Talk:Hollywood Sign/Archives/2012

Vandalism

This article needs a list of all the different times that the sign has been vandalized. BlankVerse ∅ 18:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, can’t forget SEEN’s infamous piece on there… I don’t see any good photos of it googling, but apparently theres a doc about it online… I think it’s also featured in Spraycan Art. —Wiki Wikardo 04:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The Hollywood sign as it appears today

I've moved this picture from the article and added another, in my opinion, better picture.

References

Shrek 2 has "Far Far Away" in similar letters (not sure of capitalization), and Bride and Prejudice has "Khollywood" (not sure of spelling). Should they be listed in references? Andjam 10:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Illegal

At a minimum, it is trespassing on private property. I know that there have been arrested for that. If someone painted the sign, instead of just covering over some part of it (which is what has usually been done), that would add defacing private property. Unfortunately the official website has all of their interesting information hidden away in PDF files, so I've downloaded those and will read them later. ^BlankVerse 00:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Imitations

I added a link to Tucumcari, New Mexico because of the large 'T' that sits on a hill and is easily viewable from both aerial maps and from Interstate 40 when driving by.

Actually, single letters in whitewashed stone etc. along the side of a hill (and not elevated from the side of the hill) come from a completely different collegiate tradition, not from the Hollywood sign... AnonMoos 17:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

A useless bit of trivia about the Dingle Ireland sign. The sign was erected as part of a protest over the government's decision to change the town's name from Dingle to the Irish language version of An Deangan. Dingle being in a designated Irish language area or Gaelteacht, prohibited the town being called by it's English Language name.

As it was feared that the name change would damage Dingle's tourist industry there were protests over it. So this is the origins of the Dingle sign. ====

Copy edit, June 2006

Hello. I see that this article has found its way to 'Wikipedia articles needing copy edit'. I am going to undertake the edit for this article. I don't think that much of the structure needs to be changed. However, there are a number of typos and grammatical problems. I may need to do some minor rewriting for consistency of voice. Also the introductory paragraph needs to be expanded. Other than that, I'll try to leave it pretty much intact. The Phantom Blot 19:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that ought to do it. I did end up moving a couple of photos around. This leaves the "In popular culture" section without a photo. Anybody have a copyright OK screenshot from a movie or game? The Phantom Blot 21:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Is the picture really public domain?

In the article itself says "The sign is now a registered trademark and cannot be used without the permission of the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce" If that is the case, then the image really isn't in the public domain, right? Isn't the picture or use of the picture infringing on their registered tradmark? TakingUpSpace 20:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The picture could be declared in the public domain by the photographer, and yet the contents of the picture could include a trademarked subject. Those are two completely separate issues. I doubt it imipnges on Wikipedia... AnonMoos 17:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

See my comments in the above section. ^BlankVerse 20:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Unreferenced?

I've added the {{Unreferencedsect}} template to the Alterations and Imitations sections because I think that it is much too easy to add info that may be verify without doing original research. ^BlankVerse 20:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The refimprove template is more appropriate now. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 09:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Concur. Unless there is something that is specifically thought to be WP:OR, then that tag should be used. It is no longer needed. ----moreno oso (talk) 05:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

In popular culture

Does anyone else think this is a bit lengthy? Either move to new article or get rid of the whole section, or at least a lot of it. It's the Hollywood Sign... of course it's been in movies and tv shows. -Indolences 19:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

LAND

I came to this page looking for information on what happened to the word "LAND" in the sign. I had heard years ago that it was "HOLLYWOODLAND" and also that the "LAND" part was destroyed in an earthquake. So now I remembered to look for info on that word "LAND". But nothing here? Unless I missed it. VeriGGlater 19:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a scene in the film "Chaplin" which features the Hollywood sign with the Land bit at the end —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.150.63 (talk) 13 July 2007

So what happened to the word "land"? And why did whomever choose to take it down or not replace it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.53.78.15 (talk) 18 July 2007

Disrepair, The City didnt want to pay to rebuild, so they only replaced the Hollywood Part.--Redspork02 21:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I heard It was used for scrap metal in WWII --24.107.202.65 03:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

(Earthquake and scrap metal stories all quite incorrect, as you all know by now. --RThompson82 (talk) 10:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC) )

Perhaps there should be a list of movies and period TV shows in which the "LAND" was destroyed. For instance, in The Rocketeer, the LAND went with the exploding Zeppelin. --Micahbrwn 17:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, (for what it's worth) the "LAND" was taken out by Sinclair with the leaky rocket-pack. Of course, the movie is set in 1938 and the word "LAND" wasn't removed until 1949, so it's a bit of an anachronism, but whatever. (Just watched the movie, which is what caused me to look up this article and see what really happened.) Lurlock (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Around the 1940's, the Hollywood Sign was undergoing a major transition. In 1949, the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce finally came to the rescue of the ailing Sign, removing the letters that spelled “LAND” and repairing the rest, including the recently toppled “H.” As the century hit the halfway mark, a leaner, cleaner Sign was reintroduced in its now-iconic form. --Dillio411 (talk) 20:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of the original wording, I believe a fair-use image of the original "HOLLYWOODLAND" sign would likely be highly appropriate here. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Are there no wiki-able photos of the original LAND version of the sign ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.88.14.71 (talk) 12:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Two years later and still now photo? --RThompson82 (talk) 10:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Height

The introductory paragraph states that the letters are 50 feet high, while in the History section it is stated that while the letters were originally 50 feet high, they were replaced in the 70s with letters that are 45 feet high. 128.86.149.7 20:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Pic Request

Is there a pic around of the hollywood sign when it spelled "HuLLYWO D" due to deterioration? I tried to google it, but no luck. Jumping cheese 19:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

yes here is one i found thru google images by typing "hullywod" as an unbroken word. [1] 24.3.14.157 (talk) 12:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Invader

Should it be noted that there are space invaders put on by Invader on the sigh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Not G. Ivingname (talk • contribs) 21:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Peg Entwistle Suicide

In the article it was said that the sign became such a symbol of Hollywood (the film industry, not the town, per se) that Entwistle used it as a symbol in death (slight paraphrase). The article gave the "Hollywood Sign Trust" as the reference.

I removed the reference and edited the article because the "Hollywood Sign Trust" is simply wrong. The sign did not become a "symbol" of "Hollywood" until after and because of Entwistle's suicide. I am Entwistle's biographer and the research consultant to a documentary titled "Under the Hollywood Sign," a look at the last 100 years of history of Beachwood Canyon. In extensive interviews for my book, I have discussed the sign and it's meaning with Peg Entwistle's brother Milton. Milton Entwistle was 11 at the time of his sister's death and remembers very well that the sign was only regarded as a billboard--it was never, ever regarded as a symbol of "The Industry," or "Tinsel Town," or any other term one may use to describe "Hollywood" the film capitol.

The "Hollywood Sign Trust" orginazation has repeatedly rebuffed my requests to accuratly portray the details of the sign's meaning at the time Entwistle died. Furthermore, they have completed perverted the facts of Entwisle's life, career, and death even though I sent them many documents showing their errors.

It should also be noted that the "Hollywood Sign Trust" is an orginazation committed to the care and maintenance of the sign, they are not the end-all of its history, and they are most certainly not the experts on the life, career, and death of Peg Entwistle. Jameszerukjr (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

New photo shot from straight on

Hi,

I took a photo of the Hollywood Sign last week, shot from its altitude so that it appears straight. I added this image to Wikimedia Commons in the public domain.

I note that the article states, "From the ground, the contours of the hills give the sign its well-known "wavy" appearance. When observed at a comparable altitude, the letters appear straight-across.", followed by a reference to an external image showing the sign straight-on. Now that I've created a public domain version of a comparable image (in fact, one higher quality than the one the article currently links to), I wonder what everyone would think of replacing the article's photo with my new one. I am tempted to "be bold" and just replace it, but thought I'd first mention it in the talk page and see if there are objections. Jelson25 (talk) 19:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Your picture is much better and clearly shows what the article is talking about. Good work. 68.32.58.131 (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Quba Osman

Height of letters -- Contradiction

The lead paragraph says that the letters are (now) 50 ft tall. The "History" section says that each letter was originally 50 ft high. However, the caption to one of the images says "The letters on the sign today are 5 ft (1.52 m) shorter than the original". Something somewhere is not right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.160.111 (talk) 20:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Move

Shouldn’t this be at Hollywood sign? —Wiki Wikardo 04:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The sign's official site[2] indicates it's "Hollywood Sign". Not just descriptive, it's its title. Hence capitalized. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Group makes deal to buy land near Hollywood sign

This was all over the news today here in SoCal: [3] Apparently developers want to build houses on the hill, but residents and city officials are not happy with the idea. A conservation group has formed and is trying to raise money before April and buy the land in order to protect the hill. Also, the group is seeking permission for the sign to be covered with a banner reading "Save the Peak".

Is it possible to incorporate this latest news into the article, or is this story not significant enough? 4.167.169.182 (talk) 07:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Im surpirised there isnt that much inoframtion on this in the article. I dont know much about it myself but i think this information would be a welcomed addition Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This has since been resolved so could someone please update the article? It could be interesting to point out that Hugh Hefner has now made two significant contributions to the preservation of the Hollywood sign. Useful information can be found here [4]. Thanks Georgebrown92 (talk) 12:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see the last paragraph in the section Hollywood_Sign#Surrounding_land. Was this what you were suggesting? --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Short and sweet, I like it. Georgebrown92 (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Sexbeatle put it in, and then I added the cites, which might be used elsewhere in the article too. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed tags since 2007

It would seem prudent to review the citation needed tags and either find citations to fulfill the requests or remove the material. ----moreno oso (talk) 05:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Article and talkpage improvement

I would recommend the following be accomplished to improve this article:

1. Archive the talkpage (there is some old stuff here and some does not pertain to article improvement).
2. Copyedits to improve the class of this article
3. This article should be looked at for improvement to B class and even FA status. ----moreno oso (talk) 05:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Huh?

This article states: "The iconic sign spells out the name of the area in 45-foot-tall (14 m)[1] and 350-foot-long (110 m) white letters." It is doubtful the leeters are individually "350-foot-long" as this statement suggests. The letters combined may be 350 feet long, but each letter doesn't appear to be wider than it is tall (if that), so if each is 45 feet tall, then they are maybe 35 feet "long." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.141 (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

History

There is an apparent ambiguity in this section - presumably the whole sign was illuminated by approximately 4,000 light bulbs - not each individual letter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.162.62 (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

No ambiguity at all. The text straightforwardly says each, meaning "each individual letter." The letters were and are very, very big and the electricity bill was a big deal by the 1940s, which is why the bulbs didn't last. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

When reading the article the current wording still makes you wonder, especially when you consider that the W has a much longer perimeter than an L and would therefore require a considerably higher number of bulbs by comparison. --mhi ^(talk) 00:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Not ambiguous, just plain wrong! The authoritative website www.hollywoodsign.org has the correct information, i.e. 4,000 (20 watt) light bulbs in total for the entire sign, NOT for each letter. Were it otherwise, it would mean 4,000 x 13 i.e. 52,000 20 watt light bulbs consuming some 1040 Kilowatts of power – clearly nonsense. The more correct figure, 80 Kilowatts, is still a large consumption for lighting. The bulbs were apparently spaced at 8 inch intervals around the perimeter of the letters which would give a total length of around 2,666 feet or 205 feet per letter – much more right-sounding at an average of 50 x 50 feet each. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.117.82 (talk) 00:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

1941

Also, Wild Bill Kelso's P-40 is shown strafing the sign, knocking the 'LAND' letters off making it in to the 'HOLLYWOOD' sign we see today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.94.73 (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a reference to the movie "1941", right? --RThompson82 (talk) 10:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Wildlife section removal

This is an article about a sign, and I don't think the wildlife flora/fauna section is pertinent at all. If it were an article about the hill it's on, or the development it was originally for, that would be fine. But it is for a landmark no one is encouraged to visit, only seen from afar. Wildlife shouldn't enter in to anyone's enjoyment of the Hollywood sign. I believe this section should be removed.

68.32.58.131 (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Quba Osman

Wrong Les Kelley

In the donors section it states Les Kelley donated the funds for the first letter O; I believe this is the wrong Les Kelley as it directs you to a football player. ----Mattdavis10 (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hollywood-land?

A tour guide in LA told us that the "LAND" section of the original sign collapsed after an earthquake and subsequent land slide beneath it, contradicting the article. Does anyone have any conjecture to add? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.101.132.126 (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The guide was wrong. (How long ago did the guide tell you this? I hope it was like 1985 and now in 2011, I would hope in the age of the internet they would do their homework.) Read the article as it is now. --RThompson82 (talk) 10:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)