Talk:Adaptations of The Wizard of Oz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Oz (Rated List-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oz, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Oz series and The Wonderful Wizard of Oz 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.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Children's literature (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature 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.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

1933 cartoon[edit]

The 3-disc DVD version of the 1939 film contains a number of silent Oz films, and also a Technicolor cartoon from 1933 by Ted Eshbaugh. Apparently it wasn't widely released at the time, but it was the first adaptation of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz which depicted Kansas in black-and-white and Oz in color. It should probably be mentioned on this page, but I'm not sure where it would fit best. I suppose under "film adaptations" might be best, unless we want to split animated adaptations into their own section. Thoughts? —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 07:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wizard of Oz Apple screenshot.png[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Wizard of Oz Apple screenshot.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Too many pictures...[edit]

I'm going to comment a couple of pictures out, there are too many for an article this size. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 10:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Orion Card Game[edit]

User:Orion2004 has been trying to insert information about a card game he is producing into this article. Given the fact that 1) it is not yet released, 2) it has not been reported on by reliable sources, I don't think it should be included. Its notability certainly seems questionable. Furthermore, the fact that the producer of the product is the one adding it requires additional scrutiny for obvious neutrality and bias reasons. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it has been reported on by the International Wizard of Oz Fan Club - Will add citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orion2004 (talkcontribs) 05:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I have also noticed that info for the unreleased Nintendo game RIZ-ZOAWD, has not been flagged . Orion2004 (talk) 06:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
That's because it wasn't as obviously inappropriate as your efforts to promote your card game. I know you saw my comments to you on your talk page, because you've deleted them. Did you read the policy pages I asked you to look at? There's a problem when the producer of something adds information about it to Wikipedia, because it smacks of self-promotion. If your card game turns out to be notable, someone else will add it. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
It's been reported by a fan club, not necessarily a reliable source. Let's get some mainstream citations, then let's talk. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 10:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
The game has been announced and a release date given on the game's site. That wasn't good enough? OK, now the Officially recognized Oz fan club is printing about it in their latest published newsletter. Still not good enough. We can keep going around this carousel if you insist. What kind of problem do you have? This really isn't so important.--Orion2004 (talk) 07:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
What's important are Wikipedia's policies. The only reason we're "going around" like this is because you keep refusing to acknowledge that they matter. You've been asked several times to read them, and your response is to just delete those messages. That looks like contempt, and you should not be surprised to find people responding poorly to that. That's why Wikipedia also has standards for how editors interact: because that's essential to making the project work. At all. So yeah, this is important. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 12:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I have read the policies. I have the right to remove messages from MY talk page, if I so choose. It's my opinion that the two of you are taking this too far. I can't see the harm in posting info on an upcoming game that would be of interest to readers of the article. What I mean by "not important" is in the grand scheme of things. Perpetuating a war is in no ones best interest. And personal attacks don't help the matter either, Mr. Quest.Orion2004 (talk) 08:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
You've read them? That surprises me, given how often and how badly you've been violating them. Give me a summary of Wikipedia policies regarding conflict of interest, verifiability, civility, and consensus, and how your activities somehow comply with them, and then I'll listen to a lecture from you about the Wikipedia policy of your choice. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
There needs to be multiple verifiable second party sources to confirm the notability of the game. Game site is 1st party, not good enough. Fan site is a single second party source, not good enough. Multiple second party sources that are not affiliated with the game production company are needed. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 13:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
The citation is not for a fan site but for the printed newsletter by the Oz club, not a "fan site".Orion2004 (talk) 08:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
A club would be a fan site. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 15:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
How is the Oz Club "officially recognized"? By whom? Other clubs are official recognized by the production companies of the television series, movie series, comic book series, etc. Who exactly has recognized the officialness of this club? I haven't found any information that makes this club is any more official than any random website that can be created at will. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 13:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I just found that you're now retaliating by vandalizing an other page I put together. This is a very low level of maturity on your part.Orion2004 (talk) 08:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
It might be, if it were actually vandalism. "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia; vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, or the insertion of nonsense into articles." My edit does not constitute any of those and was the simple placement of a tag that shows that the specific information within the article requires citations, not just a list of references at the bottom. Please make sure you are accusing people accurately before you do. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 10:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of Collectible Card Game[edit]

User:Orion2004 insists that supplied reference is valid enough for inclusion of a unreleased card game. User:Auzemandius and User:JasonAQuest insist that the single reference is not from a viable second-party source. Orion2004 believes that Auzemandius and JasonAQuest's insistence is a personal attack.~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 18:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's worth noting that Orion2004 is the publisher of the game. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Should not be included. Gerardw (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Uninvolved Opinion. I have read through all the information on the card game off of the fan club site as well as having done my own search for references on it. I have been unable to find anything that fulfills the obligations presented under WP:N and WP:V. Until such time as published third-party sources are available, the collectible card game should not be included as part of the article or as it's own article. Furthermore, it is my opinion that User:Orion2004 has willingly place himself into a conflict of interest and should avoid editing articles or sections of article with which he has a strong involvement with offline. WP:COI and WP:OR exists for a reason. Trusilver 20:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a clear cut conflict of interest. If a press release about it's forthcoming production was picked up and published and that reference could be provided, then and only then this might be inclusion worthy. (talk) 10:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The Wizard of Oz (1950 TV special)[edit]

(First, I didn't write the article on the special, and I don't really know anything about it more than what the page says, either) I stumbled across this when writing the American films of 1950 article, and the page mentioned that it had been orphaned. It says it's a television adaptation with puppets, so I'm assuming it should be included here? Thanks! Wool Mintons (talk) 09:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Move to The Wizard of Oz adaptations[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page moved to Adaptations of The Wizard of OzækTalk 07:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wizard of Oz (adaptations)The Wizard of Oz adaptations — We should move this to The Wizard of Oz adaptations, without the parentheses. Parentheses imply that there is something called "The Wizard of Oz" which refers to a collection of adaptations. If we want to list all the adaptations, parenthesis are not needed.

Support. You are correct. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Adaptions of The Wizard of Oz would be clearer than either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Support Adaptions of The Wizard of Oz. – ukexpat (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Support move to Adaptations of The Wizard of Oz per Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 July 27#adaption - adaptation. C Teng [talk] 15:56, 19 December 2009 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Episode of "Scrubs"[edit]

The 100th episode (season 5, episode 7) of the TV series Scrubs, titled "My Way Home", should be added. It is an adaptation of or an homage to the Wizard of Oz. See trivia page for this episode on -- (talk) 00:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

William McKinley caricature[edit]

I don't see any reason why File:1897 cartoon with William McKinley and little Toto-like dog.jpg is being used as an illustration of this article. I'm not sure what this caricature of US President William McKinley as Old Mother Hubbard has to do with the Wizard of Oz, nor what about Old Mother Hubbard's dog is "Toto-like". Note this cartoon was published in 1897 -- which is to say, of course, 3 years before Baum's "Wonderful Wizard of Oz" was first published. (Is someone is trying to make a case that Baum was somehow influenced by the Old Mother Hubbard nursery rhyme in creating the character of Toto? If so, the argument needs to be made clearer, and I don't think this article is the place for it.) In short, could someone please explain what this illustration is doing on this article? If not, I don't think this illustration belongs here. Infrogmation (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been bold and removed it. Whether the iconography reminds someone of Oz or not, the cartoon that predates the first published "Oz" work by 3 years certainly couldn't be an "adaptation" of it, so it doesn't belong in this article. Infrogmation (talk) 01:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Stephen Kings dark tower[edit]

I don't recall beyond book 4 (the wizard and glass) but the series does at times allude to The wizard of oz. I don't know if there is enough notoriety to warrant mention but Todd McFarlane was listed. (talk) 09:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanksgiving in the Land of Oz[edit]

Removed the citation needed tag as a promo can be seen here: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heathcliff (talkcontribs) 01:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

1921 stills[edit]

User: asks--"The Wizard of Oz" is a 1921 film : I have stills of this movie. ... Can I post them on this page?" the answer is yes. All items published in US before 1923 are public domain--there is no copyright on them, and they can be freely used by Wikipedia. they should be coded as "This work is so old its copyright has expired" or as PD-OLD when you upload them. Questions like this should be discussed here on the article talk page. Rjensen (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

doing "Wizard of Oz" as a stage play[edit]

Being familiar with the 1939 film, I notice differences between it and live stage productions of "Wizard of Oz". Some differences are caused by the difficulty of handling a live animal (the dog used as Toto). There is an extra scene near the end where Uncle Henry and Professor Marvel are looking for Dorothy (just after Dorothy has clicked her heels together after being told to do so by Glinda, for Dorothy to leave Oz). This extra scene provides extra time for the actors who played Scarecrow, Tin Man, and Cowardly Lion to get changed back to the farmhand roles. However, some productions do NOT have those 3 actors changing back to the farmhands, who are thus absent from the final scene in the Kansas home; this allows the 3 Oz friends to appear as such at the curtain call and after the show. (A case where the farmhands were not in that final scene had Dorothy's lines refer to them in 3rd person when she points out that the 3 farmhands and Professor Marvel were in Oz.)

Where would such information be placed in a wikipedia article instead of just being on this talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)