant toilet bowl 

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

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

message: 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 
DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rogers Centre is the site of several major high school and collegiate sporting competitions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  roof 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Skydome hijinks? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  CN Tower 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Skydome Trivia 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Restructuring 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Faster Roof? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Stadium Firsts 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Jumbotron image 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Financial Crisis 

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

message: :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 Wikipedia: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)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:RogersCentreLogo150.PNG 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Overuse of "citation needed" inline tags 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge [[500 Level]] to [[Rogers Centre]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Facts and Figures 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tenants 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Seating capacity 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  File:Jays Sold Out.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for your co-operation! isaacl (talk) 00:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retractable roof 

message: 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, Wikipedia: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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Hatnote needs editing 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Suspicious Name Usage 

message: 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.http://business.highbeam.com/416338/article-1G1-30127808/skydome-then-and-now 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Stadco 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 22:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: Thanks; I had forgotten about that series. isaacl (talk) 02:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Natural grass 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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#Seating capacity for a little bit of discussion. isaacl (talk) 13:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seating capacity 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree, except that each entry needs to be reliably sourced.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The same should be done for Air Canada Centre as well.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline template 

message: 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)
replies: text: Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 16:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  First line 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  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 IITalk to my owner:Online 09:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: It has been added, though not by me.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dirt infield 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Capacity