Talk:The Wizard of Oz/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Requested move 13 February 2024

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: Consensus to move. Supporters' argument that the film is the primary topic for this article is based on salient facts, such as the unusually high number of view on the dab page and the film gets many times more view than the book, not to mention that this is the name of the film and not the title of the book. Opposers' argument that the film is not the primary topic is based solely on the opinion that having that many more views is still not enough. Finally, Supporters point out that the bottom line is the vast majority of users searching with "The Wizard of Oz" will be taken directly to the article they seek, rather than redirected to the dab page as they are now, and the minority will be just one (hatnote) click away, just like they are now when taken to the dab page where they are one (dab page) click away. So the move benefits the majority with no cost to the minority. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 06:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

---

The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) → The Wizard of Oz – The film, The Wizard of Oz (1939 film), and the novel, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, are sufficient distinct from each other to fall under WP:SMALLDETAILS. The original novel was not published as The Wizard of Oz (according to the article, it has sometimes been reprinted with the film's title due to the film's popularity, meaning the publishers wanted to associate themselves with the film as a companion piece, which only proves that the film is more widely associated with that term) and is thus WP:NATURALly disambiguated; this is similar to The Fellowship of the Ring (the book) vs. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (the film), or The Shawshank Redemption (the film) vs. Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption (the book).

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)

• Oppose, current WP:NOPRIMARY setup works best. 162 etc. (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Your argument, NOPRIMARY, would mean The Wonderful Wizard of Oz needs to be moved to The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (novel). It makes no sense to claim that the book is distinct from the film, but not vice versa. InfiniteNexus (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  The proposed move concerns The Wizard of Oz (1939 film). If you want to discuss moving The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, it needs to be stated explicitly in the nomination. See WP:EXPLICIT. 162 etc. (talk) 21:05, 13 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. BD2412 T 23:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  But the book is sometimes known as The Wizard of Oz because of the film's enormous popularity. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:28, 15 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)

  And the film gets one view every 12 seconds. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, they are both prominent and viewed, which is why the equality of a disamb page seems better navigation for this topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  • Support per nom and this reasoning from Station1. Garnet Moss (talk) 01:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support - per Station1, they make a sensible argument. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:57, 15 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 [1] [2] makes this distinction; so does Encyclopedia Britannica [3] [4] (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 Oz Dantus21 (talk) 03:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
• Weak Support I do think that it is different enough to actually make this point work

2601:441:8284:1CC0:A90D:3256:3521:8E08 (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Far too ambiguous. The book is also commonly known by this name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Film has been notified of this discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support Good case laid out for why the 1939 film should be primary target. Presumably the existing The Wizard of Oz would move to The Wizard of Oz (disambiguation) and be linked to via a hatnote from the 1939 film.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 19:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support because it's better to have something at the target page than a boring disambiguation page. Even if you imagine there's a 50/50 split for what the reader is looking for, then getting the film page would make 50% of the readers happy, and 50% would have to click to another page. Right now, getting the disambiguation page makes 0% of people happy, and 100% have to click. That being said -- I hope that we put a link straight to the novel in the hatnote, so those 50% of people who want the novel don't have to click through twice. Toughpigs (talk) 02:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  This! Somebody has got to put this in a guideline or something. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment This didn't occur to me before, so I didn't put this in the nom, but Game of Thrones vs. A Game of Thrones is another excellent example to compare this to. WP:SMALLDETAILS at work. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

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.

Black-and-white film?

No strong opinion on this, but how do editors feel about this being categorized as a black-and-white film? Parts of it apparently were filmed in black-and-white, though obviously the majority of the film is in color, and the category has no notes regarding how it's intended to be used. DonIago (talk) 13:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I feel like we could use another category, like "Color films with black-and-white scenes". Dune Part Two and Kill Bill Vol. 1 could be other films part of that category (that I can think of right now). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not inherently opposed to that, though if such a category were to be created, I can imagine arguments ensuing as to whether a quick B/W flashback is sufficient for membership in that category (e.g. Ocean's Eleven). DonIago (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I don't care too much about categories. The category criteria can be for the black-and-white scene(s) to be explicitly mentioned in the article body. Looked up and found a few other good ones -- Oppenheimer, Asteroid City, Pleasantville, Memento, American History X, Natural Born Killers. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not unwilling to create such a category, though you might have more experience with it (or might not!), but then there's the question of whether such a category should be a subcategory of B/W films or separate. I'm guessing you feel it should be the latter, but I don't want to make assumptions, and I definitely don't want to create a category that's just going to end up at CfD. :p Or, if you want to go ahead and create it with your own ideas, be my guest! DonIago (talk) 19:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I remembered this: List of black-and-white films produced since 1966. It's horribly unsourced, but I do see most of the films discussed above, showing up in that list as not exclusively B/W. That may be better in the long run, especially if sourcing can be required for that list and sourcing actually added. Not by me, though... I still gotta finish overhauling list of cult films (have done too much to give up). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

So, you think we should leave this film categorized as a B/W film and let that list handle what's likely to be the majority of instances where a film mixes B/W and color footage? I have no objection to that either. It feels weird to have Wizard of Oz listed as a B/W film, but I understand that categories aren't exclusive ORs. DonIago (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)