From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How can we improve this article?

All the basic information seems to be in the article. What do we need to do to make it better? Blank Verse 16:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Just keep an eye on Science-advocate to prevent his posting misinformation and another rant. BTW...his last edit states that animators worked almost 3 years on the current show. The actual number is 27 months. The original "more than two years" was correct, but I risk locking the article to editing if I fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmarkdixon ( talk • contribs)
Do you have any way that we can independently varify the time frame?
If you discuss your concerns and provide reasons for your edits (and if you don't violate the Wikipedia's Three revert rule) there should be no problems with the article being locked (or you getting temporarily blocked from editing). Blank Verse 13:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC) reply


I directed the show. The City of Los Angeles approval to hire the vfx supervisor in July, 2004 is online here: [1]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmarkdixon ( talk • contribs)

Changed "critical review of Centered in the Universe" back to "Review of Centered in the Universe" to avoid redundancy. Reviews are by definition critical, and Science Advocator's attempted spin is dishonest, as the review is generally positive.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmarkdixon ( talk • contribs)

Something needs to be put into the article about the new use of “show presenters”, instead of the traditional planetarium lecturers.A quick Google search find this reference [2]. Unfortunately, the article the blog refers to is now offline.
[I'm just taking a wild guess, but I'm wondering if User:Science-advocator may be one of the observatory's former lecturers, or someone with a connection to one.]
Blank Verse 13:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Most likely. Not sure what to say about the "presenters." Reality is that the show should be handled by a recorded narration, although the actors provide a nice touch, albeit with additional expense and complexity. Eventually the institution will likely offer a suite of shows in which the classical lecturers can resume their traditional roles. Not sure if it's appropriate to speculate in the article, though. It strikes a nicely objective and informative tone right now. space artist 05:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply

The change in how the observatory shows are handled has been mentioned (briefly) in most of the general news articles on the observatory remodel (that is, those articles not on just on the architechture, etc.), and so it also deserves a brief mention in this article. One of the LA Times articles that I looked at last night had a quote from the directory of a local college-based observatory, so I may use that.
Discussion of possible changes in the future do not belong in the article unless they have been announced as definately scheduled changes (see WP:NOT - specifically, the Wikipedia is not a crystal ball).
The current version of the article needs some expansion of the History section. For example, some info about the provision in Griffith's will about the observatory being free. Also something about it's relationship to other observatories— wasn't it something like only the third planetarium in the US? A brief mention of the Laserium show is needed, because it was quite popular for awhile.
The article also needs a better description on how most of the new expansion is underground. Also needed is more info on the new exhibits. Blank Verse 06:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I'd simply ask what science has gone on there (as opposed to science education)? I presume that none has, because nothing has been mentioned. I revere the obseratory because it was the face of science and the future to me when I was a young boy in the midwest in the early 50s. Thus it's pop-culture importance. Any description of it's research value as well as it's educational value is really worthwhile, in my view. And probably in Mr. Griffith's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.30.177.240 ( talk) 03:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I added the fact that the Observatory was constructed as part of the WPA. I thought it was at least as important as who the designs were made by. -excombrary28 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Excombray28 ( talk • contribs) 19:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Lead image

I added this image to the gallery and I reckon it would make a good primary image for the page. I didn't want to just go and swap it out with the existing first image as that seems a little presumptuous, what does anyone else think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfield ( talk • contribs)

I prefer the current lead image. I think the sky looks nicer. Mike Dillon 21:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The problem for both of them is that they have the façade in the shade, although the current lead picture looks like it was taken much later in the day (longer shadows) and so it is darker and shows less detail. I think that the photo by Matthew Field ( Mfield ( talk · contribs)) is the better choice. Blank Verse 13:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC) reply
We'd need to get a picture at noon on the summer solstice to get the most illuminated view of the façade. Mike Dillon 17:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I'll endeavor to take a better one in the next few weeks when I actually get round to getting to the observatory rather than just hiking up behind it. The light will always be a problem with the north facing front of the building, my image is actually about as light as the front gets without recourse to an HDR image or a night shot. Mfield 18:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Like I said, summer solstice will be brighter, since the sun is farther north. It looks like you took your pic around the winter solstice from the image description, which is day when the front will be least illuminated. (update: I guess it was September; I was confusing the times on the two images) Mike Dillon 21:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I replaced my image on commons as I realized it had the wrong color profile, plus a few color and contrast adjustments. It's much better now - it looks the way it's supposed to - and I still think it is better than the existing main image which is distorted and fully in shadow...? Mfield 03:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply

I swapped it. Mike Dillon 03:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Article needs more facts and less movie/popular culture references

It's kind of sad that 50% of this article is devoted to the Observatory's appearance in TV and films etc. rather than providing information about the building itself. I wonder whether popular culture references have any place in an encyclopedia entry at all. Thoughts? Mfield ( talk) 16:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply

It's one of those buildings that pops up in many places. Meanwhile, feel free to work on the possible lack of technical information about the building. I'm sure there is plenty of info to be had. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Exactly, and that's why every appearance doesn't need to be listed. Movies maybe, but every TV episode and video game, really? No one will even remember what these shows/games were in 2 years time. It drags the intellectual content of the article down to a glossy mag list style format. As another suggestion/solution maybe create a separate page like Eiffel_Tower_in_popular_culture which exists to separate this information (which is in the end more of a one way relationship) out from Eiffel_tower. Also, I see you reverted my gallery clean up. Does the gallery really need that many crappy cellphone images? That's what wikimedia categories are for. How about a link to a category gallery instead. It just makes the page look even more unfocussed. Mfield ( talk) 17:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Moving the pop culture to a separate article will make it easier for someone to nominate for deletion, if that's what your goal is. Moving the photo gallery to wikimedia would be an option, if you think it has too many photos in the article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Besides which, I count only 5 pop culture references in that section, several of which are from notable TV shows and films - not too much info in this article, nor enough to justify a separate article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Well in total Filming Locations and Popular Culture References make up the same number of lines as the rest of the article content. They also read like they have been added to and added to with loads of 'and also's' rather than being edited into a concise list. Mfield ( talk) 17:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Paranoia is rampant on wikipedia, I have no 'goal' other than to improve the quality and enc content of the the article, as should anyone editing it. Hence the discussion rather than simply deleting the section. I think moving it out is an elegant solution, like I said, the links to popular culture are mostly a one way relationship. I can see the observatory being mentioned in a TV show article when it appears but if every appearance is listed in this article it creates a huge section that shifts the focus of the article away from what it should be focussed on, which is the building itself. It's the stereotype of Los Angeles to be shallow and fleeting and value popular culture over history, but this doesn't need to be reinforced by this article. (FWIW I live 5 mins from the observatory). Mfield ( talk) 17:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
You're right, I was looking strictly at the "pop culture references". The other info is in a separate list and doesn't seem intrusive. Moving it all to another article only encourages deletionists to push for its deletion, thus imposing their views on the readers, which is why I don't like that idea. And it can't be helped that this and other buildings in the USA and around the world are frequently-used visual icons. Maybe that info could be trimmed back a bit. Meanwhile, it seems like there should be plenty of sources for technical info on the subject, to help round out the article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Suggestion; -noteable- pop culture references. The fact that a spot in Grand Theft Auto is based on this is not as noteable as (if I recall correctly) the Marvel Comics version of the observatory, which is demolished and set on fire in the 'Runaways' comic. Another example is 'Charlie's Angel 2', where much important plot stuff happens there. Again, just a suggestion. Lots42 ( talk) 08:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I've already recommended that we get more info on any science (as opposed to science education) done at the observatory, but I want to say again, that this building represented science and the future for perhaps millions of kids of the early and mid-fifties (as Flash Gordon's headquarters in the serial). That's an important pop-cultural artifact, and documenting it is useful. It might also be interesting to see if the use of images of the observatory has changed over the decades, and what we can learn from that (term paper, anyone?). But certainly the list of TV shows it appears in should include "Flash Gordon" starring Buster Crabbe, as the movie list includes the soft-core skinflick "Flesh Gordon," which certainly indicates some of the change I've hinted at.

--Martin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philroof ( talk • contribs) 04:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Architecture

It looks like a mosque. Was that what the architect was going for?-- Loodog ( talk) 18:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply

No, it's not in the least middle eastern. (Sure, it's a dome, but no decoration, as mosques always have, and lots of buildings through history have used domes.) It's more Rennaissance fortress with domes. For most of the last century, when connected with astronomy or space, domes signified science, progress, and the future. The fortress form is more mindful of, say, Rennaissance Italian fortresses and castles; the Rennaissance being another model of the new, modern, world. And it certainly fits the site.

--Martin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philroof ( talk • contribs) 03:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Vampire

I think this line should be re-written:

The observatory is a playable area in the Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines video game, unfortunately being ruined by a werewolf and destroyed by fire.

When I read "unfortunately being ruined by", I understood it at first as a criticism of the game for poorly replicating the building. This line also may contain spoilers - I haven't played the game, but it's not clear here if the building is already ruined/destroyed when it's first discovered it or if it's supposed to surprise the player. Could someone re-word this to be more concise? Thanks. 76.190.152.7 ( talk) 21:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I trimmed off the last clause, "unfortunately being ruined by a werewolf and destroyed by fire." Thanks for the suggestion.   Will Beback  talk  21:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Staffing section

The section on ASPAs and museum guides has been the subject of constant vandalism by IPs, changing the section to claim that the museum guides are more important and vice versa. To put an end to this childish edit warring by IPs who presumably work in one or the other role, I have removed the section entirely. It was at an rate completely unsourced and as such should not be added back in without being correctly cited. The intricacies of the staffing arrangements are not really of encyclopedic interest anyway. Mfield ( Oi!) 20:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC) reply

improving the article

I think it would be a really good idea, to add to the Visiting Griffith Observatory section. What to expect and what there is to do, etc. I have spoke to many people and I have had people visit the Wiki page for Griffith Observatory, and they would like to see more information right at this Wiki article for their visit to Griffith Observatory. Harbor12 ( talk) 14:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply

That's fine, but Wikipedia is not a howto or tour guide. For instance, hours and prices don't belong. Additionally, be mindful of Wikipedia's guidelines about editing articles with a conflict of interest; linking to Twitter and official links in the article make it appear you are connected. tedder ( talk) 15:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
One rule is that we never address the reader directly. Instead of saying, "You should watch out for falling boulders", we'd say, "Falling boulders are a hazard", or something like that. Tedder is right that routine visiting information doesn't belong here. That kind of thing is best kept and updated on the observatory website. More valuable for this article would be information on the building or the famous exhibits, which are discussed only briefly now.   Will Beback  talk  21:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Film location section

It's good to delete the 'In popular culture' section, but a new section, Film location would be a good idea. A short video at The A.V. Club gives a good rundown of the many times the observatory has been a movie location, and why. It was particularly important as a location in Rebel Without a Cause, and has been used in many other films. Per WP:TRIVIA, a random, grab-bag section with an unsourced list of every single film cameo is not a good idea. It should be tightly focused on a single topic, and should lean entirely on good secondary sources; not just the films themselves.

Book and TV and video game appearances are theoretically possible in separate sections, but I doubt good sources exist to justify it. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 02:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC) reply

One way that problem is gotten around sometimes is by stating that a given location has been used in "many" films, and then list a few prominent and easily verifiable examples. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Just an opinion The dance scene in La La Land that takes place at the Observatory is a beautiful piece of film making.  Eric Cable  !  Talk  18:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Gottlieb Transit Corridor

Gottlieb Transit Corridor

this fails as a wp search item

see: http://griffithobservatory.org/exhibits/gottlieb_transit_corridor.html

99.251.239.140 ( talk) 22:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

There does not seem to be a good target to point the link to on the observatory's website, or anywhere for that matter. Mcsew2k ( talk) 05:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Light Pollution?

If anyone could add some information about how light pollution effects the observatory, that would be nice. That man from Nantucket ( talk) 00:20, 15 September 2016 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Griffith Observatory. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 17:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Griffith Observatory. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Griffith Observatory. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 06:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Griffith_Observatory&oldid=1207453617"