Talk:The Wizard of Oz (1939 film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To-do list for The Wizard of Oz (1939 film):
  • Cite many, many more references
  • Copyedit article
Wikiproject Oz This article is part of WikiProject Oz, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Oz and Wicked series. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top
This article has been rated as Top-importance on the priority scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) article.

Article policies
Archives: 1


Contents

[edit] About cleaning up

I'm just an anonymous contributor and admirer of the Wikipedia. I strongly believe that the "Errors" section belong to the film and should remain here in this article, with a title of its own. But let's be realistic about the trivia section: how many movies / stories have influenced that much our world cultures as a whole? And I mean plural because I'm Brazilian, and the impact is huge in any place I've ever been to. So, "The Wizard of Oz_(influence)" or something down that line (I honestly don't like my own idea for the name) should be moved to a whole new entry, with a link from this article and a small section saying exactly that: impact was and continues to be immense, so there's a whole entry dealing only with that. And it's been huge indeed. The moving is completely justifiable in many fields, and let's face it, the amount of items in that section won't get cleaned - they will grow larger than it is now. And it should, as Wikipedia should inform us about all possible (and meaningful) influences of the film everywhere else for our reference.

[edit] Re-jig?

I think this article needs to be re-jigged. Most people who visit the page will have a good knowledge of the plot. The plot is currently given a lot of space with a large amount of trivia dotted through it. So, those who know the film well have to wade through the plot outline to get the trivia they might not already know. It would work better divided properly into "plot" and "trivia". --Joff - 11 am Australian time 13 March 2006

[edit] related works

This Australian adaptation may be an interesting addition, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075030/ for the related works section

[edit] Vandalism?

Does anybody know how often this page gets vandalized? If it is often, then I feel it might be a candidate for Semi-protection. Purplewowies (talk) 01:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing typo?

Am I mistaken or is the line:

Initially, The Wizard of Oz was considered a commercial success in relation to what was then considered its enormous budget, although it made a small profit and received largely favorable reviews.

...actually supposed to read:

Initially, The Wizard of Oz was not considered a commercial success in relation to what was then considered its enormous budget, although it made a small profit and received largely favorable reviews.

That seems to make not only the sentence but the entire paragraph make more sense. Patricia Meadows (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I added it back because I'm almost certain that's how it used to be and you're right that it makes sense. I guess it was some vandalism that never got reverted. If I'm wrong, please revert and say why! --Tombomp (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)