Talk:Old Warner Brothers Studio

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

California: Los Angeles

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force.

A fact from Old Warner Brothers Studio appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 28 August 2008, and was viewed approximately 2,601 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Old Warner Brothers Studio, where the first "talkie" was filmed in 1927, has recently been the location for Judge Judy and Hannah Montana?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/August.

Wikipedia

Requested move 24 June 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. No consensus to move. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 05:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Old Warner Brothers Studio → Sunset Bronson Studios – This is the current name of the studio. It is also likely the common name, based on Google search results (~15k hits for Sunset Bronson Studios vs. ~6k for Old Warner Brothers Studio). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. TheSandDoctor (talk) 07:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - haven't made up my mind yet. BU Rob13's points have significant merit, and if this were simply a normal company, I would definitely !vote support. However, the notability of this facility is mostly born out of its history. The national historic designation is for the old studio. I think a better way to go is to create a new article for the current studio, if it meets company notability guidelines (probably does, but I haven't researched it), splitting out the very brief mention of the new studio, and leave this one as an article about the NRHS site. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This article is focussed on the site as a Warner Brothers studio, and should remain so. Probably there is a case for splitting out the paragraph on Sunset Bronson, but I note that as it stands the section is poorly referenced and if split out would probably be speedy-deletable as having not established notability. Andrewa (talk) 12:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Upon further reflection, this article should remain, since it is about the NRHS site. As per Andrewa, if an article can be sourced to show that Sunset Bronson Studios passes GNG, then a different article, with a paragraph on the studio's history, could be written. This isn't an instance when an existing operation simply changed its name. Other than using the same facilities, Sunset Bronson is not a continuation of the former Warner Brothers, just like KTLA and Tribune weren't. As the usage of the site changes, those changes can be added to the article, which this current version appropriately does. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 22 July 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure) Bada Kaji (talk • श्रीमान् गम्भीर) 12:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Old Warner Brothers Studio → Sunset Bronson Studios – The previous move request was based on more sound logic, as it's the current and more common name these days. The previous rebuttal that the article is about the historic facility is plainly put, faulty. Firstly, because the article is about the entire history of the place, not just the historic era, even if the NRHP box appears on it. Infoboxes follow body text, not the other way around. Secondly, because even if the article did cover the older period more, that's an argument for expanding the coverage of more recent use and ownership, not ignoring it (just to be clear, I think the article as it is doesn't ignore the more recent eras, just rebutting the idea that it didn't). Thirdly, because the NRHP name is not defining, and in many cases is often made up by the NRHP as a description, not an actual proper name. Finally, because Wikipedia articles are about concepts like persons, places, or things, not names, and in this case the place is a single studio facility, not a historic name. oknazevad (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. No such user (talk) 10:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Nothing has changed since the RM of 14 July 2017. If you think that the company currently occupying the site passes GNG, then split out an article on it as was suggested by several people last time. But the site definitely qualifies for an article, and this is it. Andrewa (talk) 10:56, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- An utter non sequitur that doesn't address the proposal at all. No one is talking about the company that currently owns and operates the complex (it is notable and already has an article, Hudson Pacific Properties). And no one is saying that this complex doesn't deserve an article. Both of those are false statements. No one is arguing for a change in the scope of the article or content of the article. You seem confused by that point. It's a an article about a specific building complex, and that's all it's supposed to be. The point is that the current common name of the complex is not title of the article. Please address that point and only that point. oknazevad (talk) 12:29, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as the present name, as affirmed in the 2017 RM, is connected to the historical importance of the building and remains an adequate and significant descriptor. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

by whom tag[edit]

A by whom tag was present in the text, by whom tags are used exclusively to indicate text that falls foul of WP:WEASEL. This text didn't, so I removed it. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]