This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Bradbury Building article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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, 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'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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
PS I like to discuss edits, so I welcome the opportunity. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 15:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
@ 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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Bradbury Building article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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, 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'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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
PS I like to discuss edits, so I welcome the opportunity. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 15:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
@ 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)
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)