Talk:Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome

Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome
The Thunderdome, The Homerdome
	Twins playoff gameFile:10-10A.jpgMetrodome during Gophers game in 2003, again from a similar vantage point Action during a Vikings game, from a location similar to 2004 ALDS photo
Location	900 S. 5th Street ; Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415
Owner	Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission
Capacity	48,000 (Baseball) ; 63,000 (Football) ; 50,000 (Basketball)
Field size	Left Field - 343 ft (105 m) ; Left-Center - 385 ft (117 m) (Not posted) ; Center Field - 408 ft (124 m) ; Right-Center - 367 ft (112 m) (Not posted) ; Right Field - 327 ft (100 m) ; Backstop - 60 ft (18 m) ; Dome Apex - 186 ft (57 m) ; Wall - 7 feet (left and center field) ; Wall - 16 feet (right field)
Surface	FieldTurf ; (SuperTurf from 1982 to 1986; ; AstroTurf from 1987 through 2003)
Construction
Opened	April 3, 1982
Construction cost	$68 million USD
Architect	Skidmore, Owings & Merrill
Tenants
	Minnesota Twins (MLB) (1982-present) ; Minnesota Vikings (NFL) (1982-present) ; Minnesota Golden Gophers (NCAA baseball) (1st half of season) ; Minnesota Golden Gophers (NCAA football) (1982-present) ; Minnesota Strikers (NASL) (1984) ; Minnesota Timberwolves (NBA) (1989-1990)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

College basketball Mid‑importance

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

College football Mid‑importance

	College football portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

National Football League: Vikings Mid‑importance

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Vikings task force.

Baseball: College / Twins High‑importance

	Baseball portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject College baseball (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Minnesota Twins (assessed as Top-importance).

Minnesota Mid‑importance

	Minnesota portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota 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.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Event Venues (inactive)

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

new stadium proposal tenuous at best?

I'm removing the paragraph that is discussing how the argument for the Gophers to have the new stadium on campus are "tenuous at best". The idea of measuring the distances of the stadiums from Coffman Union, while clever, are not necessarily salient nor relevant. Their concerns are to have the new stadium physically on the University of Minnesota campus (which the Metrodome certainly is not) and also to have it right next to the other sports facilities (not to mention the football teams practice facilites). Also, the majority of the student population lives on the East Bank of the river whether in the dorms or the Dinkytown area which would be much closer to the proposed stadium location.

All of that said, the reason that I'm removing the comment is just that it seems very biased and rather irrelevant to the Metrodome article.

Luke 04:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

too cold - weather in minnesota

I dispute the POINT OF VIEW that the Metrodome is "widely" considered to be the worst baseball venue. By whom? And under what conditions? The current expensive proposal is an OPEN AIR ballpark. It is TOO BLOODY COLD to be going to outdoor games in Minneapolis until right about now, the first of June, and once September rolls around, it chills down in a hurry. The ones who are pushing this open-air park are liable to push the team right out of the city, eventually, because no one will show up for 3 of the 6 months of the season! Wahkeenah 23:34, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As to who believes the Metrodome is the worst in baseball, you can find many polls on the subject. Here are a few:http://espn.go.com/page2/s/list/worstballparks/010503.html, http://armchairgm.wikia.com/index.php?title=Top_5_Worst_Stadiums, http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/al/Metrodome.htm SeanNovack (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They'll think differently next year when they're sitting in 30 degree, rainy weather - or having to go back home to Duluth because the game got rained (or snowed) out. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As this is a "point of view" and is not backed by any source, I don't believe it has any bearing on the point. I can tell you from personal experience at the old Met Stadium that yes, there were some cold games and rainouts, the benefits (in my "point of view") far outweighed any downside.SeanNovack (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that "best" or "worst" is going to be a matter of opinion, no matter what the source. Everyone thinks Wrigley Field is so wonderful. The players said the playing surface was the worst in the majors (it has since been redone). Everyone thinks Fenway is so wonderful. The sightlines from many of the seats are horrible. The ultimate proof for Target Field vs. the Dome will be the season attendance - not next year, but in a few years when the novelty has worn off. The Twins drew better in the Dome (indoors) than they did at the Old Met (outdoors). We'll see what happens. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the primary reason that this Minnesota born-and-bred Twins fan has no problem with the new outdoor stadium is that I remember clearly going to the old Metropolitan Stadium and not having that many issues. On average, do you know how many games were rained out or canceled due to cold weather at the Met ever season? A whopping 4 games. Less than 5% of the season. Might it have been nice to have a retractable roof? Of course! Is it worth it not to build a new stadium and stay stuck in the Metrodump or possibly not even have a baseball team (don't laugh, it happened with the Lakers and the North Stars when they left for LA and Dallas, respectively). No, it's not. Not for less than 1 in 20 games. Rapier1 (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

below zero wind chills

Yes it does happen in Minneapolis in October and April. Wind chill can dip down to 0 degrees F at 35 MPH with an ambient air temperature of 20 degrees F. As User:Baseball_Bugs points out, A quick random check shows it was below 0 wind chill on April 4th this past year (2007). [1] Group29 18:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find further documentation in order to convince that one skeptical editor, that would be good. I just don't know where to go to find past records. weather.com seems to be focused on the upcoming forecast only. Baseball Bugs 20:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This website [2] can get you high and low temperatures for each day. I don't see anything that melds that info. with wind speed though, which would be required to calculate wind chill. I don't really understand what the fuss is about. Soon the Twins will have a new open ballpark; I don't think there's anything any of us can do to change that.--Appraiser 21:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pix in info

I proposed putting 3 pictures in the info box each pix of each main tenant Twins Vikes and Gophers. Currently just having a baseball picture paints IMO an incorrect picture the stadium was built for football first and baseball was an afterthough. What do others think of including pictures of the football set up in the info box Smith03 01:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC) or perhaps moving the baseball picture into the article and using a picture of the outside of the dome in the boxSmith03[reply]

At the time I put the baseball pic in the infobox, that's about all there was. The other pics were gradually added. A generic exterior shot for the infobox, with the interior shots next to writeups about the different usages, would be fine. Wahkeenah 02:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Puckett's death

I took this out "Following the death of Twins great Kirby Puckett in March 2006, public support for a new Twins ballpark swelled considerably, with the request that the park be named for the fallen Twin. Presumably to accomplish this the state of Minnesota would purchase naming rights in addition to the proposed public funding." He died last week its way to earlier to know if support has swelled considerably or that the support will last long after the intial shock of the death. Also it very unlikely the state is going to pay the Twins to name the stadium after Puckett the Twins will want $ for naming rights and this state is not huge on giving money to team in the first placeSmith03 01:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's hyperbole and wishful thinking. Wahkeenah 02:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bias in Gopher's Stadium Section

"Attendance at Gopher football games rarely fills the Metrodome to capacity, and it is thought that, in order to pep up its student base for increased ticket sales, an on-campus stadium is required. Presumably they used opposite reasoning when they abandoned the old on-campus stadium."

This seems rather biased to me, especially the use of the words "presumably" and "abandoned" in such a condesending way. I would like to see the second sentance of the above quote just outright deleted.

It's a way of pointing out how the charlatans foist new taxes on the citizenry to pay for new stadiums to replace the old ones that were once considered so wonderful. Wahkeenah 17:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to find evidence that the opposite was argued, by all means do so. But presumption isn't adequate.--RLent 17:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They currently think they need on an-campus stadium. They obviously didn't think so in 1982, or they obviously wouldn't have moved. Wahkeenah 18:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted it back for you. Are you happy now? Do you enjoy giving your tax dollars to these bloodsuckers? Wahkeenah 18:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last of?

FTA: "McAfee Coliseum, Dolphin Stadium, and the Metrodome are the last of the "multipurpose facilities" that were once common throughout professional sports." I'd just like to point out that the Skydome/Rogers Centre in Toronto is also a multipurpose facility. It hosts Canadian Football League and Major League Baseball games as well as other events. Therefore it should be included on this list. --CokeBear 18:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, change it already! Wahkeenah 18:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Longest Home Run

What is the longest home run to left feild? I know people hit the upper deck in right but I am curious as to how far a home run would have to go to get the the upper deck in left. User:02:17, 1 August 2006 65.27.96.112 (Talk) (Longest Home Run) 02:17, 1 August 2006 65.27.96.112 (Talk) (Longest Home Run)

There is nothing about it in the Twins media guide. That's surprising, considering how much time and effort they have made over the years to get exact measurements. They even did that at the Old Met. This much I can tell you: It would take a titanic blast to hit the left field upper deck. But I bet Harmon could have done it. He put one on the left field roof at Tiger Stadium, and believe me, that was one long drive. Wahkeenah 02:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible replacements section is too wordy

Anyone wanna work on fixing it?

I added subsections for each team and cleaned a little bit up. It still needs some major work, though. EC2 14:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Year for Superbowl

How is adding the year for the superbowl vandalism??? It may not be needed but that doesn't make it vandalism.

I talked with the user about that. We're good. Wahkeenah 16:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiping out edit

What's the point of just wiping out the notes I added about Mickey Hatcher trying to catch Dave Kingman's ball in the Trivia section, without any explanation? 80.255.39.45 04:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sections

This has become a big article at 34K. I put in splits to essentially move out everything that does not explain what the Metrodome is. The text about the Twins Ballpark is largely already in that article, so probably can be removed from the Metrodome article and a main template be put in. The Vikings stadium information probably has to stay for now. The controversy section could be its own article. Group29 21:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swastika

Perhaps we should add something about the accidental "Swastika" shap in the ceiling from the way the ceiling was designed? We could put it in the "Controversies" section. I didn't do it. 21:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen it, so that sounds like "original research", and certainly no "controversy", unless you can find a proper source. Wahkeenah 21:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can vouch for the swastika shape. I noticed immediately upon my first visit the "zig zags" where the stiffening beams join at the apex of the dome. It may or may not be an interesting piece of trivia about the design. See an article (with picture) here The Final (Ballpark) Solution: Does the Metrodome Roof Contain a Giant Swastika? - City Pages Vol 26 Issue 1276 first published May 18, 2005 Group29 15:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC) (moved here http://www.citypages.com/2005-05-18/news/the-final-ballpark-solution-does-the-metrodome-roof-contain-a-giant-swastika/)[reply]

It appears that the newly installed 2011 roof has a pattern more like a checkerboard than the zig-zags ending in the swastika. Group29 (talk) 00:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

It looks really bad that there is no pic in the infobox. It really doesn't matter if its football or baseball. I'll move one there, just to make it look better.Duckblazer 02:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Homerdome"

I too have read that the park factors for the Metrodome show it's not really a "homerdome," but the ESPN park factors (for which they have data going back to 2001) indicate that in recent years it's about even, favoring neither pitchers nor hitters. If no one can come up with a good citation on the Metrodome actually being a pitcher's park, that line in the article should be adjusted.

Metrodome HR park factors 2001-2006: 2001: .864, rank 28/33, 2002: 1.175, 11/33, 2003: 1.032 14/33, 2004: .925, 21/33, 2005: .947, 15/33, 2006: .836, 25/33 -- overall average: .963 (in case any one is curious...)

Loudest stadiums

Just a note. J. D. Redding 02:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy?

"Controvery" is such a terrible mess that I suggest deleting it entirely. This part of the entry reads like "stadium issue blogging" written by someone without the slightest understanding of the NPOV policy.

Just a few examples (though several dozen are obvious):

"The Metrodome is thought to be an increasingly poor fit for all three of its major tenants"

"The indoor venue is particularly welcome ..."

"It is impossible for the citizens of mid-sized U.S. metropolitan areas ... to be assured that any given professional sports team will remain in the area." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.177.108 (talk) 04:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I just read that article and I was under the impression someone was trying to sell me a project for a new stadium. 137.122.30.230 (talk) 02:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please replace the head picture with one with the background of downtown Minneapolis skyline.

I don't understand why the current one is shot from this angle, showing the most under-developed and grey region around the Metrodome. It just couldn't be worse. The Metrodome is actually seated in a prosperous area and there are many ways to make a beautiful picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.101.33.142 (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cookie cutter stadium category

At best the Cookie cutter stadiums is an Original Research essay. It shows a remarkable misunderstanding and contempt for stadium design. I removed this category. Group29 18:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The Humpty Dump"?

I've never heard this before, pretty sure it's made up. I'm gonna delete it if no one objects. Smarterthanu91 • Talk 06:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beat ya to it. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting it once again, if it's put bak up, please source it Rapier1 (talk) 07:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for Twins move

I added a Cite tag to this. The reason for this is that not only is it uncited, but there is evidence that Griffith was never too thrilled with the Metrodome.[3] Carolus (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The roof is a mess

This sentence is a mess:

More common is for a ball to strike an overhead speaker, which are even closer to the playing surface; such balls are also alive and in-play (although starting with the 2005 MLB season, the ground rules for balls hitting the speakers have been changed as David Ortiz of the Boston Red Sox discovered when a deep fly ball that would have been a home run, excepting speaker interference bounced off a speaker and landed in fair territory (Ortiz was awarded a single and the Twins went on to win the game).

User:Bkil 14:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to improve it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which I see you did already. The "fact" tags are a bit superfluous, as the speakers get hit fairly frequently, especially the ones on the third base side. I should point out that the roof itself is still a mess. They should vacuum it once in awhile. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reworked it some more, and decided to remove this part, since there are no specifics, and it really doesn't make sense, i.e. it is not obvious that any changes were made in 2005 - the ball hit a speaker, and Ortiz got a single. If true, it squares with the normal ground rules:

Balls hitting speakers were also ruled to be alive and in-play before the 2005 MLB season. However, the ground rules for balls hitting the speakers have been changed^{[citation needed]} as David Ortiz of the Boston Red Sox discovered when a deep fly ball that should have been a home run bounced off a speaker and landed in fair territory. Ortiz was consequently awarded a single and the Twins went on to win the game.

Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks! We really needed an expert helping out in this area, as I'm illiterate in sports... I also see you've got some good sense of humor! ;-) bkil (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Vikings Picture

Does anyone else think the current picture used in the Vikings section is too small and dark? It could really use an upgrade. I have a picture that could possibly be used (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:VikesXmas.JPG). It's not that great but I would like to get the ball rolling on a newer picture. [September 29th, 2009]

New name?

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

Page was already moved

Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome → Mall of America Field at the Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome — Just signing to put the nomination in the correct place at WP:RM. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's getting carried away here. According to this article [4] the stadium itself has not been renamed, it's only the football field. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'm still looking for a better source, but this article goes on to note that "It would take a legislative act to change the name of the stadium." --Onorem ♠Dil 17:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia uses the full title for Invesco Field at Mile High where as most people probably just say Invesco Field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.169.161.1 (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mall of America Field at Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome. I don't know if it will be called this for all events but going forward on Vikings games it will be called this title needs to be in the first paragraph of the article.

That's the field, not the stadium overall. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's reasonable to add redirects; until it's clear that the name of the stadium is changing, though, I think we should stick with the current name. Mrfeek (talk) 04:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a redirect from the theoretical new name to this page, so it's covered. And when we have the definitive answer, the appropriate page can be made the main page with the other one as a redirect. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a semantic misunderstanding here since the Metrodome name is remaining despite the Mall of America sponsorship. In North American sports, "field" is generally a synonym for "stadium". If there are more sources like the KTTC source that say differently, I can accept that, but it seems incredibly odd since no other North American sports franchise has naming rights for its playing surface rather than its stadium. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, here is the chapter of Minnesota law referred to by the official Metrodome website. I couldn't find what KTTC was talking about specifically there. However, the Metrodome site doesn't mention the Mall of America naming rights despite all the other sources that do. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise?

Perhaps a section within the article in regards to the name change would work as a compromise until it's clear whether the rename refers to the entire stadium or just the playing surface within the stadium. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We start to get into the "common name" debate, as the writeups on today's baseball game so far that I've seen simply say "Metrodome". Although that doesn't prove anything, since the name change only occurred yesterday. But it's still unclear about what's named what. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I think we should just make a section under the "controversy" section in regards to the exact name until it is absolutely clear. I think that could satisfy both sides of this argument. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have no real argument over a naming rights section, but a 'controversy' on-wiki is not a reason to include the issue in the controversy section of the article. It's not a controversial issue as far as the structure itself is concerned. Multiple articles refer to the field and playing surface as what the naming rights were for, and a few (like I posted above) explicitly state that it's the field, and not the building...and that to rename the stadium itself would require a legislative act. I haven't seen anything outside of Sid's column that says that the building is what's being renamed. --Onorem ♠Dil 02:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that there's any "controversy" about it at all. There's just some confusion about it. A local mall bought the naming rights to the field. It's not like they sold the rights to al-Qaeda, or Green Bay, or some other enemy. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial or not, there's already a section in the article called "controversy" that includes topics about as innocuous in the grand scheme of things. What i'm saying here is instead of this impasse, let's just put a subsection about the naming confusion in that section. Multiple articles refer to the entire stadium rather than the playing surface, and nobody here has actually shown the legislative act if it actually exists. Doc Quintana (talk) 15:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What reliable source indicates that there's any kind of controversy about the name? →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to rename the section? I think we're seeing the word "controversy" in different ways here. The things in that section are not particularly contreversial either. It certainly is unclear as to what Mall of America field refers to given the conflicting sources. Doc Quintana (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, most of that "controversy" stuff is more like "quirks". Or maybe this is what passes for "controversy" in the stoic upper midwest. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so i'm assuming there's a consensus here with renaming the "controversy" section as "quirks" or "unexpected developments" or "disputes" or what have you and then putting the naming rights issue as a subsection in there and not mentioning the "Mall of America field at..." part in the intro until it's clear one way or another, probably a few months from now. Doc Quintana (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I called the ticket office to find out what's going on. They think the entire stadium will be renamed, and that the Vikings are pretty much holding off until the Twins' have played their last Dome game. They said there are some banners on the stadium advertising the "Mall of America" thing, and that's the only signage so far. I also asked when they are moving the Twins offices to Target Field, and the best they could tell me was "sometime in the winter". Duh! →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. We can put the placeholder down below somewhere in the meantime and removed the disputed tag. Doc Quintana (talk) 00:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI CBS used Mall of America Field, Minneapolis MN for highlights yesterday 204.169.161.1 (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we just change the name of this page already. Since MOA Field at the HHH Metrodome name has been used on numerous telecasts and has been posted all over the stadium. Packerfan386 (talk) 10:05, 6 April 2010

As that now appears to be the common name, a rename is probably OK. Just don't lose the redirect from "Metrodome", et al. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With one caveat: It appears this renaming is only temporary, 3 years or some such. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three years is awfully long time these days and there is a somewhat good chance MOA Field won't even be around (if the Vikes get a new park) in that amount of time. Plus if they don't some other corporation will probably buy naming rights after the current contract runs out. Packerfan386 (talk) 04:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried renaming this article but "Mall of America Field at the Hubert H. Humphrey" appears to be a redirect so it will take someone with Admin powers to make the necessary changes. Packerfan386 (talk) 04:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, but it worked for me. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Page move

I don't object to the recent page move, but I wonder if it might be still better to title this simply Metrodome. It is likely the most common name, and there is only one Metrodome. Jonathunder (talk) 22:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For sure, the most common name is "[The] Metrodome". There's a redirect from that name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the Move discussion above, I've reverted the move. We can't just move pages to titles we like/prefer when they are at their current title by consensus - that's disruptive. If someone wants to open another Move discussion, they're welcome todo that. By the way, I saw a game on TV a few weeks ago that was at the Metrodome, and they showed an outside shot of the stadium with "Mall of America Field" clearly visible on the edge of the roof, but no "Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome" anywhere in sight. Kinda odd to put the name of the field on the building when the building has a different name, isn't it? - BilCat (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wish the page move had not been reverted; it was an improvement. "Mall of America Field at Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome" is in no way the common name of the place. If you want the official name, it is still defined by state law: Minnesota Statute 473.551 DEFINITIONS. Subd. 9. Metrodome. "Metrodome" means the Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome located in the city of Minneapolis constructed and owned by the commission..." Jonathunder (talk) 03:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the Vikings could have done this rename thing without getting permission from the Stadium Commission. Maybe someone could find out some details about how that deal went down? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have guidelines for a reason. People should not move a page anytime they want too when it's been a contentious issue in the past, especially when it's been discussed before. I'm not supporting a preferred title, but a consensus. Discuss it, build a new consensus, and then move it. Anyway, this is probably a situation where WP:COMMONNAME is applicable, as the official "correct" name is unclear. Metrodome is likely the best choice under the situation. - BilCat (talk) 07:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what the locals call it is "The Dome", but that's hardly a unique name, so it wouldn't do as a primary title. As regards the signage, until that Viking stuff went up at the rim, I think the only signage was "Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome / Minnesota Twins Ticket Office" in big letters atop the ticket offices, which are at street level on the sun-facing side of the building. On the Interstates near the downtown, the direction signs used to say "Metrodome Stadium this exit" or whatever. I haven't seen the stadium for awhile, so I don't know what the current signage is. It's very unlikely it's still going to say "Minnesota Twins Ticket Office" anymore, but I don't know about the rest of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This photo from 2007 is a bird's-eye view of the Dome from its west (third-base) side, and at full blowup you can see that ticket office, and that there was no apparent signage at the rim. This photo from last fall shows that ticket office up close, and the signage that was new at the time. (Side note: The 2007 photo was taken less than 3 months before the I-35W bridge collapse, that bridge being out-of-frame to the left.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming this was the sign I saw on the broadcast, only it was at night and lit up. (It was probably a Vikings preseason game shown on the NFL Network.) - BilCat (talk) 13:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! That's new since last year. What we might have here is a name dichotomy. Like when the Angels played at Dodger Stadium during 1962-65, they called it Chavez Ravine. Or more recently, when the Jets played at Giants Stadium they often called it The Meadowlands. As for Mall of America Field, that's a local business, and maybe the Gophers would just as soon stay away from anything that sounds like advertising. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it seems that in a baseball context, the stadium would never be referred to as "Mall of America Field". From what I can tell, that is a name that is exclusive to football events at the stadium. The stadium itself is called the "Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome", and as you can see here, the University of Minnesota continues to use that name for the stadium. – Pee Jay 00:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Legally the stadium will always be known as the "Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome". [5] As As a public resource the stadium cannot be renamed. The "Mall of America" moniker has been mostly rejected as a name by Twin City media outlets. [6] I strongly support moving the page to the "Metrodome" or "Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome" I think PeeJay2k3's move was a definite improvement. 184.97.248.238 (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's "illegal", how did they get away with putting "Mall of America Field" all over the structure? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's quite what the anon meant :P If what he/she says about the impossibility of renaming the stadium itself is correct, then I assume that for the Vikings to be able to sell the naming rights, they had to call the field "Mall of America Field at Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome" rather than just "Mall of America Field" or "Mall of America Metrodome". – Pee Jay 18:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peejay2k3 is correct. As this article indicates, only the football playing field has been temporarily renamed. Advertising and changing the name of elements within the stadium is completely permissible. Crunk Cup (talk) 01:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced. Someone needs to get a definitive answer on this matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, contemporary news sources all make specific mention of the fact that it's only the playing surface that has been renamed. As well as the ones the anon gave above, these sources ([7][8][9][10]) are quite explicit about that fact. They also point out that the reason the "Mall of America Field" signage is so prominent on the stadium is that it was a condition of the sponsorship deal. – Pee Jay 07:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right, and this also feels like deja vu from about a year ago. I'm going to see what I can do about determining just what the deal is. If it's actually for sure only the playing field, you might want to consider having the primary name as just plain "Metrodome", with HHH Metrodome and MOA Field at HHH Metrodome as the redirects. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't made any calls yet, but this much I can tell you:

As noted before, "Mall of America Field" now appears in big letters painted on the roof.
The ticket window area lettering was changed since last year and it now reads this way:

MALL OF AMERICA FIELD

AT THE H.H.H. METRODOME

The only place on the property that the word "Metrodome" appears without qualification is on one of the many "cards" on the electronic message board at the southwest corner of the block.
It's also worth pointing out that the direction signs on the interstates still specify "Metrodome Stadium". This doesn't mean much, as the Met Center direction sign in Bloomington remained in place for years after the Met Center had been demolished.

I usually assume that the signage at a given place reflects the correct name or names, on the expectation that the people running the place should know what they're doing

The question now seems to be where the dividing line is, if any, between the "stadium" and the "field".

Another thing to be checked is whether the stadium commission still owns the property on which the Mall of America sits. If so, then there would likely be no issues with the name, and it's a good fit anyway since the MoA sits where the Old Met used to be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- There are no places on the property that use the word "Metrodome" without qualification. It is always referred to as the "Hubert H. Humphyrey Metrodome". Any mention of "Mall of America Field" is simply advertising the sponsorship deal on temporary renaming the field.
- There is an distinct dividing line between the field and the stadium as proven above. The name "Mall of America Field at Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome" is exclusively used to refer to the field for Vikings games. It is never used to refer the facility in general or to the playing field when used for any events that are not Vikings games.
- Whoever owns the land occupied by the Mall of America is irrelevant in this discussion. 184.97.248.238 (talk) 02:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your first point is incorrect. One of the slides in the electronic advertising board on the southwest corner of the block (a board which itself is labeled simply "Mall of America Field") says simply "Metrodome" and has an illustration of the stadium and a website link of some kind. In any case, there are only 2 places on the outside of the building I know of that say "Metrodome" in any way, and the only name visible from any distance is just plain "Mall of America Field". I noticed during the NFL game broadcast on Sunday that both the screen graphics and the announcers stated just plain "Mall of America Field", no reference to "Metrodome". I took that with a grain of salt, as obviously the Vikings would encourage that usage. However, neither the cameras nor the announcers were on the field itself, which is why I wonder about the "dividing line". I also don't understand your assertion that what the stadium commission thinks is somehow not relevant. Surely they had to approve the new name's usage? In any case, if you go strictly by "common names", then just plain "Metrodome" is probably still the most common. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I'm thinking that a phone call to the stadium commission itself would probably provide a definitive answer to this puzzlement. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to their website, the number for the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission is 612-332-0386. And their page uses strictly "Metrodome" as the name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The owner of the MOA appears to be the Triple Five Group. Whether they own the "field" upon which it sits is unclear. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This interesting timeline[11] indicates that the sports commission over time sold the various parts of the MOA property to other interests. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I talked to someone at the sports commission, and it is only the field itself which is "Mall of America Field". Despite the highly visible signage, the building remains just plain H.H.H. Metrodome, "and it will remain that way as long as it's standing." So the correct answer appears to be to make either Metrodome or H.H.H. Metrodome the actual article page, and make the other stuff redirect to it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is supported by the sources I gave above. Personally, I think that Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome is the best title, since there are other places and companies known as "Metrodome", such as the Barnsley Metrodome Leisure Complex in Barnsley, UK, and a British film distributor. Furthermore, this site appears to be the stadium's official web presence, and it refers to the stadium as "Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome". – Pee Jay 19:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Titling it just plain "Metrodome" was suggested on the theory that there was only one Metrodome. If there's more than one, that won't work, so your recommendation seems optimal. Which means we're back to where we were at the point of the move. Having gotten confirmation of the situation from the stadium commission, I'm convinced that not only is "Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome" the best choice, calling the article "Mall of American Field" or "Mall of American Field at Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome" is incorrect. Unless someone wants to write an article about just the green part, which seems rather silly. So, at this point, I suppose it's time to take a "vote". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see the need to take this to a !vote. Consensus seems to be pretty conclusive from the conversation above. Is there anyone left who still thinks that "Mall of America Field at Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome" is an appropriate title? – Pee Jay 20:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The one possible objecter would be BilCat. Let me inform him of what's going on and see if he has any serious objections to "Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He says OK, and Jonathunder below says OK. Gopher it. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is
the HHH Metrodome.
This is NOT
Mall of America Field.
THIS is Mall of America Field (the green part of the photo).

This place is the primary meaning of Metrodome, which redirects here, even if isn't strictly the only one. A hatnote to a disambig page can take care of any others--we do that on many articles. I'd like to see the page at Metrodome, but I can live with H.H.H. Metrodome. It would be an improvement over the current title, which is simply wrong. Jonathunder (talk) 23:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Naming the field differently than the stadium is not unheard of. For a number of years after it was constructed (1975), the name of Iowa State University's stadium was 'Cyclone Stadium' while the name of the football field itself was 'Jack Trice Field'. --71.214.220.165 (talk) 06:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Age move

It opened in 1982 and it's 31 years old? Excuse me? 69.29.50.158 (talk) 13:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. That bit of vandalism was introduced in late October,[12] now fixed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Metrodome roof collapsed

The headline sums it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.254.60 (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article was updated moments afterward. Since the entire building didn't collapse, this was placed in its appropriate section. Reading (or even scanning for the photo of collapsed roof) would have prevented the confusion presented here. --Bobak (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

68.xxx, thanks for the headline, I understand the situation now. At first, I thought that the stadium finally figured out how much people hated it, and tried to implode itself. It failed, though, and couldn't blow itself up either. :P - BilCat (talk) 01:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Metrodome with new roof.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Metrodome with new roof.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Metrodome" v "the Metrodome"

It seems someone has gone through and removed the word "the" from the references to "the Metrodome". This is very jarring, as the stadium simply isn't referred to in that fashion in either common usage locally or in any of the sources quoted in the article. I've started re-adding it, but if I miss any feel free to add it as well. To anybody that wants to change it back, please find a reliable source stating that simply calling it "Metrodome" as opposed to "the Metrodome" is proper. Thanks! SeanNovack (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any stadium with the suffix "dome" or "grounds" has typically been preceded by "the" in common usage. The stadium itself will typically not have "the" posted in front of it, nor would it be presented that way in a tabular list. But in prose, "the" is typically used. It once went further than that, for example Yankee Stadium was often called "the Yankee Stadium" in its early years. A somewhat parallel usage is the big sign at Wrigley Field which says "Home of Chicago Cubs". In normal prose you would say "the home of the Chicago Cubs". The "thes" are not necessary for a sign or a list. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Usage section - coatrack?

There is a discussion over whether articles about buildings should contain sections on usage and events. Some say such sections are violations of WP:COATRACK. Depending on how the discussion goes, about 2000 words of this article might be removed. If anyone has thoughts about the issue they can participate at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Golden Domes. Will Beback talk 00:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A usage or event is only a "coatrack" if it's disproportionately covered. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the issue is, in an article on a building, how much coverage of events is too much. Will Beback talk 01:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why "WAS" for the Vikings?

The lede includes the sentence, "The Metrodome was home to the National Football League's Minnesota Vikings, and the Big Ten's University of Minnesota Golden Gophers baseball team through 2010 and 2012, respectively." I can't find anything, anywhere that suggests the Viking have stopped using the Metrodome. Nothing appears on their page. There is talk of a new stadium in Ramsey County on the Vikings Stadium page, but nothing suggests that the Vikings will disappear this year.

Can someone with more knowledge on the topic either correct the 'was' or explain it in the article? I was just here for the architecture, so I wouldn't even know what primary sources to consult. Kevin/Last1in (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While clearly just my opinion, I'm sure they will figure out some arrangement for the next couple years while potential new stadium talks go on. Officially for now though, the lease they had to play there has ended. It's hidden a bit, but there in the replacement facilities section. --Onorem ♠Dil 15:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for home field advantage

why was there a home field advantage for the twins on those world series'? the white roof and the turf.. was it just that the twins were used to them while visiting teams weren't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.7.241.1 (talk) 10:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Demolition, tense changes

I added a section on the demolition process near the end of the article. I'm not sure if it's placed in the best place withing the article. Should it be merged with the replacements section? Also, I've added a date range for the demolition to the main infobox, similar to that seen on Yankee Stadium (1923). I assumed the deflation of the roof marked the beginning of demolition.

Also at some point we'll have to go through the entire article and change all tenses from present to past. I'm not sure when this move will be appropriate, it isn't now I don't think since the building is technically still there.

--Tommie 91•Talk•Contribs 15:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the word 'infamous' regarding the Metrodome's roof because that is POV which is not allowed. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131225143255/http://www.startribune.com/local/191399971.html to http://www.startribune.com/local/191399971.html

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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome/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.

This could easily become a good article with a little bit of copyediting. For now I rated it as B-Class, the highest possible without review. Phydend (talk) 20:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 20:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 18:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

I would like to say I am extremely sorry for my previous edits. I unfortunately did not know there was a section, partly because it was some what hard to find. I made the unfortunate error of creating a section that had already been created concerning the 2010 roof collapse. Again I am sorry. I feel kind of ignorant and foolish for wasting the edit history.

Ps I reverted my edits BigRed606 (talk) 07:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]