Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:<small>Note: ] has been notified of this discussion. ] (]) 16:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)</small>
:<small>Note: ] has been notified of this discussion. ] (]) 16:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)</small>
*'''Support''' Good case laid out for why the 1939 film should be primary target. Presumably the existing ] would move to ] and be linked to via a hatnote from the 1939 film. — <span style="border-radius:8em;padding:0 7px;background:#dfab7f">]</span> (]·]) 19:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Good case laid out for why the 1939 film should be primary target. Presumably the existing ] would move to ] and be linked to via a hatnote from the 1939 film. — <span style="border-radius:8em;padding:0 7px;background:#dfab7f">]</span> (]·]) 19:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per nom. ] (]) 22:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Wizard of Oz article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oz, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OzWikipedia:WikiProject OzTemplate:WikiProject OzOz
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Library of Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Library of Congress on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Library of CongressWikipedia:WikiProject Library of CongressTemplate:WikiProject Library of CongressLibrary of Congress
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kansas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Kansas on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KansasWikipedia:WikiProject KansasTemplate:WikiProject KansasKansas
The Wizard of Oz is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability
The Wizard Of Oz premiered in the San Francisco Bay Area at the Oakland Paramount, on August 17, 1939, the same day it premiered in New York at Loew's Capitol Theatre.
This can be confirmed by newspaper ads in the Oakland Tribune, Bancroft Library; and by Oakland Paramount advertising cards.
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Perhaps a more excellent example would be Nineteen Eighty-Four, which is not titled 1984 (novel) despite often being reprinted and known as such. The book and the year are both equally and highly notable, but because of the differences in their names, they are disambiguated NATURALly. Due to The Wizard of Oz's cultural impact and significance, being one of the most influential films of all time, comparable to that of Nineteen Eighty-Four, it can easily be regarded as the primary topic for the exact term "The Wizard of Oz", and this is reinforced by pageviews. A Google Search for "The Wizard of Oz" surfaces results almost exclusively for the film. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.🌺 Cremastra (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
There are many more "The Wizard of Oz" titles than there are "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz" titles. It is entirely possible for the book to be the primary topic of the longer title, while no subject is the primary topic of the shorter title, in part because it is also used as shorthand for the book. BD2412T23:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Support. The dab page currently at The Wizard of Oz is averaging 158 views per day, which is way too high for a dab page. It seems obvious that most readers want and expect an article about the famous and highly influential film at that title, based on consistently high pageviews, as well as Google searches mentioned above. The book is also significant, even though it gets only about 25% of the pageviews of the film, but happily is already WP:NATURALLY disambiguated by using its best title, and can be linked directly from a hatnote. All other uses combined are far behind the film. Station1 (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes, the film has more views, but the novel has well over one view per minute (I enjoy knowing there are 1440 minutes in a day and anything near that means that somebody, somewhere, will click on the page every minute). Randy Kryn (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Oppose, the book and the film hold equal long-term significance, and both are the common name for their topics even though the book has a "Wonderful" formal name. Misplaced Pages should have a long memory (into the past and into the future), and in a long-memory timeline the novel and the book are, equally, The Wizard of Oz as is that guy behind the curtain. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
If Misplaced Pages had a long memory, it would realize that people didn't start calling the book The Wizard of Oz until the film came out and became a cultural icon, and that the book was published under the title The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. Even now, Google Search makes this distinction; so does Encyclopedia Britannica (which interestingly says by the late 20th century the 1939 film The Wizard of Oz had become more familiar than the book on which it was based). Look up "The Wizard of Oz" on Google Books and Amazon, and you'll find that the shortened name almost always refers to the film while the extended form almost always refers to the book. It's been 85 since the film was released; if this distinction hasn't changed now, it's unlikely to change anytime soon. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
I would respectfully disagree that "the book and the film hold equal long-term significance". The book is certainly significant, to a large degree because of the film, both as the film's source and the later long-term interest generated by the film, but I think the film had the greater influence and long-term cultural impact. All of that is subjective opinion, of course. Only the numbers are objective. Station1 (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
They both have historic influence and long-term cultural significance, and both have large number of views daily, which is why a disamb page is the best choice here. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Support per nom. The film is already naturally disambiguated from the book and has a lot of long-term significance on its own, so I think it’s safe to make it the base title for Wizard of OzDantus21 (talk) 03:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Weak Support I do think that it is different enough to actually make this point work
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
