Talk:The Wizard of Oz

related works

This Australian adaptation may be an interesting addition, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075030/ for the related works section

GA task force

This article has great coverage, and with a bit of work we could easily get this to GA I reckon. It's one of the best known American films ever made and it's the 75th anniversary next year as well, and Disney has just released a new Oz film, so this is a very topical article right now. I think it's a great time to get it to GA, and then try and get it promoted to FA before the anniversary. Therefore I would like to put together a task force of maybe 3-4 editors (although anyone would be welcome) with each editor getting their own sub-section to develop. Betty Logan (talk) 22:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• This is a great idea, but first things first. The article should be checked against the B-class criteria, to raise it from the current C. Jusdafax 12:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

With the above in mind, here are the B-class criteria for version 1.0, presumably a yardstick of sufficient merit. I believe a checkoff of the points reveal that the article should now be rated B, with possibly minimal editing needed. Jusdafax 02:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 31 October 2013

The following discussion is an archived 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: page not moved (opinions nearly 50%/50% after 48 days). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

---

• The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) → The Wizard of Oz
• The Wizard of Oz → The Wizard of Oz (disambiguation)

– WP:PTOPIC. --Relisted. Steel1943 (talk) 08:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC) 184.5.178.60 (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

(Added implied additional move from The Wizard of Oz to The Wizard of Oz (disambiguation).) Steel1943 (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose - Firstly it isn't at all evident from Google books that this film is more notable than everything on The Wizard of Oz combined. Secondly moving the dab to The Wizard of Oz (disambiguation) is just going to result in mislinks to the film which won't be picked up for editors using editing tools or getting notifications from the dab notification bot, they'll never even know they just linked to the wrong article. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Incorrect links are not particularly a reason to avoid a primary topic. We get such links to Apple and Mouse and George Washington all the time, and we manage to fix them. In this case, the name of the film differs from the name of the book, and I can't see any of the other terms on the dab page being used without some kind of qualification to make clear which sense is intended. bd2412 T 17:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is surely the most notable film titled "The Wizard of Oz", but the book is often referred to by this title as well (that this is techically incorrect is irrelevant), and of course so is the particular fictional wizard. I doubt that any one meaning predominates. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose not the primary topic and other films with this title too (WP:NCF). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

NCF explicitly allows for films to occupy base titles when they are the primary topic. If you don't think this one is, that's fine, but NCF is largely irrelevant here. --BDD (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Since the book's title is "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz," it's quite obvious that people are looking for the work actually titled "The Wizard of Oz" when searching that exact name --GeicoHen (talk) 02:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. We've already had this discussion (see archive 2). You're gonna need an army of flying monkeys to budge the opposition. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support, the film is very likely to be the topic with the greatest lasting historical significance at this exact title. bd2412 T 15:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I oppose the second move so that leads to me opposing the first one as well. There were three Wizard of Oz films and while the 1939 one is the most well known, having the year identifying its release only helps readers locating the page. Wizard of Oz should refer to the entire body of work on that topic. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Can you explain how a person is helped by "having the year identifying its release"? If a reader comes to Wikipedia to search for information about this film, how can you assume they already know the year this film was released? Or that they can find differences between this film from The Wizard of Oz (1933 film) in the title, especially when in that time films weren't released in the same years around the world[1]? © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 18:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per, Clarityfiend & Liz. Mlpearc (powwow) 15:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support I realize this was discussed before but consensus can change, this is the best known meaning of "The Wizard of Oz", Baum's original book, the only other meaning which comes anywhere near it, is actually The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, and its article so titled. PatGallacher (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support. I think the movie is significantly more significant (woohoo, I need a thesaurus) than the book. Red Slash 03:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mlpearc. Beerest355 Talk 20:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support This film is among the most prominent ever produced, and certainly the best known Wizard of Oz property. The article is hot hot hot, and the dab page is getting many more views than a dab usually gets. That strongly suggests some sort of correction is in order. --BDD (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Unless someone explains how an article with two disambiguators gets much more hits than the book or other things based on it, this is clearly the PTOPIC. It took at least three RMs to move Anne Hathaway, the same RMs for Chicago, and many examples exist; consensus can change. If people confuse "The Wizard of Oz" with "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz" is clearly not our problem. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 19:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Tbhotch and BDD. This clearly is the primary topic, the novel which preceded this film doesn't even share the same title.LM2000 (talk) 23:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Someday there will be "The Wizard of Oz" in 2010s, as there is already the Oz film last year (or this). George Ho (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - There are no plans for a 2010s "Wizard of Oz" as far as I'm concerned. --GeicoHen (talk) 01:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - We already rejected this bad idea. It ain't broke, so don't fix it. Jusdafax 01:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - the book may not share exactly the same title, but it is clearly a major contender for primacy. Under the principle of least WP:ASTONISHment, we should maintain the disambig page.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Tbhotch and BDD. The film is clearly the primary topic of the exact title The Wizard of Oz by any measure. The book is the only serious competition, and it has a title that's clearly distinct enough that we don't need to direct readers to the dab page. The move will serve more readers, better.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Although it may have been the case in previous years, I'm not so sure that we can assume the 1939 film is necessarily what most users are after anymore.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 05:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support - I don't see a policy based reason to oppose here. The policy based argument to support is overwhelming. The only other serious contender for this title, the book, isn't even ambiguous with the title in question here. This film is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. For anyone mistakenly searching with the book with this title, a hatnote link is perfect for such a case. --B2C 21:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. The book is the original title and should not be kicked into the dustbin because a film was made, no matter how popular. I am in favor of respecting primacy. Binksternet (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC) Moved from "Discussion" section. --George Ho (talk) 07:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, since I have been corrected about the title of the original book: The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. I am now in favor of moving the film article to The Wizard of Oz, and I also support moving the dab to The Wizard of Oz (disambiguation). Thanks to IP 66 who alerted us all to the error. Binksternet (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose – titles should help the user know what the topic of an article is, as WP:TITLE explains: "The title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects." Removing disambiguation from such an ambiguous title does nobody a service. Dicklyon (talk) 07:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Is there any mileage in moving Adaptations of The Wizard of Oz to this title per WP:DABCONCEPT? It seems to me that the primary meaning is—if not the 1939 film (undoubtedly the most notable adaptation)—is the whole "wizard of Oz" intellectual property i.e. Baum's book and all the adaptations. If we can't agree the 1939 adaptation is the primary topic, we can probably at least agree that Baum's IP takes precedence over all non-Baum related articles. At Adaptations of The Wizard of Oz, in the lede both the book and 1939 film are namechecked. Then we get a list of all the adapations, and also a template at the bottom that provides an index to all WoZ works and characters. When determining the primary topic it is very difficult to narrow down to one book or film, because serious encyclopedic coverage tends to encompass all of the books and adaptations, but one thing is for certain and that is the meaning of the term is synoymous with Baum's creation. Betty Logan (talk) 01:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Well looking at the survey above my guess would be No to moving it, as the majority of people are opposed to the move67.170.169.30 (talk) 03:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I would strongly support such a move (or at least replacing the {{disambiguation}} tag now on that page with {{media index}}, and organizing the page accordingly. It is highly, highly unlikely that any person typing "The Wizard of Oz" into our search box is actually looking for something like [Ozzie Smith]] or Meco Plays The Wizard of Oz; they are looking for the book, or the 1939 film, or information on the media franchise encompassing both of these. Note that the above discussion is not a rejection of such a move; it only addresses the question of determining the 1939 film to be the primary topic of the term. bd2412 T 21:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

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.

Landlady?

I notice the Plot section gives the impression of Miss Gulch as owning Uncle Henry's farm. I'd question that description. Aunt Em says to her that she owns "half the county" but there is no indication Gulch is their landlord. Indeed, Gulch threatens to "take" their farm. Suggest we replace "the mean landlady" "a mean landowner." Jusdafax 23:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Neither "landlady" nor "landowner" is a necessary detail. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

True, and I see it was deleted. But that leaves "the mean Miss Gulch" as a descriptor, which doesn't tell us much. I have added "neighbor" which helps readers to understand who she is. Jusdafax 22:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested move, further comments

• Oppose - Most importantly, nothing is gained by eliminating the identification in the film's page title. Further reasons for opposition: The movie is a derivative work which shares (in common usage, as noted previously) the title with the book. The book is prominent. Why invite confusion? Zaslav (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Drop the stick and back slowly away.... Mlpearc (open channel) 20:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

wizard, wizard??

ok, so dear Frank Morgan plays all these parts.. well great, but i wanna know... who played the FLOATING HEAD turbaned Wizard? it doesnt sound like Frank's voice. or even look like him. or was it?? 76.218.248.127 (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)