Talk:Griffith Observatory

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? ^BlankVerse 16:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

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). ^BlankVerse 13:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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.]

^BlankVerse 13:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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. ^BlankVerse 06:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. BlankVerse 13:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Architecture

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