Talk:The Wizard of Oz/Archive 3

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)

It sounds like Morgan to me. If so, then it would make sense to have him wear heavy makeup to play the giant head. This article (though not a reliable source) claims he did play "the apparition in the smoke". Others can judge for themselves with this youtube clip. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The audio commentary on the latests releases states that the floating head is indeed Morgan in heavy makeup. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 22:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Heels

Does any one know for certain of Glinda told her to click her heels or clap them as was originally found in the article text?76.170.88.72 (talk) 09:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Tap! http://www.wendyswizardofoz.com/printablescript.htm 76.170.88.72 (talk) 09:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Release date

• Lordjoshua, can you please explain why you think we should ignore WP:FILMRELEASE for this article? Please also stop edit warring on this article, you are in danger of breaching WP:3RR and will be reported for warring should you revert again. - SchroCat (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• There have been some recent edits altering the release date. According to the release section in the article, the film was previewed to test audiences on August 11 & 12 1939, and received its Hollywood premiere on August 15, before going on general release on August 25. The infobox guidelines at Template:Infobox_film#Release_dates instruct that "Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival, a world premiere, or a public release, and the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings." Assuming that the preview screenings do not meet the criteria for inclusion, the next available date is the Hollywood premiere. Indeed, the guidelines explictly instructs us to use the premiere date if one is available, ahead of the general release date. Betty Logan (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2014

A premiere release is not an actual release date it's a premiere date. The national release for Wizard of Oz is August 25th and that is widely recognized as it's official release date

WP:FILMRELEASE begs to differ. A premiere is still a release, just not a general release. We don't distinguish between different types of release on Wikipedia (i.e. festival runs/limited releases/roadshows/general release/video release etc) because the infobox would become cluttered, so as explained by the guideline we simply go with the earliest date. THis has been dsicussed heavily in the past, which is why the guideline explicitly mentions that premiere dates are eligible. Betty Logan (talk) 21:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Lordjoshua, despite being warned of the possible consequences, you continued to edit war on this against a number of editors, and against the guidelines. You have been reported at WP:AN3. - SchroCat (talk) 21:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

Ok I reverted back to 8-25. That seems to be what everyone wants — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordjoshua420 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Opening sentence

The Wizard of Oz is a 1939 American musical fantasy film produced by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, and the most well-known and commercial adaptation based on the 1900 novel The Wonderful Wizard of Oz by L. Frank Baum.

I don't much like that bold wording. I propose changing it to the following, provided this actually conveys the correct intended meaning, which I am not 100% sure about.

The Wizard of Oz is a 1939 American musical fantasy film produced by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, and the most well-known and commercially successful cinematic adaptation of the 1900 novel The Wonderful Wizard of Oz by L. Frank Baum.

109.147.185.246 (talk) 03:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Done I agree completely and have taken action. The second and third paragraphs in the lede point out that the success did not come on initial release but on multiple, profitable re-releases and television viewings. Good catch, thanks! Jusdafax 04:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Zardoz - a Parody?

No reference to this alleged claim shows in the current Zardoz entry, or this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.21.249 (talk) 09:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

1939?

Abbythecat (talk) 04:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)Why does it say the story is set in the early 1900s? The book came out in 1900, but this isn't the book, it's a filming of it. It was made in 1939, so, I presume, it's set in 1939. Is there any proof it isn't set in the year it was made? None that I know of. I say 1939 until proven otherwise. AbbythecatAbbythecat (talk) 04:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• The discussion leading to the current wording is in Archive 2. In brief, we are trying not to assume anything so as to remain encyclopedic. "Early 1900s" covers the bases from 1900 to the late 30s. The filmmakers appear to have deliberately made the point vague. Jusdafax 14:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Additions to the 'Differences from the novel' section

The already-tagged section, for needing citations, has just been bulked up further. I suggest we discuss these changes, which have no references. I'm not a expert on the subject of the book/movie differences, though from what I know they seem accurate. The problem is, they may violate Wikipedia guidelines on original research as stated WP:OR and as such may require removal, unless a reliable third party source of referencing can be located that conforms to WP:RS. I'll invite the editor making the changes. Let the discussion begin. Jusdafax 11:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed; everything needs to be cited to a reliable source. Prhartcom (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Google search reveals several websites listing differences between the book and the movie. Another question, however: even if the work of in-line citations can be accomplished, is the section now too long? A separate article might be one way to deal with that, if so. Jusdafax 14:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

B Class review

I believe this article rates better than a C-class rating. I seldom participate in article reviews but would like to know the procedure to getting this one checked for B-class criteria. Jusdafax 23:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Differences from the novel section

In this section I made two changes of typos: fourty to forty. Bill Pollard (talk) 01:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I've removed unsourced material, given that the section was tagged in 2011 and these types of sections should always have sources to establish that the differences were considered significant in some manner. DonIago (talk) 13:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Wizard of Oz (1939 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://randyphillips.net/images/bolger.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Wizard of Oz (1939 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110513210807/http://www.thejudyroom.com/news-oz.html to http://www.thejudyroom.com/news-oz.html#brain

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

"Grayscale"

A "helpful" editor from Dayton, Ohio using multiple IP addresses has been repeatedly blocked repeatedly attempting to change the term "sepia tone" to "grayscale". They are really determined at this. Below are their attempts. Prhartcom (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• User talk:108.87.18.174 on 27 December 2015, hitting it six times in one day, i.e. here

• User talk:108.87.16.153 on 12 February 2016, hitting it six times in one day, i.e. here, also hitting the Black and white and Grayscale articles

• User talk:108.87.21.254 on March 20 and 24 2016, hitting it three times in two days, i.e. here

Prhartcom (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Urban legend

Removed per WP:TRIVIA. Agree with @Nyttend: - Mlpearc (open channel) 19:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

It's what trivia looks like. delete. Rjensen (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

"Greyscale" vandal

For a while now, an IP editor has repeatedly removed the reliably-sourced term "sepia tone" and replaced it with their preferred term "greyscale", against consensus. The vandal has been repeatedly reverted, but, undeterred, they keep returning to the article to replace it with their preferred term again and again (see below).

• Note: The following reverted edit to this talk page shows our greyscale vandal's name and mental state:
  • Reverted 30 October 2016

—Prhartcom♥ 17:00, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• User talk:108.87.18.174:
  • Reverted 27 December 2015
  • Reverted 27 December 2015
  • Reverted 27 December 2015

• User talk:108.87.16.153:
  • Reverted 12 February 2016
  • Reverted 12 February 2016
  • Reverted 12 February 2016
  • Reverted 12 February 2016
  • Reverted 12 February 2016
  • Reverted 12 February 2016

• User talk:108.87.16.184:
  • Reverted 22 February 2016

• User talk:108.87.21.254:
  • Reverted 24 March 2016
  • Reverted 24 March 2016
  • Reverted 24 March 2016

• User talk:108.87.23.142:
  • Reverted 8 July 2016

• User talk:108.87.16.186:
  • Reverted 18 August 2016

• User talk:108.87.18.156:
  • Reverted 24 August 2016

• User talk:108.87.17.81:
  • Reverted 8 September 2016

• User talk:108.87.19.238:
  • Reverted 11 October 2016
  • Reverted 11 October 2016

• User talk:108.87.21.108:
  • Reverted 30 October 2016

—Prhartcom♥ 17:00, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Wizard of Oz (1939 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-10-30/movies/17186160_1_video-experience-movie
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100112202639/http://www.kiddiematinee.com:80/w-woz.html to http://www.kiddiematinee.com/w-woz.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140331174817/http://www.filmsite.org/villvoice.html to http://www.filmsite.org/villvoice.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on The Wizard of Oz (1939 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071114223630/http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04%2F11%2F25%2F0832252 to http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04%2F11%2F25%2F0832252
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090207085229/http://www.listsofbests.com/list/30267 to http://www.listsofbests.com/list/30267
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140718043026/http://www.playbill.com/news/article/181902-North-American-Tour-of-The-Wizard-of-Oz-Starring-Danielle-Wade-Kicks-Off-Sept-10-in-Las-Vegas to http://www.playbill.com/news/article/181902-North-American-Tour-of-The-Wizard-of-Oz-Starring-Danielle-Wade-Kicks-Off-Sept-10-in-Las-Vegas
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100420213857/http://invention.smithsonian.org/resources/online_articles_detail.aspx?id=593 to http://invention.smithsonian.org/resources/online_articles_detail.aspx?id=593

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Terry or Toto

In the article it says that the dog is Terry, billed as Toto, but in the credits at the end of this film, it is said that Toto is played by Toto. Vorbee (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

That's because Terry the Dog, who played Toto, was credited as Toto.Crboyer (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Sequels and reinterpretations section - proposal

This article is about the 1939 film, and its length is a concern. I suggest we severely trim the large section Sequels and reinterpretations, which aside from bloat has a number of citation needed tags. The 1939 movie article’s referral to Adaptations of The Wizard of Oz should cover the material in the section here for those interested in a comprehensive review of that subject. Jusdafax (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• The Wizard of Oz Judy Garland 1939.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Edits regarding toxic special effects and makeup

I support the edits, remembering that Buddy Ebsen had to drop out of the role of the Tin Man due to his reaction to his silver makeup. Consequently I do not support efforts to delete the material. Jusdafax (talk) 03:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with it as long as it's part of a general presentation. Just some random factoid about asbestos alone sticks out like a sore thumb. EEng 03:27, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Completely agree special effects content didn't make sense in the pre-production section. The "Ebsen replaced by Haley" subsection could also be merged into the new section. Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Hamilton-got-burned is covered twice now. EEng 03:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Controversies

Why isn't there a section for controversies related to The Wizard of Oz. Even if the hanging man theory has been completely disproven, it should still be mentioned. There are all sorts of stories regarding the actors playing the Munchkins that deserve mention. The toxicity of the makeup is mentioned. Everything controversial should be mentioned and if it's untrue, refuted with sources. Sunshine Kim (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT? DonIago (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced material

Below information was tagged for needing sources long-term. Feel free to reinsert with appropriate references. DonIago (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Sequels and reinterpretations

The film was dramatized as a one-hour radio play on Lux Radio Theatre, which was broadcast on December 25, 1950, with Garland reprising her earlier role. In 1964, a one-hour animated cartoon called Return to Oz was shown as an afternoon weekend special on NBC. In 1975, the stage show The Wiz premiered on Broadway. It was an African American version of The Wizard of Oz reworked for the stage. It starred Stephanie Mills and other Broadway stars and earned a number of Tony Awards. Its financing was handled by actor Geoffrey Holder. Its inspired revivals after it left the stage and an unsuccessful motion picture made in 1978, starring Diana Ross as Dorothy and Michael Jackson as the Scarecrow, which was not as well-received as the original movie (or the original Broadway show), but has gained a cult following. In 1995, Gregory Maguire published the novel Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West, which was adapted into the wildly successful Broadway musical Wicked. The story describes the life of the Wicked Witch of the West and other events prior to Dorothy's arrival. For the film's 56th anniversary, a 1995 stage show also titled The Wizard of Oz was based upon it and the book by L. Frank Baum. It toured from 1995 to 2012, except for 2004. In 2005, The Muppets Studio produced The Muppets' Wizard of Oz, a television film for ABC, starring Ashanti as Dorothy, Jeffrey Tambor as the Wizard, David Alan Grier as Uncle Henry, and Queen Latifah as Aunt Em. Kermit the Frog portrayed the Scarecrow, Gonzo portrayed the Tin Thing (Tin Man), Fozzie Bear portrayed the Lion and Miss Piggy portrayed all the Witches of the West, East, North and South. In 2007, The Sci-Fi Channel released the three-part miniseries Tin Man, a science fiction continuation starring Zooey Deschanel as DG.

Sound effects

I think the castle thunder is heard in the movie, but when and how? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoahAlexanderJohnson101 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Special effect

Added source to the last statement. Added additional information to make the paragraph more readable. Jxv084 (talk) 03:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Impact upon LGBT culture

I don't see the relevance of including this section in this article. It's an article about the film, not its impact on slang of any sort. The film has had a massive impact on American culture in general with many references to the film being utilized in common slang and parlance, for example, "we're not in Kansas anymore" or "if I only had a brain" or "the man behind the curtain". The linked article Friend of Dorothy references plot points that are also in The Wonderful Wizard of Oz but no such link is listed in that article. I'm open to debate. A.S. Williams (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I've taken it out. The article Friend of Dorothy even states the phrase might have originated from a sequel, so the connection is at best tenuously second-hand. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Acquiring rights

The statement: The tale is almost certainly untrue, as Harlow died in 1937, before MGM had even purchased the rights to the story. would seem to contradict a number of sources and appeared to be unreferenced.

It seems to have been written simply to contradict a generally accepted notion that Shirley Temple was briefly considered for the role. An assertion that Temple Black herself makes in her autobiography. Though she doesn't give a date, she asserts that the Screen rights had been acquired when she was briefly considered for the role after MGM lost Deanna Durban to another studio.

Without verification of the date on which the rights were acquired, contradicting numerous sources, including Temple Black is an error to say the least.

Unless some evidence of the acquisition date can be verified, I propose correcting this paragraph to the generally accepted claims about casting. surfingus (talk) 11:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Inaccuracys and needless aspersion

Under the heading Casting the first two paragraphs contain references to rumours which are then dismissed, accusations of inaccuracys, even by named individuals, unattributed claims apparently made by documentarys and other unattributed statements and speculation.

These are followed by inaccurate claims about Durban's experience which could have been avoided by checking the relevant Wikipedia page.

I propose replacing both of these two paragraphs with this:

Several actors were reportedly considered for the part of Dorothy. Shirley Temple, at the time, the most prominent child star. Deanna Durban, a relative new comer, with a recognised operatic voice and Judy Garland, the most experienced of the three. Officially, the decision to cast Garland was attributed to contractual issues. '

Please comment. surfingus (talk) 07:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

References of "The Wizard of Oz" in "Dora the Explorer" series.

I recently saw The Wizard of Oz, and realized that the plot is like an episode of Dora the Explorer, only that in the old tale/film it was not a video game but a dream. Throughout the story Dorothy (who at some point she is called 'Dora') find along the way several characters who need help, they join her and finally they all get their reward. It's the same plot as in each and every episode of Dora the Explorer, but modernized. I don't know if this has been considered before, but I think it is worth digging into. I leave it here for your consideration, if it is generally agreed to be developed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donguijote (talk • contribs) 19:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Mentions of the abuse Judy Garland endured during filming should be added to the article.

It's all listed out here: https://houseofgeekery.com/2013/02/26/five-behind-the-scenes-stories-that-will-ruin-your-favourite-movies/

There are probably other sources, as I regularly see it being discussed all over the internet, such as on r/movies on reddit, so was surprised when I came to the Wikipedia article and, despite lots of detailed discussions on production, couldn't see a section about any of this. Is it because it's not sourced enough? Surely there are some sources and it warrants inclusion. What do you think?

Edit - it isn't omitted because of not being sourced, as I've found the abuse discussed in other Wikipedia articles, such as here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_B._Mayer#Personal_life. So why isn't it in this article and shouldn't it be?

Given the controversial nature of these additions, I thought it should be discussed here first, though I am of the opinion that these claims should be included, with sourcing I've listed and any additional sourcing that can be found, such as from the other article I linked to.

ObservantSpectator (talk) 09:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, it's probably not mentioned because you didn't add it in.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

As I said above, given how controversial these claims may be, despite sourcing, I thought it was best to open a discussion here first, rather than adding what some other people might find too controversial and remove. I think we should discuss here first whether to include this information or not, and I'm of the opinion it should be included, but waiting to see if others agree. --ObservantSpectator (talk) 09:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

As no one has participated in this discussion now and it's been several weeks, I've gone ahead and included the information, including another source from the Louis B. Mayer page - https://variety.com/2017/film/features/casting-couch-hollywood-sexual-harassment-harvey-weinstein-1202589895/

If anyone has any issue with any of this being included in the article, please discuss it here. ObservantSpectator (talk) 08:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Removed. A blog is not a reliable source, particularly for content such as this. Meters (talk) 08:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The Variety article is a reliable source so put back that much. I will try to find a better source for the rest.--ObservantSpectator (talk) 08:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

- I found better sources. Put back some of this, but reworded to indicate they are credible claims and allegations. Top of the line sourcing to sources including The Washington Post, ABC news, The Guardian, and Variety again. There's several more sources too if more are needed. ObservantSpectator (talk) 08:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Originally intended for Adults or Children?

Maybe I missed it (in the article), but I don't see any mention of an urban legend: That the film was originally intended as a "goofy" adult comedy, and after it was released, it accidentally became a children's favorite. Any comments? 2Frann89 (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)2Frann89

Unlikely. The Hayes Office would've stopped the movie from becoming "adult". And the stories were written for kids. This "adult comedy" urban legend sounds anything but legit.Crboyer (talk) 17:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Film outakes not used on film

On the 50 anniversary of the making of the film there was a TV special about the film--shown were several film outakes of ray Bolger dancing a jig after Dorothy released him from the cornfield...

Wrong reference?

At the time of writing this, reference [30] seems to link to a book about Web development and databases which I doubt is intended.

I'm not sure how this reference works exactly (new contributor, sorry) but since it links an ISBN I can imagine it might simply be mistyped. Anyone more experienced willing to take a look or tell me how to approach this?

To be complete - Here's the current reference: "West, Adrian W. (2014). Practical PHP and MySQL web site databases : a simplified approach. New York. ISBN 978-1430260776. OCLC 859580733." - Maybe more related to me using the Wikipedia beta app for Android but seems specific to this page so I'll note it anyway: None of the references in the article actually take me to the References section. Moikvin (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I was able to find the initial addition of that reference and it appears to have been erroneous from the outset. Unfortunately the editor who added it hasn't been active since 2019 either. I've removed that citation and tagged the section for needing sources. Thank you for bringing this to our attention! DonIago (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:The Wizard of Oz which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 February 2019 and 29 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jramos112, Jessicannjones, Rjoseph1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Running time

Why is it expressed that way? (101:35) I never saw such notation for other films on Wikipedia. They're usually expressed as "n minutes". On top of that, the provided link to the BBFC site lists the running time as "approximatively 102 minutes", so the running time in the article is currently unsourced. Running time is also not a reliable characteristic of a moving picture, since it changes according to the way it's projected or played, the home video editions adding extra logos, and so on. The only objective measurement for movies shot on film is the actual length of the film stock in meters (which is however not especially interesting technical info, and hard to consistently find). Kumagoro-42 (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Odd project addition

@Smasongarrison: Why is the Disability wikiproject here? If lacking a brain, a heart and courage are considered disabilities, should it also be added to Talk:Donald Trump? Clarityfiend (talk) 13:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Presumably in reference to the midget actors, though I'm not sure that makes it valid. AnonMoos (talk) 15:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I've asked on the project talk. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:36, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The Wiz

Why is the wiz not even mentioned on this page. Clear disrespect 2601:643:8B00:6230:75A7:6DE0:25F:AB09 (talk) 21:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

It is, in the See also section. DonIago (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is mentioned, but not the theatrical versions performed in schools and other theater, with some script differences. Was curious about who wrote those lines, they are generally consistent across stage productions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.192.29 (talk) 09:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: American Cinema

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2023 and 12 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): EllieTibis (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Betty1324, Maceysplace, Maryverplank, Isabella.mitrow.

— Assignment last updated by Harveyfolger14 (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Caren Marsh Doll as Garland's stand-in

Hello @Doniago, at 104, she's the only surviving member of the movie. Shall we at least add her name somewhere in the article if she doesn't deserve to be featured in the cast list? Also, I think it's a good fact for quizzers. Appreciate your kind consideration and support. Nir007H (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Has a reliable source mentioned this? We typically don't add trivia just for the sake of adding it. DonIago (talk) 02:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes of course. How about the Los Angeles Times? https://www.latimes.com/visuals/photography/la-me-fw-archives-airline-crash-survivor-caren-marsh-doll-keeps-dancing-20190702-htmlstory.html or one of these sources as well? https://www.syracuse.com/kirst/2011/06/post_164.html or https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/rare-caren-marsh-doll-judy-garland-standin + This is her autobiography: https://www.abebooks.com/9780971095410/Hollywoods-Child-Dancing-OZ-Marsh-Doll-0971095418/plp where abebooks.com quotes: "...join Palm Springs’ author Caren Marsh-Doll, Judy Garland’s stand-in in the Wizard of Oz, as she dances through her rich Hollywood life. Hollywood’s Child Dancing Through OZ is 300 pages with three sections of photographs including Caren with Judy Garland on the Wizard of OZ set..." Appreciate your kind consideration and support. Nir007H (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn't see any of those sources claim that she's the only surviving cast member of the film, which I assume is what you'd like to include? That said, even if that's true, and I don't really doubt that it is, merely because a fact is true doesn't mean we should include it in the article. DonIago (talk) 13:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced material

Below information was tagged for needing sources long-term. Feel free to reinsert with appropriate references. DonIago (talk) 14:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Richard Thorpe as director

====Richard Thorpe as director==== Principal photography for The Wizard of Oz started on October 13, 1938, on the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer studio lot in Culver City, California, with Richard Thorpe as director, replacing original director Norman Taurog, who filmed a few early Technicolor tests and was then reassigned. Thorpe initially shot about two weeks of footage, nine days in total, involving Dorothy's first encounter with the Scarecrow, and a number of sequences in the Wicked Witch's castle, such as Dorothy's rescue, which, though unreleased, includes the only footage of Buddy Ebsen's Tin Man.

DonIago (talk) 14:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 21 August 2023

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: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks 12:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

---

The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) → The Wizard of Oz (film) – This is the most widely known film out of all the films. We can and should add a hatnote that will point them to the disambiguation page linking the other lesser known movies. Interstellarity (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• Strong Support - Even if we ignore the fact that this is a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the proposed title already redirects to the current title. Genuinely a bit WP:ASTONISHed by this. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

It should be noted that "the proposed title already redirects to the current title" only as of a couple of hours ago. This nomination was posted at 23:55, 21 August 2023 and the redirect was moved two minutes later at 23:57. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Which was made by the nom above, and subsequently reverted [1] TiggerJay (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support per WP:INCDAB. Even though the The Wizard of Oz (film) redirect gets fewer than 1 hit per day, almost all of those few surely expect to land on the famous film.[2] - Station1 (talk) 01:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• I'd have to say Oppose on this one, as while the 1939 film might appear to be the obvious primary topic, there are two other films that get non-negligible hits, so it will simply be confusing for readers to move this page to an incomplete disambiguation and make it difficult for them to find any other film. It's understandable that this film has many fans but that shouldn't come at the cost of damaging navigation. The proposed title also does not redirect to the current title, that was modified by nom prior to this move request when it really should not have been until consensus was reached. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Strong support per INCDAB. All other films of the same title aren't in the same league. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - this addition of ambiguity adds nothing to the readers' or editors' experience. -- Netoholic @ 13:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - Not an improvement, in my view. Let's keep it the way it is now. Jusdafax (talk) 15:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - one issue with the current redirect is that it goes to the film section where the 1939 film is NOT listed. I don't recall offhand what the preference is regarding if the most commonly referred to target should exist both at the top and in the section, but right now, the redirect is confusing at best. But it could probably be simply resolved by adding the 1939 film to the section titled film on the DAB page. TiggerJay (talk) 19:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ, Netoholic and Jusdafax. Incomplete disambiguations are not helpful to users. Those searching for the 1939 film are most likely to simply type "Wizard of Oz", rather than "Wizard of Oz (film)" or "Wizard of Oz (1939 film)" and, since the 1939 film would not be primary as long as it used any parenthetical qualifier, the searchers would still have to sort it out at the disambiguation page. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PRIMARYFILM. 162 etc. (talk) 20:03, 23 August 2023 (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.

Wizard of Oz (1939 film) - summary box - song credits

In the article at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wizard_of_Oz_(1939_film)

in the summary box it says:

Music by Herbert Stothart

This is misleading because he didn't compose the songs. It should say:

Songs by Harold Arlen (music), E.Y. Harburg (lyrics)

Score by Herbert Stothart 97.126.23.59 (talk) 21:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Per the infobox documentation, that field isn't intended for songwriters. DonIago (talk) 01:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)