Talk:Bradbury Building

Which document?

Wyman's grandson, the science fiction publisher Forrest J. Ackerman, owned the original of this document until his death.

As the page currently stands, it's not clear at all what "this document" is referring to. Usually I would do some spelunking to try to figure out what if it used to refer clearly to something in an old revision, but I'm burned out on it today. 24.16.57.110 (talk) 05:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Raymond Chandler and Philip Marlowe

With all the other mentions in the popular media section, I am surprised this has been left out. One of the huge reasons for the Bradbury Building's appearances in tv and movie detective genre, such as Banyon and 77 Sunset Strip, is that Raymond Chandler's literary PI Philip Marlowe had his office in the Bradbury. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.7.158.188 (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Minor content deletion

Dear User: Beyond My Ken Please establish your case for re-inserting (again) the names of two minor figures who do not at present meet Wikipedia notability standards/have pages in their names. Why are the two so germane? Thank you. Wikiuser100 (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:N is a standard for being notable enough to have an article, it does not apply to whether the names of relevant people appear ion an article, and the person who paid for the restoration and the architect who supervised it are clearly relevant. I'm more than happy to remove the wikilinks, if your point is that they're not notable enough to have articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Pop culture material sourced to i09.com.

I propose that we remove all mentions of movies and TV shows sourced to here because this blog is not a reliable secondary source for the relevance of the movies to the subject of this article. It is a blog that means to list every movie filmed there. Relying on it to include items is giving them undue weight.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Pop culture material sourced to BRmovie.com

I propose that we remove all mentions of movies and TV shows sourced to BRbuilding.com, as it's not a reliable secondary source for the significance of the movies mentioned. It's a deadlinked commercial website whose purpose seems to have been to promote the building and therefore relying on mentions solely therein to include things here is giving them undue weight.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced pop culture material

I propose that we not include any pop culture stuff in here without having a reliable secondary source that discusses the work in relation to this specific building, otherwise we are almost certainly giving the bare fact that the building served as a location undue weight.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

That is, unfortunately, not the standard for popcult material. Any media item acts as a reliable source to verify its own contents, which means that popcult items do not require a secondary source -- unless, of course, an item strays beyond straightforward description into interpretation or analysis. These, like everywhere else on Wikipedia, do require secondary sources, but pure description does not, and items should not be removed on that basis. Entries can be removed on the basis that they are mere trivial mentions of the article's subject matter, which is a primary way to keep the popcult sections from growing like topsy. Be sure, however, that the mention really is trivial, since this criterial should not be used as catch-all to eliminate popcult sections wholesale. There is no general community consensus for that.

Also, per WP:BRD, the article should stay in the status quo ante state (to which I have again returned it after your revert) while discussion is ongoing. So, please discuss your specific objections here, and please don't make any more non-consensus edits. BMK (talk) 02:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't a revert, actually. It was a performative demonstration of my proposed criteria, which you don't want to discuss, evidently. How do you define "mention" with regard to shooting locations? Are you seriously proposing that every appearance of a location in a movie or TV show belongs in the article on that location? If not, what criteria should be used to decide if a "mention" in the sense of an appearance is trivial? Why not the fact that a secondary source discusses the appearance in relation to the location? I'm not, by the way, proposing that we need a secondary source to prove that the location is present in the work, but that we use secondary sources to determine whether a mention in the article is giving undue weight to the appearance of the location. See the difference?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's see, you made an edit, I reverted it, and you reverted it back -- that's pretty much a "revert" by any other name -- and WP:BRD doesn't have an "out" for "performantive demonstrations of the proposed criteria."

"Mentions": I don't see shooting locations as "mentions", I see them as demonstrations of how filmmakers value the use of the property. "Mentions" means something like the item I just deleted from the "Queensboro Bridge" article, which went something like "In the TV series All Dudes Are Cool, Joe told Linda that he was going to jump off the Queensboro Bridge." That's a "mere mention," whereas something like "On Charley Rose, filmmaker Adrian Popkozotski said that the Queensboro Bridge was the inspiration for the Menlo Park Bridge in his film Edison Meets Godzillais legit.

However, we don't necessarily need to have it straight from the dragon's mouth, if the Bradbury Building appears in a film, and the scene is significant (i.e. not a drive-by, or a fly-by, or seeing it in the rear-view mirror, or a re-creation in the studio, but an actual scene taking place in the actual bulding), then that's a legitimate entry, since the scene can be verified by viewing the film. BMK (talk) 03:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, lighten up. I didn't revert it back, I took out different stuff the second time. We're all old hands here, and there's nothing wrong with fooling around a little.

So let me see if I understand your position. We need to have a "significant" appearance in the film, and if we do then it can be listed here. How do we decide if the appearance is significant? You say "actual scene taking place in the actual building," but not drive-by or rear-view. So if they're in the building for one second then yes? One tenth of a second? But if the building is a looming presence in the rear-view mirror for three hours (think French conceptualism or something) while two characters talk about everything other than the building, thereby increasing the narrative weight of its manifestation in the rear-view, then no? Or if no for one second, then how many seconds? What I propose is that if a reliable source discusses the scene in the context of the building that tells us that the appearance is significant. My standard is objective. Yours requires us to watch the films with a stopwatch in hand, thereby doing OR, and even then, we don't know for how long the scene or view must last. Your criterion sounds idiosyncratic. Does anyone else agree with you about it?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I over-reacted. I just spent 5 hard days working 15-hour days out of town, and then caught up with my Watchlist today, so I probably OD'd on silly vandalism and other garbage, which put me in a defensive mood. Since I've now had a drink, I think I'll put off a response until tomorrow, when I can be a little more level-headed. Again, my apologies. BMK (talk) 04:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

No worries. Your reaction is understandable. After all, which movies filmed in the Bradbury Building ought to go into the WP article is the third most pressing issue of the 21st century after, maybe, why is Lindsey Lohan doing that show and will tsunamis lower real-estate prices in Santa Monica. Obviously I need to calm down too. Maybe we can start a new section to talk about abstract criteria for inclusion? Tell you the truth, what really bugs me is people putting in stuff from Grand Theft Auto at Musso & Frank. At least we're not on that level.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

In pop culture: on a software box and in a video game

I removed this from the IPC section because it's unsourced, but more importantly, is utterly trivial:

The building was featured in the photography on the Microsoft Office SharePoint Portal Server 2003 box, while the [[personal computer game]] ''[[SimCity 3000]]'' shows the building as one of many being built in the so-called Medium Commercial zones.

I would like to try to move this section to a point where we have (only? mostly?) references to the building that are discussed in secondary and independent sources so that we have some way of judging whether they're relevant to the reader's understanding of the building, rather than the pop-culture item. This deletion is the first sally in that program (just for the sake of full disclosure) but regardless of that, I think this removal is justified on its own merits. Thoughts?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to have abandoned the above discussion - I got very busy in RL and then completely forgot that we had started.

I agree that your removal was justified, and I have no problem with similar removals of trivial instances, indeed, I do it all the time myself. However, I still do not agree that secondary and tertiary sources are necessary for popcult items, for the extremely practical reason that such sources most often do not exist, and requiring them would be tantamount to gutting every popcult section in the encyclopedia -- and we know that there's no consensus within the community for elimination of popcult sections.

No, my position continues to be that popcult entries are verifiable via reference to the media item mentioned, and that lists can be policed through editorial consensus discussions about triviality and notability, much as WP:WEIGHT is in the body of articles. Not everything in the encyclopedia can be held to precisely the same standard -- we have, for instance, differing standards of notability in different fields of endeavor -- and this is one instance where attempting to apply an inappropriate standard would be detrimental to the project. BMK (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

No need to be sorry. It's funny, but I saw your name pop up somewhere else on my watchlist and I remembered that there was something we were going to discuss, but I couldn't for the life of me remember what it was until this morning. Anyway, I understand that there's no consensus for the general principle, and I certainly won't try to establish it here, I just wanted to make clear where I'm coming from. I'm perfectly willing to do this one item at a time. (I wouldn't mind seeing most of the pop culture sections gutted, but 'tis another story). I'm sensitive about this article, though, because the building is such a holy place and so many of its appearances seem so tangential to an actual understanding of the role of the building in culture. Anyway, as I said, I'll propose items in small groups with more explanation as necessary and as I think of them.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, always happy to discuss any item. BMK (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Popcult removals by alf laylah wa laylah

Appearance in CSI NY

I removed this: "In 2010 the building was transplanted to New York City for a two-part episode of CSI NY." Assuming arguendo the principle that appearances in media are self-sourcing because they can be verified by viewing, this is too vague to verify. Which two-part episode was it? Do I have to watch all two-part episodes to see if the building appears and is represented as being in NYC? As always, I will assert that this also shouldn't be in the article because who cares about it, but my removal is based solely on lack of verifiability.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

And in this edit Meat & Veg puts it back in with no edit summary and without engaging here. Not so very collegial, is it, then?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Some music videos that aren't verifiable

I removed this: "The Bradbury appeared in music videos from the 1980s by Heart, Janet Jackson, Earth Wind and Fire and Genesis, and a Pontiac Pursuit commercial." on the same principal as above. Do I have to watch every video by each of these artists from the entire decade to discover whether this is true or not, not to mention every commercial for the Pontiac Pursuit? I claim that this sentence fails WP:V unless it can be made much more specific by citation to a source.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Where was Good Neighbor Sam shot?

I removed this clause from the sentence about Good Neighbor Sam: ", supposedly set in San Francisco but almost entirely shot in Los Angeles." I'm not yet arguing the point that movies are self-sourcing, but surely it would violate WP:OR to watch the movie and decide if it were "almost entirely shot in Los Angeles," would it not?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

At least one episode of these TV shows

I removed this: "at least one episode of the television series Banyon (1972–73), City of Angels (1976) and Mission: Impossible (1966–73),<ref name="BR Movie"/> as well as in" because, as before, there's no indication of which episodes the building appeared in. As lovely as it would be to watch 7 years worth of Mission Impossible, I don't see that it's the equivalent of a specific citation to a source supporting the claimed fact. I might as well reference a fact to "a book published by Penguin between 1993 and 2000." I think that if we're going on the principle that media representations are self sourcing, we need at least references to specific episodes here.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The verifiability standard

Please note that WP:V says:

In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source.

Obviously, it is possible to verify that the building appeared in an episode of a TV series by watching every episode of the series. It would be tremendously inconvenient, and much preferable for the actual episode to be specified, but the lack of a specified episode is not a grounds for removal, since verifiability is possible. This is exactly equivalent to citing as a reliable source material held in specialized libraries open only to qualified scholars, or websites that require costly subscriptions. These sources are not immediately or easily available, but are acceptable nonetheless.

Please do not continue to remove items on this basis, your removals will be reverted as out of process and not supported by policy. BMK (talk) 06:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you're confused about what "ease of verifiability" means here. It's still necessary to cite a particular work. Your analogy isn't sound, because in cases where one cites a book in a specialized library only open to scholars, which I myself have certainly done, both with the National Archives and with a couple other places, one puts the actual name of the book or work into the citation, so that it's possible to find it. For instance, "letter from X to Y dated 12/25/1913 in the Z collection of Widener Library, box 42" or something like that. What we have here is a situation where someone says that the fact appears in a book on the third shelf from the west wall on the second floor of the library but refuses to say what the title is, or possibly that it appears in a book by Professor J. Smith, but refuses to say which book in particular. You're claiming that such citations pass WP:V? Also, if you could dial down your authoritarian language and just discuss the matter it would make things more pleasant, but, on the other hand, I imagine others have wanted to say such things to me. When you say in advance that you'll revert me before hearing and responding to my explanations, well, it just doesn't seem very collegial, eh?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 12:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I didn't find your actions in removing a bunch of entries immediately after our pleasant discussion above to be very "collegial" either -- it looked to me rather like a shot fired across the bow, and I responded accordingly. So, if we're going to keep this friendly, please don't do things such as that again -- you've already admitted that you would prefer that popcult sections be "gutted", so it's going to be quite natural for me to interpret your actions as a step in that direction unless we go slowly and steadily.

There is no doubt that not specifying the particular episode is hardly the best possible way to add a piece of information, but it is nothing like making a reference to a book by the method you suggest, since it suitably narrows down the options to a small number of TV episodes, which are easily available and easily searched -- although at the expense, admittedly, of time. It's much like specifying a book without specifying the page number, which means you have to buy the book and, if not indexed properly, search it for the material cited - not the best referencing, but also not a reason for removing the information. BMK (talk) 12:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I admitted it was a shot across the bow, but it was only one shot, since I carefully only removed things on the basis of one single theory for removing them so we could talk about them en masse. Anyway, now that we're moving beyond that, what about a show like Guiding Light, which had 18,262 episodes, according to our article on it. Could I say that the Bradbury Building appeared in, e.g., six episodes of the guiding light and was discussed in four others beyond those and have that statement be considered verifiable, then? We're talking about 72 seasons worth of material here. Where's the limit, if there is any? Also, what if I were to list every day that the Building was mentioned in the LA Times? Like, e.g., "The Bradbury Building was mentioned twice in the LA Times on December 14, 1943. It was also mentioned three times on December 18, 1943" and so on. That would satisfy verifiability? What if I said "The BB has been pictured in 452 distinct photographs published in the Herald Examiner between 1965 and 1980"? Verifiable?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's not deal with theoreticals, let's deal with what we have in front of us. BMK (talk) 13:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I generally agree with you that ignoring theoreticals is the best way to proceed, but your position on WP:V is hard for me to comprehend. I'm just trying to establish the parameters. Anyway, probably you and I aren't going to get any further on this with just the two of us. How about if we let the question sit here for a week or so to see if others weigh in, and if we don't get any further input or there's no way to discern consensus, we publicize the discussion in some agreed-on manner?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Fine. BMK (talk) 14:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Happy Friday!

Well, here it is, Friday, and what better to do than to try to sort out the implications of WP:V for the IPC section here? I'd like to ask for more opinions, since no one else seems inclined to weigh in here. I'm thinking maybe a wider venue than this talk page would be appropriate, but I'm not wedded to the idea (WP:RSN, WP talk:V?). BMK, what do you think about where we should host a discussion? Also, what genre of discussion do you think is appropriate? Just a talk page section or noticeboard post? A full on RfC? I suppose we should talk about these issues before we get to formatting and phrasing.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think it's necessary to go to RfC over this matter. The view from 30,000 feet is that about one third of the text of this article is "In Popular Culture" and that's far, far too much. As a matter of editorial judgment rather than anything about any core policies, I think the length of the "In Popular Culture" section should be halved.—S Marshall T/C 08:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• I certainly agree with you, but the policy principle is important to me because it's doubtful that we're going to reach a local consensus here about IPC stuff on purely editorial grounds. Thanks for taking a look.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 11:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Well, the policy principle is that a TV series is a primary source. It's allowable if used with care but ideally you want a secondary source that describes how the TV series uses the building. In my view it should be normal to cite the specific episode of the TV series in question, not just the series in general (so for example, I would personally accept "The Twilight Zone, Series 3, Episode 8" as a source). If the episode number is unavailable or difficult for some reason, then the title of the episode would also do.—S Marshall T/C 12:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• To say that a TV series is a "primary source" in the sense of WP:PRIMARY stretches the definition much too far, since the episode is not a statement about itself, it is itself. There is no real difference between an editor putting a fact into an article which he has read in a book, and then citing the book as a reference, and an editor putting a fact that he has viewed in a TV episode into the article, and implicitly using the episode as the source for the fact. This is true as long as we stick to straight-forward description and do not stray into interpretation, analysis or commentary, which would obviously require a citation from another source.

  I've just gone through the popcult section, and I see nothing there that strays from description, or which is not verifiable by way of the media item mentioned. If there are specific items which anyone would like to discuss, that's fine, but we generally don't do a "view from 30,000 feet" on an article and say "Oh, look, this article on Joe Blow is almost 75% about his career, that should be reduced," instead, we build up the rest of the article, if that's possible (often the sources just aren't there to do that). To apply that kind of standard to popcult items is to, once again, look at them as "second class citizens" unworthy of encyclopedic notice. That attitude has repeatedly been rejected on Wikipedia, under intense pressure, as has the wholesale deletion of "In popular culture" sections. If you want to change that, you're going to have to do it encyclopedia-wide, and not by picking off articles one by one. BMK (talk) 12:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Well, I started talk page sections for each item I removed, giving reasons for doing so. You chose to group them into one section and respond en masse by citing policy. This is not unreasonable, because I gave the same reason for each deletion, but nevertheless, it's not entirely accurate to imply that no one wants to discuss individual items. The talk page sections above are open and unused. Also, I believe S Marshall is correct in their assertion that works of art are primary sources for themselves. This is stated explicitly in the MOS regarding fiction at MOS:PLOT and is true, I believe, by analogy, for works in other media. Regardless of your feelings on that, I agree with you about there being no difference between an editor putting a fact from a book into an article and a straight-forward description of a visually manifest fact from a TV episode. I have no problem with that at all. The question here is really how specifically the TV show has to be cited. I think it must be cited to a specific episode, you think an entire run of a series is OK. I think a specific song video is needed, you think a musical group and a decade is OK. Tangentially, though, I'm not treating IPC items as second-class citizens, I'm trying to get them treated as first-class citizens, which have to live up to both standards of verifiability and relevance.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 12:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Works of art are themselves, not any kind of primary, secondary or tertiary source about themselves. An artist's statement about a work of art is a primary source, the work of art just is.

  You admit that your action above was a "shot across the bow", and I responded as such. Listing a large number of items all at one time is a mass event, whether each one has its own little section or not - so you really have no one to blame for the discussion getting derailed except yourself, since you began it with ulterior motivations. BMK (talk) 13:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• The topic's not derailed. You say WP:V is satisfied by citing the whole run of a series or a video by band X in a decade rather than a specific episode. I think that WP:V isn't satisfied unless a specific episode of a TV show or a specific video is cited. So far S Marshall agrees with me about TV shows and didn't say anything about videos. The conversation is proceeding perfectly well. Since everyone agrees that a work of art is sufficient verification for manifest facts about itself it's actually irrelevant to this discussion whether it's a primary source or not (although I believe that it is one).— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• I was referring to the original discussion above, not to this one.

  It's settled policy here that the convenience of verification is not a factor in determining whether a source should be used or not. WP:Offline sources makes it quite clear that sources which are not readily available to the average editor -- such as materials in research libraries, specialized journals, or expensive books -- are still more than acceptable. So your "argument from convenience" is not controlling. Not mentioning an episode is the exact equivalent of not providing a page number - we don't remove a book source because it doesn't specify a page number, simply because of the inconvenience of looking through the book for the references. Yes, it would be better if it did, but it's not a fatal error. BMK (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, I understand your position. I just don't agree with your analogy. I think that not providing an episode is the exact equivalent of not providing a book title, which is fatal, and that not providing, e.g. an exact number of minutes into an episode is the exact equivalent of not providing a page number, which is not fatal. My argument is not "from convenience," it's from verifiability. It's clear that we don't agree on the interpretation of that policy. That's all that's happening here.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Well, I'm giving your relevant examples of how things actually work here, and you're basically giving your opinion. Wikipolicy is not that verifiability has to be easy, it simply has to be possible. Do you have any examples from policy or normal processes to support your position? BMK (talk) 14:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Yep, WP:V. This is a difference in interpretation of policy, not a disagreement over which policy controls. It's that simple. You're giving your opinion over how the policy applies, I'm giving mine. We disagree so I asked for more opinions. That's what we're waiting for now.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• So, let me make sure I have this correct, your position is that because a popcult item says that the Bradbury Building appeared in an episode of Banyon, but does not say which episode, it is not possible to verify that the Bradbury Building appeared in an episode of Banyon. Is that right? BMK (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• I didn't say it wasn't possible to verify, I said that it's my opinion that that doesn't meet the standard for citation required by WP:V. This is borne out by the part of WP:CITE on TV episodes: Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Film.2C_TV.2C_or_video_recordings, which asks for more detailed information than just the name of the overall show. In fact, at WP:Page numbers it even makes my same analogy between time in video and page number of book. I think this is probably more than is needed, though, so I certainly am not planning to press that point. Since you refuse to discuss hypotheticals it's hard for me to explain my position more clearly, although I think I made it fairly clear above.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• OK, so your position is that if a popcult item says that the Bradbury Building appeared in an episode of Banyon, but does not say which episode, it is possible to verify that the Bradbury Building appeared in an episode of Banyon, but that does not fulfill the requirements of WP:V -- is that it? BMK (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, that's my position, because the entire run of a TV series is not a source in the sense that that word is used in WP:V.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• OK, thanks for the clarification. BMK (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Shall we have an RfC, then?

It seems that there's not much interest in the issue raised above, so perhaps it would be good to have an RfC. I'm thinking it would be good to hold it at WP Talk:V or WP Talk:RSN, but am open to suggestions. As a first stab at an appropriate question, how does this sound: "Assuming that artistic works are reliable sources for their own content, is a citation to a specific episode of a TV show or a specific music video necessary to satisfy the requirements of WP:V, or is some broader citation (e.g. to a series of TV shows or an artist+decade for music videos) sufficient?"

I'm not entirely happy with this, as it seems too complex. I think it's at least neutrally worded and that it captures the question at hand. I would certainly appreciate help framing it better, though.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

retro-fitting

Just out of curiosity how does the structure stand up to present day earthquake tolerance? There's nothing in the article about how this building managed to survive this long near the San Andreas fault. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.252.183.253 (talk) 00:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

You mean except for the part that says "In 1991, a $7 million restoration[2] and seismic retrofitting was undertaken by developer Ira Yellin and project architect Brenda Levin Associates."? BMK (talk) 00:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

CE

Beyond My Ken I did a minor copy-edit to improve the article and you reverted it with an impertinent comment. Perhaps you might discuss it here to reach consensus? I altered the pictures because they crowded the left margin and used ....px rather than upright. What's to get grumpy about? Keith-264 (talk) 14:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

You did not do "minor copy edit work", you reduced the size of an image and moved it from left to right, making the article visually much less interesting and impeding the visual flow. I've changed the px to upright, so that is no longer an issue, but that picture (I did not revert your first edit, so the second one is the only one at issue) is clearly best on the left. Alternating sides of the article is good visual sense, it prevents visual boredom and keeps the page lively. Finally, I made no "impertinent" comment. You made a Bold edit which I Reverted, and you immediately reverted it back instead of discussing it, so I suggested you re-familiarize yourself with WP:BRD - your re-revert was the first step towards edit warring. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I did not make a bold edit, that was your inference and I reverted your edit because the reason you gave was untenable. To treat the revert as the prelude to an edit war is (again) to favour your judgement over the behaviour of a stranger and is not AGF. You followed that with a comment on my talk page that was threatening and typologically exaggerated, when all you had to do was ask why or suggest this discussion. If you're interested, I saw that the article was start class and wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition. I think that pictures on the left obstruct the text and have less impact since they aren't introduced properly. When there are a lot of pics, changing sides can help but with so few here I think the second pic is much better on the right. Thank you for using upright; size is debatable but with so little text, I suggest that your preference unbalances the article and they could do with being smaller than they were. I took my time over the sizing and thought that the two were of such good definition that the original sized were over the top.

PS I like to discuss edits, so I welcome the opportunity. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Image size

@Beyond My Ken: Can we discuss image size (again)? I see no reason why standard thumb size should not be used. The image in the popular culture section is definitely too wide, IMO. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "standard size" for images, there's is only a default size, which is just what happenes if you dont specific an image size. Images should be the size they need to be to be clearly viewed and understood by the reader. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok, then I prefer the default size. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Fine, get a consensus here for using the default size instead of leaving the article in the state is has been in for a long time, and please don;t change that long-standing version until you do have a consensus per WP:BRD. There is no Wikipedia-wide consensus that the default size is preferable to sizing images appropriately per article, contexts and conditions. Beyond My Ken (talk)

And may I warn you in advance against WP:CANVASSING. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:46, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I find the images unnecessarily large but I'm moving on to other things. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

In deference to your sensibilities, I tried reducing the size of the images in the gallery, but because of the way "packed" works, the choice was either too small or the current size, so I left it alone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Double Indemnity

I walked past the Bradbury this weekend and heard a tour guide concluding a speech with the "fact" that the opening and closing scenes of Double Indemnity (1944) are set or shot in the Bradbury Building, which made me wince in the same way I do when I read it on Wikipedia or the sources usually claimed, like tourist blogs, or, I think perhaps the source prime source of the concept, a 1990s LA Times article. Actual close viewing of Double Indemnity (1944) will show that this is not the case (not did Wilder/the studio ever claim such).

Fred MacMurray's insurance agent character works in an office building on Olive Street (they say so by name in the final scene, and when they have a meeting with the boss you can see the Security Building across Pershing Square in his window). His building has a separate lobby (opening scene), then an elevator lobby of only one story (with visible ceiling) that then goes from two doors into a larger atrium of offices surrounding a central typing pool.

This is a set that was inspired by Paramount's corporate parent headquarters in New York City. I believe MacMurray's office being placed on Olive at the south end of Pershing Square is intentional, because it's the home of the Pacific Mutual insurance complex, which would have been well known as a landmark in that business in central Los Angeles at the time.

https://calisphere.org/item/0adad9be01b5966d1738d2c3589e8c54/

https://dtla-weekly.com/monuments-time-pacific-mutual-life-insurance-building/

That first shot when he does out into the open plan does resemble the Bradbury's interior briefly, but it's more rectangular, much larger, only two stories, and does not contain the Bradbury's distinctive iron pipework and elevators.

Looking at the office pool sets in the actual movie demonstrates the dissimilarity to the Bradbury.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r_jjQ_idz8 (about 1:00)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41brxmagh3A. (around 8:50) 2603:8000:C003:AA29:8DF7:AC85:4391:B8D2 (talk) 02:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Definitely not the Bradbury Building in Double Indemnity. The two-level office with the second-level walkway is reminiscent of the Bradbury Building, but the Bradbury Building's lobby extends all the way to a glass ceiling. Removing Double Indemnity reference from the article. 136.54.22.193 (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)