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 United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. 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 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.Library of CongressWikipedia:WikiProject Library of CongressTemplate:WikiProject Library of CongressLibrary of Congress articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kansas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Kansas 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.KansasWikipedia:WikiProject KansasTemplate:WikiProject KansasKansas articles
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 articles
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.
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)[reply]
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. BD2412T 23:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the book is sometimes known as The Wizard of Ozbecause of the film's enormous popularity. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The dab page currently at
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)[reply
]
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)[reply]
And the film gets one view every 12 seconds. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support per nom and this reasoning from Station1. Garnet Moss (talk) 01:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Weak Support I do think that it is different enough to actually make this point work
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
This! Somebody has got to put this in a guideline or something. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This didn't occur to me before, so I didn't put this in the nom, but
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.
