Talk:The Wizard of Oz/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Pythagoras

It should be noted that Scarecrow got it wrong, even after he got a brain! He says square-root of hypotenuse = sum of square-roots of the sides; it is the squares of the sides — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.163.186 (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a well-known goof on the scarecrow's part (or possibly on the scriptwriter's part). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Running time

I have changed the running time on the infobox from 103 minutes to 101 minutes, because that is the correct running time. AlbertSM (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Framerate?

I'm currently watching the b/w intro (being circa 10 minutes into it), and it looks very much like the whole footage was shot at something like 12 or 16fps, then edited, dubbed, and scored at 24fps (making all the movements look jerky and fast on closer examination).

At the time of early soundfilms when many silent movie cameras with framerates between 12 and 16fps were still in use, this was a popular technique. For instance, it can also be seen in all the entries of the 1939-1946 series of Sherlock Holmes films (where all the scenes were shot like that), in most of the insert shots aka cut-aways without dialogue in Fritz Lang's M (1931), and I think also throughout all of the Thin Man films (1934-1947). For example, if we were to slow down the Sherlock Holmes films to something like 12-16fps, the movements would be normal again (as that was the original shooting framerate), but the audio (being added later at a 24fps playback speed) would be much too deep in pitch.

The advantages of this process were three-fold:

• At a lower framerate, it was more economical on footage use.
• It didn't require heavy blimping of cameras during shoots.
• But most of all, it gave directors and sound editors the most freedom and versatility to modify and tinker with the sound in post-production if that's when sound was first introduced, such as adding sound FX and music without having to rely on meticulously-timed foley crews and orchestras on the filmset.

Sound-on-disc and sound-on-film mostly referred to how the films were printed and shipped, and not necessarily to how the sound was originally recorded, or if it really was livesound at all. In the early days, both of those methods were very inflexible when used for livesound, for obvious reasons with disks, but remember that for a very long time, sound-on-film meant optical sound that couldn't be modified in any way, not even with overdubs. Also, sound needs continuous motion, while movie sequences need discontinuous propulsion, requiring for complex mechanisms in projectors already, and cameras equipped like that were even more of a cost factor. Finally, the main reason for silent shooting was and remains the need for international versions with separate tracks for score, FX, and dialogue each, which is how professional films have been produced for 80 years now (All Quiet on the Western Front (1930) comes to mind as one of the first talkies produced like that).

Thus, for a very long time, a large part of professional movie production relied on silent shooting with post-production dubbing, especially after the rise of the magnetic tape throughout the 1930s. All overdubs would have required bouncing down from several source tapes to transitional and finally a master tape, each time decreasing sound quality with each generation copy, which with the tiny soundtracks directly on film was bad enough to begin with. That was another reason why livesound recorded directly on film didn't become dominant even with the introduction of magnetic sound and pre-striping. Silent shooting was only really forced out of professional movie production with the rise of pilottone synch signals throughout the 1960s.

And with all silent shots where sound was added in post, productions could tinker with framerates for the three bulleted reasons given above. So the question is, what framerate was The Wizard of Oz really shot at? From the part I've seen so far, it looks a lot like all the movies listed above that were shot wholly or in part at framerates of 16fps or below. --87.151.17.65 (talk) 07:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, finished the movie now. At least 80% of all the shots in it looked undercranked in the way described above, and I'm just not entirely sure with the rest. The musical numbers in-synch with choreographies don't contradict this observation: The dwarf songs sound like they're played back at double speed anyway, and the other songs heard at normal speed and pitch must have been played back at something like half-speed (depending on whether the shooting framerate was 12 or 16fps) during shooting for the actors to mime at. It's a technique very common in music videos since at least the early 80s. Also, many of the choreographic stunts during songs in the movie look much more physically plausible and humanly possible when played back at somewhere between 12-16fps. --87.151.17.65 (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Legacy?

Since when is the listing of how long key cast members survived considered "legacy"? Is there any reason to keep this section? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Margret Hamilton played another part

She was not credited for playing the Wicket Witch of the East. When did she play that? When she was Mrs. Gulch riding the bike in the cyclone out the window she changed to the Witch of the East before she got landed on. Even Dorothy sings that the witch flew by before landing on her.

Thomas Churchwell- october 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.0.120 (talk) 00:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Please note that Dorothy's exclamation to her dog about where they are does NOT use the word "got" at any time. The correct sentence is, "Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas any more." If you actually listen to the dialog of the movie, this is quite clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.38.43.65 (talk) 07:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

alleged to?

This sentence makes no sense:

The Wizard of Oz is alleged to have been identified as being of importance to the LGBT community, in part due to Judy Garland's starring role."

How can something be "alleged to have been" identified? Either it's identified or it's not. "Alleged to" sounds euphemistic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.25.74 (talk) 04:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Deleted Scenes

There is a reference to deleted scenes in the article on Margaret Hamilton, and I have seen some myself on television, including a deleted song by Ray Bolger. But I didn't notice anything in this article about that; there certainly isn't a heading about it, and I think it deserves one. A (posthumous) "director's cut" of this movie restoring some of the lost/deleted scenes would sure be nice, but I gather that nothing like that has ever been released. Shocking Blue (talk) 11:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Valid sourcing is key. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. While the 1939 film is clearly the most likely search target per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the substantial local opposition suggesting the proposed arrangement may not be the best option in this case is compelling enough to close without a move. Cúchullain ^t/c 15:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

---

---

• The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) → The Wizard of Oz
• The Wizard of Oz → The Wizard of Oz (disambiguation)

– Clear primary topic, particulary since Baum's novel, the second best known meaning, is actually at The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, its correct title. --Relisted Tyrol5 [Talk] 02:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC) [Relisted; discussion continues, and questions are unanswered. Noetica^Tea? 04:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)] PatGallacher (talk) 15:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Question to be the primary topic (the main reason that this page would be moved) it does not only need to be the best known but more likely to be searched than all of the other entries combined. Do you have any evidence that this is the case here?--70.49.81.44 (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Question 2 Does this proposal mean there will be a new The Wizard of Oz (disambiguation) as well as the the existing The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (disambiguation) page? --DHeyward (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

There already are two disambiguation pages. That will not change, only that both of them would have disambiguation in their name. Apteva (talk) 06:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. "The Wizard of Oz" has many meanings and is a long disambig page. Leave it as such. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose (unless you bring me the broomstick of the Wicked Witch of the West). According to the book's article, publishers often shortened its title to simply The Wizard of Oz. The film just barely fails to be a sole primary topic. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Apteva (talk) 04:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

  The Wonderful Wizard of Oz has been viewed 246419 times in the last 90 days.

  The Wizard of Oz (1902 stage play) has been viewed 2916 times in the last 90 days.

  Wizard of Oz (1925 film) has been viewed 12142 times in the last 90 days.

  The Wizard of Oz (1933 film) has been viewed 3341 times in the last 90 days.

  The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) has been viewed 792125 times in the last 90 days. This article ranked 612 in traffic on en.wikipedia.org.

  The Wizard of Oz (1942 musical) has been viewed 3208 times in the last 90 days.

  The Wizard of Oz (1987 musical) has been viewed 3643 times in the last 90 days.

  The Wizard of Oz (2011 musical) has been viewed 22547 times in the last 90 days.

  Wizard of Oz (character) has been viewed 57504 times in the last 90 days.

• Oppose. The book is frequently shortened to "The Wizard of Oz". Both are notable and significant in their own right. I also question recent page views from only the last 90 days because their have been recent news spikes in the past few months such as the auctioning off of Judy Garland's dress used in the film. [1] We should not modify the primary topic because of the effects of such recentism Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

  There were three days with a spike in views, and if they are eliminated, the views are still 634929 over 90 days, or if you add in the average 7,300/day for those three days, you still get far in excess of any other page, about 657,000, vs the next closest which is 57,504, which of course also has the same spikes, although one was for two days instead of one. Apteva (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

This is skewed toward a younger group. If you took a survey in a library, you'd get somewhat different results. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It's skewed toward people -- whoever they are -- that actually use Wikipedia. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - No strong reason to change. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose the book is frequently published as "The Wizard of Oz". Further the character, is also frequently meant by the term. -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 00:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. I was going to oppose because of the book's legitimate claim to this title too (indicating no primary topic), but the page view counts listed by Apteva are decisive: this use is clearly the primary one.

  Note to closing admin: Unless anyone who opposes also acknowledges and addresses Apteva's persuasive observation, I suggest the closer assume it was overlooked, as I almost did, and weigh their !votes accordingly. It's strength of arguments, not numbers, that determine consensus. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Why in the world would you assume that when only two voters preceded the stats? Plus, as one of those, I've already commented on them. The book is as well-known and studied in its own field as the movie. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin: (And it had better be an admin, since the case is not straightforward.) Unless someone fully addresses the concerns I voice below (in my oppose vote), please ignore the unexamined and incomplete statistics presented above. We need arguments to support a move in the interest of the readers, not a flurry of raw data. Noetica^Tea? 04:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Per view counts listed by Apteva. Mlpearc (powwow) 02:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. The pageview statistics presented above are not accompanied by any argument at all. Where are the pageview statistics for the DAB page Wizard of Oz so much as mentioned (20102 over the last 90 days, by the way)? Where is the history of assignment of various titles to various pages factored in and accounted for? Where is the argument showing how such evidence supports a claim of primary topic for the film? Where is the nuanced and objective application of policy, to make the case? Obviously the article is easily found by readers, as things stand. Where is the argument that it (and all the other articles) would be more reliably found after the proposed move.
  We expect a better standard of evidence and argument at RM discussions – or rather, we hope for a better standard. ☺ Noetica^Tea? 04:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Unless a page is misnamed, as this one is, dab pages rarely get many page views: The_Wizard_of_Oz has been viewed 20102 times in the last 90 days. Apteva (talk) 04:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
    • That's it? That's the detailed argument, to make sense of a heap of undigested and incomplete data? I don't even see any connection, let alone any justification for what I take to be your suppressed premises. Noetica^Tea? 05:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Noetica, does the argument really have to be spelled out? Isn't it obvious? The page views of all other uses, including the dab page, are chump change compared to this article, which got 792,125 views over the same 90 days. That's over three times as many as the book (246,419), thirteen times as many as the character (57504), and at least almost 40 times as many views as any other use, including the dab page (20,102) and the 2011 musical (22,547). There is no contest here with respect to primary topic. So unless you're simply opposed because you're "no fan of the doctrine of 'primary topic'", I don't understand the objection. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

        B2C, no. My objection is in accord with full acceptance of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The link you provide gives my opinion of that policy provision in detail, and I advise editors here to follow it and read what I say there. In particular: "Disagreement over which is 'the primary topic' (precariously predicated on the assumption that there is one) is strong evidence there is not a primary topic." The "obvious" argument you present in answering me here is not complete, and fails to consider the constituency whose interests you yourself mentioned earlier: "It's skewed toward people -- whoever they are -- that actually use Wikipedia." And then there is this, quoted from WP:TITLE:

"The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists."

The statistics (as I have now supplemented them, since they were incomplete in a crucial respect) show that the readers are served extremely well by the present arrangement. They show that readers are getting to their destination directly, with little use of the DAB article (relatively, when we look at all the numbers). My vote is founded on the interests of readers, not on serving some algorithmic process – and serving it blindly, as if discussions of this sort for RMs were entirely redundant. So, it seems, are the other oppose votes. They do not oppose in the interests of editors and their favourite policy provisions, but in the interests of readers.

Noetica^Tea? 23:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The 20,102 views of the dab page is abnormally high. Apteva (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course it isn't abnormally high. What is 20,102 against 1,163,947 (the sum of all pageviews for all of the relevant articles? The DAB page gets only 1.7% of the pageviews! Things are working almost perfectly. If we wanted to guarantee a slight improvement though, we'd move The Wonderful Wizard of Oz to The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (novel). That's the most confusable of all the articles mentioned here, and it could easily be brought into line. Heaven alone knows how many thousands of readers end up there when they're after the most sought-after article, this present one. Noetica^Tea? 01:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of a disambiguation, such as novel, musical, or 1987 musical, is not to explain what the subject is about, that is what the article is for. The purpose of a dis is solely to distinguish between titles that otherwise are identical, including capitalization, other than the first letter. In the case of a primary topic, the subject that is that primary topic does not carry a disambiguation. The only question is, is there a primary topic? Since there clearly is... Apteva (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

No, no, and no. In that order. The overarching purpose of all titling choices is to help readers (see policy at WP:TITLE), not to serve the pet interests of editors who are attached to their preferred readings – very often misreadings – of their favourite guidelines, such as the the ever-popular PRIMARYTOPIC. Yes, the question "Is there a primary topic?" is a vital and often-neglected one, passed over in the rush to ask "What is the primary topic?" Here, the first question has not been examined according to the detail in PRIMARYTOPIC. Actually read it, Apteva. Then note the policy imperative: we meet readers' needs, not our own. No one has answered my analysis showing how the present arrangement serves exceptionally well. Why not? Noetica^Tea? 04:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Because your "present arrangement serves exceptionally well" "analysis" is a red herring at best. Even if true, it's irrelevant, since the proposed arrangement will serve at least as well. You've certainly not shown how the proposed arrangement will serve anyone any worse.

And what you fail to appreciate is that serving users better is the whole point of primary topic. In cases where one use of a given string is much more likely than any other to be the desired destination of a reader who searches with that string, then we want the article about that use to be at that string as its title, or for it to be the target or redirect at that string. That's how we serve our readers the best.

Currently, readers who are typing in "The Wizard of Oz" in the WP Search box and typing GO are taken to the dab page. That serves none of them well, especially since the view counts indicate we know where most would like to go... this article. We would serve them much better by taking them there directly. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

No red herring at all. The onus is on those supporting a move to show how it could improve the situation for readers (obvious really; but see the statement about readers' needs versus editors' needs at WP:TITLE). No one has shown this for the present case, and I have given powerful evidence and argument to show that things are working just fine. Your specific point fails; clearly people are not just clicking on "go" at the WP search box and getting the DAB page. Only 1.7% of the readers concerned are doing that, and they are being served well when they get there anyway. Under the proposed arrangement, people would have little choice but to click on "go" and hope for the best, whether they want the film or the novel. They don't know the exact title of either – unlike us in this discussion, who have already seen the answers to the quiz. Discussions like this are worthless, if we cannot accurately imagine ourselves in the readers' place. Noetica^Tea? 22:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The reason the DAB page view counts are relatively low is because most people use Google to get to the article they seek directly, and the DAB page is almost never the page being sought. Everything is working "just fine" for most because most use Google rather than WP search. But the Google users are fine; they get to the article they seek regardless of what we name it. Our concern is the minority that uses WP search, and, particularly, those that type in "the wizard of oz" and search.

We assume that this minority of users will seek the potential referents of that string with approximately the same frequency as the entire population of WP users, whose behavior is reflected in the page view counts. That is, if one referent of "the wizard of oz" gets significantly more page views than all the others combined, we assume that the small fraction of users typing in "the wizard of oz" and using WP search are also more likely to be looking for that use than any of the others. That makes that use the primary topic. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, of course, that Google is the main entrée to Wikipedia articles. But obviously, adequate precision and recognisability right there in the title helps potential readers to assess the results of their Google search. As for those who use an internal Wikipedia search, once again you fail to show any advantage in loss of precision. The prompts are there for a purpose. Readers can hardly avoid noticing them as they use the WP search, since the prompts respond dynamically as they type:

• Type as far as "the w", and already "The Wizard of Oz (1939 film)" appears as a prompt.
• Type one more letter, "the wi", and "The Wizard of Oz (1939 film)" jumps to the top of the list!
• Type all the way, "the wizard of oz", and "The Wizard of Oz (1939 film)" comes first, and the DAB page "The Wizard of Oz" comes just under it

This present arrangement is already optimal. It is extremely efficient, and already determined by the pageview numbers. All we have to do is give articles useful and efficient titles. If this RM is successful, what will come up as the top prompts? Almost certainly "The Wizard of Oz" first (with unknown meaning). The DAB page would be "The Wizard of Oz (disambiguation)", and it would not appear as a prompt until "the wizard of oz d" has been typed. But no one types that! Well, beyond editors researching for RM discussions, I mean. And "The Wizard of Oz (1939 film)" would not appear until "the wizard of oz 1" has been typed: unlike such minor articles as "The Wizard of Oz (1902 musical)", which would appear as a prompt after just "the wiz" has been typed, as it does now!

Some editors need to step back and analyse freshly how things really work, for real readers.

Noetica^Tea? 23:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have missed my 19:37, 10 January 2013 comment below. The bulk of the above is written as if my point #1 in that comment was never made. I refer you to that comment instead of repeating. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Done now. But please: take those general issues to general forums in future. We have lives to get on with. ☺ Noetica^Tea? 01:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose—no thanks. This is a film, a musical, lots of things. Stripping away title components in this campaign to make it misleading for our readers has to stop. Tony (talk) 07:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "The Wizard of Oz" does refer to all of those things, but, according to actual view counts, it usually is used to refer to this film by our readers. That's why we have WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - to serve our readers better. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

B2C, see my long reply above, on serving our readers rather than some imperfect provision in policy, because some editors like it a lot and in fact misread it. Noetica^Tea? 23:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought ..." (bolding mine). Your own statistics fail to support your argument. The film is only a little more than three times more sought after than the book, and less than that for all others combined. It's also not a clearcut winner for the other criterion, "long-term significance". Clarityfiend (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

First, the book would not and does not share the same title as The Wizard of Oz. Even including it in the stats, the 1939 film has 3.2 times as many views as the book, and 440405 more views than all others including the book and the character, and unless the 1939 film is itself included in the total, making it impossible for anything to have more than itself and even one other view, does have more views than all others combined (not a good principle though, and a criteria I have argued against for years). The 1939 film has 792,125 views, which is 744,328 more than all others combined that could have that name. Of articles that could have the title The Wizard of Oz, the 1939 film has 35.1 times as many views as the next most views. Apteva (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

If the book isn't searched for by the title The Wizard of Oz, then why did you even show the stats for it? Gotcha! Clarityfiend (talk) 01:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

SOP is to list the stats of every title listed on the dab page. Two are not and would not be named The Wizard of Oz and did not need to be included. I am certain I would have gotten more complaints had I left it out than from including it. As to the definition of "much more likely than any other", imagine that someone gets paid $50,000, and someone else gets paid $150,000. I think that we can all agree that getting paid $150,000 is "much more" than $50,000. I would even accept 2 times or even 1.3 times as "much more", but that is not as likely to fly every time. Attempts to more precisely define "much more" always fail. Apteva (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Reply People should try reading WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The 1939 film is a major cultural icon for a whole series of reasons, leading film criticsRoger Ebert and Barry Norman have included it in their 100 best films of all time. The book is not so well known, does not have exactly the same title, and what fame it has these days probably comes from acting as the inspiration for the 1939 film. Noetica seems to have a record of obstructing legitimate primary topic decisions and moves to remove unnecessary precision, see WP:PRECISION and Talk:Sparti. PatGallacher (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  Couldn't agree more, Pat. People should actually read and think about WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as I suggest above. And actually read the provisions at WP:TITLE, including the bit about serving the needs of readers, not editors. But on one thing we disagree: I have no record of obstructing any decisions in RM discussions. I give my opinions, backed with argument, evidence, and appeals to policy and guidelines. I actually articulate those things (see above). Unlike many, who present raw data or unexplained appeals to unread algorithms that they rarely, in fact, apply correctly anyway. For that sort of reason, I have had little to do with RM discussions for a loooong time. (Since you are intent on personalising things here.)
  ♥
  Noetica^Tea? 14:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Isn't WP:PRIMARYTOPIC largely Born2cycle's concoction, a few years ago, pushed through to the consternation of quite a few editors at WT:AT? (I wasn't there, but I've been hearing stories.) Instead of pushing this unworkable invention in ways that damage the interests of our readers-in-search, why not take a more pragmatic approach to the isssues it seems to have been cutting through? This article title will become unnecessarily confusing if stripped back to an ambiguous string for the sake of brevity alone. Tony (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

There's some truth in that, Tony. But the real problem is that people don't read the detail. That's why I quote bits of it here. People think they know the nuances, but few really do. PRIMARYTOPIC is imperfect. But if applied accurately and with proper consideration of all the other provisions, and above all consideration for the readers (written into policy, as it should be), a lot of RMs would go better – for a more accessible encyclopedia. Noetica^Tea? 14:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

If I type "wizard of oz" in the search box, what I get is essentially a disambiguation page that lists everything including the 1939 film. There's no benefit to readers in messing around with this. This is just another example of B2C's ongoing busywork campaign. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I've had almost nothing to do with this proposal. And the notion that primary topic is my "concoction" is patently absurd. I tweaked the wording from time to time (all achieving consensus support, and I don't know if any wording I came up with is still in there), but the basic idea was in place before I arrived at WP. Get a grip, guys. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. I was all set to oppose, but I think it's pretty clear what people are looking for when they type in this title. Powers ^T 01:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Type it in where, Powers?

• If in the search box here, they can type "the wi" and already get this, as the first prompt: "The Wizard of Oz (1939 film)". Please show, by detailed argument, how the proposed change can conceivably improve on that.
• If in Google, even the raw unformatted search wizard of oz gets this article at the head of the list, and everyone then knows to click on it, or go for something else. Please show, by detailed argument, how the proposed change can conceivably improve on that.

Noetica^Tea? 04:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

1. The prompting in the WP search box is a convenience that can be ignored by the user, and may not even be available (I believe it requires javascript), and so should not be considered when determining primary topic. The point is if you type in (or paste from a copy) "The Wizard of Oz" in the WP Search box and press GO, you will currently not be taken to this article, but to the dab page, even though any user who does that is very likely to be searching for this article.
2. The fact that Google search results for "wizard of oz" returns with this article at the top further supports the case that this topic is primary! While Google is a good indicator for what the primary topic is - the purpose of primary topic has nothing to do with users who search with Google (because Google displays the results in most likely order without regard to title). See #1 and #3 with regard to the purpose of primary topic.
3. Any editor typing in a link (e.g., The Wizard of Oz) in any article expects it to link to its primary topic; in this case, that's this article (see #2). --Born2cycle (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

B2C:

1. Javascipt? Yes. Isn't that turned on by default in modern browsers? It certainly is in Mozilla Firefox and Chrome. A convenience that can be ignored? Yes, anything can be ignored. Hatnotes can be ignored, and are. DAB pages of the form "XXXX (disambiguation)" are ignored. Who ever types in "disambiguation" as part of a search, anywhere? Who ever types this far even, in the WP search box: "XXXX d"? That is normally the minimum required before such a DAB page turns up as a prompt. No such consideration impedes your heavy reliance on such verbose DAB pages or on hatnotes, in your recommendations for titles. The search prompts are highly visible though, because they flicker and change as you type in. If you paste "The Wizard of Oz" in, and then look before clicking, you see "The Wizard of Oz (1939 film)" as the first prompt (and the DAB page immediately under: "The Wizard of Oz")! We cannot cater for every possible type of use; and is so very dysfunctional, if some readers get to a comprehensive DAB page that is exactly right for the term they have pasted and clicked in without looking for prompts?
2. "The fact that Google search results for "wizard of oz" returns with this article at the top further supports the case that this topic is primary!" Perhaps yes, perhaps no. It might show that this article has more pageviews than any single other one in the set; but that is not sufficient to demonstrate status as primary topic. Nor does it settle the rest of the decision-making, once a primary topic has been decided on.
3. "Any editor typing in a link" had better check that link. By policy at WP:TITLE, we serve the interests of readers, not of editors. Anyway, there is a bot that goes to editors' talkpages and tells them, when they have linked inadvertently to a DAB page.

Once again B2C, many of these considerations are general. Please take them to a general forum if they go beyond the specific topics of specific discussions. You may have all day; I do not.

Noetica^Tea? 01:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. This topic gets vastly more page views than any other candidate for the lemma "The Wizard of Oz", according to the stats provided by Apteva above. This is a high traffic article, so it's important for the title to look professional when it comes up. Parenthetical Wiki-cruft in large type across the top does not improve an article's appearance. Kauffner (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Kauffner, you have come late and therefore had a chance to see how I engage with the evidence that Apteva presents, as well as how I supplement it with a vital missing datum (pageviews for the DAB page). You have had an opportunity to see my analysis of those statistics, and my conclusion that the present arrangement for all these articles is very successful. People are obviously finding the articles they want, without needing to consult the DAB page Wizard of Oz. The evidence? Only 1.7% of all pageviews in the set over the last 90 days have been to that DAB page. It is scarcely credible that an such efficient arrangement could be improved – except, of course, by adding the last missing piece of precision: add "(novel)" to The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, and it is beyond dispute that people will find what they are after even more directly.

I find you pretending that these cogent arguments of mine did not exist. Why? This is, remember, a discussion. The idea is to present arguments lucidly, to read others' arguments, and to respond to them. Will you please do that?

Since you fail to address the arguments, and therefore fail to participate in the discussion, I confine myself to the only substance in your post that has not yet been examined:

"This is a high traffic article, so it's important for the title to look professional when it comes up. Parenthetical Wiki-cruft in large type across the top does not improve an article's appearance."

Now, where in policy or guidelines is there any characterisation of precision as "Wiki-cruft"? Your term? Do you also use the term "Britannica-cruft" for the abundant and helpful precision Britannica uses in directing readers to its corresponding article? Where is the aesthetic point you essay here supported in titling policy or guidelines, to set Wikipedia apart from established practice "out there"? See listings at a search on "wizard of oz" at the Britannica site; and see how Britannica's article comes up, head of the list, at a raw unformatted Google search on wizard of oz britannica, with this text highlighted: "The Wizard of Oz (film by Fleming and Vidor [1939])".

Looking forward to your complete response (and those of others).

Noetica^Tea? 06:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You're arguing that since the dab page gets relatively view hits, that proves something. Well, in a world where most people search via Google and not via WP search, to get to WP pages, that proves very little. Thanks to Google, readers who search via Google automatically see what we refer to as the "primary topic" (the most likely target for a given search term) at the top of the Google search results, and so they can just click on it, or one of the less likely destinations listed just below it. Google takes care of the vast majority, taken each directly to the page of interest. Our concern is the minority that uses WP search to find their page. This is the key point you're missing about how primary topic serves the users. We know it's a small but vital portion of the total views of these pages. And with that we still have over 20,000 views of the dab page. That is alarmingly high, for any dab page. These are the readers we need to serve, not the vast majority arriving here via Google search who are unaffected by how we choose titles. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

B2C:

• "You're arguing that since the dab page gets relatively [few] hits, that proves something."

Yes, that's one of my arguments.

• "... we still have over 20,000 views of the dab page. That is alarmingly high, for any dab page."

O really? Why? It's just 1.7% of the total relevant page views! We could conveniently also compare 90-day pageviews for DAB pages and major articles listed at them. Look at these counts and ratios:

• The Wizard of Oz (1939 film): 792125
  The Wizard of Oz [DAB page]: 20102 (2.54%, = 20102/792125)
• Cork (material): 60934
  Cork [DAB page]: 19665 (32.27%)
• County Cork: 36999
  Cork [DAB page]: 19665 (53.13%)
• The Band: 190020
  Band [DAB page]: 32139 (16.91%)

And then there are notorious cases where a major article is left utterly imprecise, and the DAB page is called "XXX (disambiguation)", which is a form that hardly anyone is ever going to type or paste in, and very often does not appear in the visible prompts until a reader types "XXX d", or more:

• Big: 135697
  Big (disambiguation): 2623 (1.93%)
  [Appears in prompts only when "big di" has been typed]
• Something: 19698
  Something (disambiguation): 411 (2.09%)
  [Appears in prompts only when "something d" has been typed]

Those DAB page numbers and proportions are pleasingly low until you realise that no one can find the damn things, and most readers have no idea such pages exist! I've explained about search prompts in Wikipedia searches; also, Big (disambiguation) does not turn up in the first 100 results in a Google search on "big" (and similarly for Something (disambiguation), searching on "something"). What's worse, you can have no idea how many lost readers turn at the bare page Big, after typing that word in and clicking or selecting the uninformative prompt, and – not knowing, noticing, or caring about hatnotes – just give up, and go away.

So B2C, in the context of all that, justify your claim that 1.7% is not a relevant measurement, and that the absolute number 20102 is what is relevant, and "alarmingly high, for any dab page". In particular, show why it is a concern in this case, and not in comparable cases. When you have done that with rigour, I might address what other points you attempt above.

Noetica^Tea? 12:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Noetica, perhaps you did not notice my other comments above? I presume you missed them, because I've already addressed almost everything you said here. The main point you're missing is that the vast majority of our pages are reached via Google and links, which go directly to the pages being sought, not the dab pages. So only a small percentage of our page views, perhaps less than 5%, are reached via WP search, and thus even have a chance to land upon dab pages. That's why 1.7% is not a relevant measurement... of course it's going to be relatively low compared to how many views this page and other pages people actually want get from people using Google to get to the pages directly.

You note that Big (disambiguation) does not turn up in the first 100 results in a Google search on "big", as if there is something wrong with that. What? Who on Earth would be seeking a dab page? Dab pages are work-a-rounds for situations where other mechanisms have failed the user.

What you also don't seem to understand and appreciate is that our page with a plain title Big comes up first in the Google results for "big" for the same reason that disambiguated The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) comes up first in the Google results for "wizard of oz" - each is the primary topic for the respective search string, according to Google's data based on the actual behavior of people using Google. The vast majority of the views occur without regard to the title because they come from Google. We could rename this article to "Blah ha ha" and the view counts would hardly change over the next three months. It's only the small minority that uses WP search whose search success depends on titles, and us getting the treatment of primary topics right. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

B2C, I did read all your comments above. And I have answered a couple of points in detail, clearly marked. When you have adequately dealt with those, I have said I will deal with any others. You continue to miss the point that I make. You have not explained how 1.7% of pageviews for the total set is not a potent measure of a DAB page's efficacy. (Alternatively, an easier but rougher statistic: ratio of DAB pageviews to dominant-article pageviews, or 2.54% for the present case.) You have not understood, it seems, how such a measure becomes irrelevant when the DAB page is hardly ever found, or even looked for. You have not understood what I was saying about that: when comparing pageview statistics, we must take account of whether arriving at a page was intentional, or instead ill-informed and accidental. You have thought that I disagree on this: "the vast majority of our pages are reached via Google and links, which go directly to the pages being sought, not the dab pages". But you do not say why you think that (wrongly!). You have no basis for thinking I misunderstand how Google works with Wikipedia pages. Big does not come up first: it comes up third on a Google search; no huge problem. But note: it would come up first (and the highlighted text would be even more useful) if that article were at Big (film). Compare this plain unformatted naive Google search: wizard of oz. There it is, right at the top: this article, with the title's helpful precision highlighted and no possibility of misdirection: "The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) - Wikipedia, the free en... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wizard_of_Oz_(1939_film)". And as I have shown in various discussions, sometimes including such obvious precision is the only way to get the sought-after WP article to the top in a Google search. Google loves WP; it strives to promote WP articles to the top, for everyone's benefit. Help it to do so! In practically all contexts, including an internal WP search, adequate precision of the kind I advocate here works better for readers. The argument that WP searches are little used (and your guess of the rate of use is indeed just a guess) carries no weight; it is used, and when articles are well titled it is very effective. Same as for Google searches.

As a practical matter, B2C, I think we should leave this technical discussion incomplete. This is not the place. But I will ask you, sometime, to address these concerns at an appropriate forum. I will join in when I have time, if the dialogue is rationally founded and conducted. Meanwhile, it is ridiculous to assume that you have a monopoly understanding of how an encyclopedia can best communicate with its readers, or that I am naive about any of this. You have influenced a great deal in policy and guidelines – to bad effect, I have often argued. And those provisions affect the course of RM discussions because people (commenters, closers) get bamboozled, and too easily accede to your supposed expertise. Your simplifications and algorithms fail; but showing that, in the face of contempt for any different analysis, is a wearisome and thankless task. It does not help when you rush to change those provisions (as you do right now at WT:DAB) when you cannot easily "win" in fair discussion at an RM – on those rare occasions when an articulate and numerate opponent says: "No, let's see what this really means for real readers of Wikipedia." See also this related saga, of course. Its latest full-length episode.

I suggest we move on from this saga.

Noetica^Tea? 23:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

"You have no basis for thinking I misunderstand how Google works with Wikipedia pages. Big does not come up first: it comes up third on a Google search; no huge problem. But note: it would come up first (and the highlighted text would be even more useful) if that article were at Big (film)."

You're right, it does come up third. My bad. But that you think that Google's order would change in response to our changing the title of that article from "Big" to "Big (film)" is proof positive that you misunderstand how Google works with WP pages. Here's what you don't get. Every time someone searches with "big" (or anything else), Google "pays attention" to what that person clicks on in the results, and that bumps the rank of that page (by a tiny amount, of course, but they add up cumulatively based on the clicking of millions). For example, right now the CBS page on the "Big Bang Theory" is coming up 9th in the results. If thousands of people searching with "big" started clicking on it, that would move it up. That's what drives order in Google search results - not the name of the page... LOL! This is why WP:GOOGLE plays such an important role in deciding primary topic - it tells us what real people most commonly are looking for when searching with a given term.

Do you really think The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) is at the top of the Google search results because of how we named it? LOL! Then please explain why Wizard of Oz (1925 film) and The Wizard of Oz (1933 film) don't show up until Page 5 or so? Google "learns" what people want, and orders their results accordingly. That's all.

Do you really believe that Google has hard-wired favoritism for Wikipedia pages in its page ranking algorithms? That's hilarious. Google's algorithms automatically "favor" Wikipedia based on user usage. It's also why this WP page comes up first, and the WP page about the 1925 film comes up on page 5 of the results. It's all about simple page ranking.

You have not explained why it's important that a DAB page is ever found. I say 0 views for a DAB is the theoretical ideal. We should not be making it easier for readers to find DAB pages. To the contrary, we should be making it easier for them to find, you know, they ARTICLES they are looking for! In practice, it's impossible to always know, and, so DAB pages are a necessary backup mechanism. But, in general, the more rarely DAB pages are reached, the better. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

B2C, there are many factors affecting how Google promotes pages. Don't pretend to fathom their arcane and protean algorithms. No one does, I think. You personalise by laughing ("LOL")? Focus on content, please. You neglect the complex two-way relations between WP and Google articles. In some cases, for example, a well-titled WP article will get more traffic because it is well and transparently titled; then that lifts it in Google results. As for Google not favouring Wikipedia (as an obviously exceptional site, apt for special treatment), an anecdote: I once made a faulty redirect, with a misspelling. To my dismay I found that redirect on Google within hours! Google scoops up everything from Wikipedia with alacrity, notable or not. And often, of course, it prefers a WP article over far more salient commercial, news, or blog mentions of a topic (at far more trafficked pages). Not always! Who knows all the shifting details, with Google? We only know the broad facts.

We could go on for days, right? But let's not. Let's deal with these general issues elsewhere, another time, at a general forum. I only raised matters here as directly relevant to evidence (or lack of it) for this RM. We have moved away from that focus.

Noetica^Tea? 00:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose – given all the data, with all the ambiguity, the present clear scheme seems better. Dicklyon (talk) 07:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• Considering all the opposes, shouldn't be discussed if "The Wizard of Oz (film)" is the best option? This may not be the primary topic in culture and entertainment, but in films it should be, it already redirects here. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 08:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Disambiguation must be complete. Powers ^T 20:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support, should be pretty obvious. A hatnote link to the book that's sometimes confused with the film should be perfectly sufficient. --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It's only "pretty obvious" when you ignore the evidence and arguments against that claim. See above. It used to be "pretty obvious" that the sun revolved around the earth. ☺ Noetica^Tea? 23:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• Not completely as proposed. Instead:

• The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) →leave where it is.
• The Wizard of Oz →redirect to The Wizard of Oz (1939 film)
• The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) hat note to → The Wizard of Oz (disambiguation)

This is a borderline Primary Topic. The book has a different title, though sometimes abbreviated to the same. Many think of the 1939 film as the original work, but are of course mistaken, and so the page title must immediately alert to this common misconception. Precision is needed here, but it is very likely that anyone searching is expecting to find the 1939 film. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

That would be completely non-standard; if a base name redirects to a disambiguated name, reversing that is usually considered non-controversial. Powers ^T 20:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

What may or may not happen "usually" is only part of the story. We have particular RM discussions to meet particular circumstances, so that the readers can be served most effectively. I have argued that the present arrangement is just fine. (Except that it could be improved by adding the only piece of obvious precision that is do far missing: "(novel)" for the novel, since most people are uncertain of the subtle distinctions that we come to understand as we deal with this case!) Smokey's suggestion is also responsive to the needs of the case. That's what we need, rather than mere appeals to formulae. In fact though, I disagree with Smokey's suggestion. The Wizard of Oz works superbly as the DAB page, as I argue in great detail above. No one has shown how upsetting that arrangement would be an improvement, rather than a detriment as I claim. Noetica^Tea? 01:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

This is an unusual case of disambiguation, because there is only one subject; the several disambiguated pages can be considered spinouts from the one parent topic, "The Wizard of Oz". It happens that one of the spinouts (the 1939 film) dominates all others for significance. As the 1939 film is not the parent article for the group, I oppose the main proposal. The 1939 film should remain disambiguated in its title, in its url, and the big letters that appear at the top of a printout.

The DAB page is OK. The The Wizard of Oz (1939 film), is bold, but is perhaps not prominent enough. I think I'd like to see a broad summary article at The Wizard of Oz. It should include The_Wonderful_Wizard_of_Oz#Cultural_impact and some similar material from The Wizard of Oz (1939 film). I'd prefer that all disambiguation pages include "(disambiguation)" in their title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't like that this leaves The Wizard of Oz (disambiguation) and the existing The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (disambiguation) ostensibly the same primary source material with two levels of redirects. I would prefer the 1939 movie and the book occupy the namespaces with hats to a single dis page but the other adaptations be merged to a single redirect page. --DHeyward (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NCF. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support There are compelling arguments on both sides so I don't envy the closer. However, when it comes down to it we have two articles about subjects of historic notable value: the book and the 1939 film (I am aware there are other articles but their impact on popular culture barely compares to the book and '39 film). We also have two titles by which the works are officially known (The Wonderful Wizard of Oz and The Wizard of Oz) so it makes sense to me to have the two articles at those two pages. It's true that The Wizard of Oz also applies to the book, but when you consider the traffic stats too I think there is a sound rationale to support the proposed move. Betty Logan (talk) 10:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the traffic stats are very clear – as I have supplemented them, with the vital addition of the DAB page showing it is needed by only 1.7% of the readers concerned. On the face of it, your post looks balanced and considered. However, you do not show how the traffic stats support a move. I have shown that everything is working just fine. You do not show how the proposed move could conceivably improve on an almost optimal arrangement. Why not? ☺? I put that question to you in all seriousness. I would love to see how losing this useful precision could meet the central policy imperative at WP:TITLE: serve the needs of readers, not editors.
Noetica^Tea? 22:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Based on the notability of the works and the article traffic stats the film is the primary topic for The Wizard of Oz. The current method of disambiguation may work well, but that doesn't mean adhering to the article naming conventions wouldn't work well. If you want to ignore WP:PRIMARYTOPIC then it's up to those who oppose the move to make the case that the current solution would work better. I don't see any evidence of that. The fact that most readers don't access the article through the disambiguation page anyway probably means that the disambiguation page should not be occupying the main title. Betty Logan (talk) 04:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

You have explained how if there were a unique primary topic, it would be the film that is the topic of the present article. (I agree with that!) But you do not show that there is a unique primary topic for "The Wizard of Oz". The guideline (not policy!) is descriptive, not prescriptive: "There is no single criterion for defining a primary topic. However, there are two major aspects that are commonly discussed in connection with primary topics: ...". We can discuss all sorts of things to determine the two questions here, including the fact that, quite arguably, "The Wizard of Oz" refers to, well, the Wizard of Oz! The little man behind the scenes, pulling the levers and trying to seem important. He is, after all, the essential element in all of these articles. And then there is this, from the same guideline: "The title of the primary topic article may be different from the ambiguous term. This may happen when the topic is primary for more than one term, when the article covers a wider topical scope, or when it is titled differently according to the naming conventions." So it's much more subtle than most who join RM discussions realise, I fear.

Next, there are provisions in policy at WP:TITLE, which again are often inaccurately read and applied. Like this one: "If the article is about the primary topic to which the ambiguous name refers, then that name can be its title without modification, provided it follows all other applicable policies." In the present case, even though it might merit status as unique primary topic, there are other applicable provisions in policy. These include, of course, recognisability and adequate precision. Most tellingly, policy includes this (the nutshell at WP:TITLE): "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." And this: "The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists." Well, many editors have, may I say, an almost blind adherence to minimal precision, and to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (which most editors misread!); and while specialists know that the novel is called "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz" and the 1939 film "The Wizard of Oz", the general audience does not know that. Unfortunately, we become specialists in the matter at at RM discussion! This is perilous, and we lose sight of the needs of readers who are not up to speed as we are.

The fact that most people do not access this article through the DAB page shows that, despite the DAB page appearing second in the prompts when a reader types "the wizard of oz" in the WP search box, that is not selected! Instead, this 1939 film article is usually selected, because it is the most popular destination. The onus is on those supporting a change away from this arrangement: Show how things would be better, if we upset the present disposition of these titles. It works; so why fix it?

Noetica^Tea? 05:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

You lost me at "unique primary topic". Please explain what you mean by "unique primary topic" and specifically what would be a "primary topic" that is not unique. I mean, it seems to me that if there is more than one X, only one of the Xes can be primary. No? Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, a given term (like "The Wizard of Oz") can have, at most, one primary topic (it may have none). So if it has a primary topic, it must be unique. However, a given topic may be primary for more than one term. But that just means we decide on one of those terms as being the title -- the one that best meets the TITLE criteria -- and all the rest are redirects to it. It doesn't mean we make any of those terms the title of a dab page! --Born2cycle (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the late answer; my attention was diverted. Of course I agree: as defined at WP:DAB, if there is a primary topic allocated to a title, it is a unique primary topic. This is just by convention on Wikipedia, it seems. The words "primary" and "unique" have distinct meanings. Some things that are primary are not unique (see Google book search on "primary reasons"). In my response to Betty Logan I chose to stress this uniqueness of a primary topic, as it is defined by the guideline, because it seems bizarre that we should allocate a primary topic when the referents of "The Wizard of Oz" are obviously many and obviously uncertain in readers' minds. Should one of them be singled out, as uniquely primary? I think not. Especially since some derivative pieces are called "The Wizard of Oz" though they bypass the 1939 film and are frankly derived from the novel, "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz". See the recently expanded DAB page The Wizard of Oz. Noetica^Tea? 21:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

"I think not." Whether you, me or anyone else "thinks" one of the many referents of "The Wizard of Oz" should or should not be singled out as "primary" is irrelevant. I came here "thinking" none should be. Then I learned that one of the referents is viewed by our readers far more often than any of the others, and even more often than all of the others together. Reader behavior, not what I think, indicates we should single out that use being the one primary one. And reader behavior is what I believe should determine whether there is a primary topic, not what those of us who happen to be participating in a given RM discussion happen to "think". Ideally, RM decisions would come out the same no matter who participated, because the decisions are based on objective criteria, like reader behavior as revealed through relative page view counts. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

"Reader behavior, not what I think, indicates we should single out that use being the one primary one." I agree; and reader behaviour should determine just about all questions of titling. Like these:

• Should we determine that there is a primary topic?
  [Not an objective fact based on any body of independent theory, but artificially defined on Wikipedia as settled in RM discussions – with some descriptive guidelines at WP:DAB concerning what people typically consider at RM discussions.]
• If we should determine a primary topic, which of several candidates should we choose?
  [Again, not objectively or independently based.]
• If by the WP:DAB descriptive guidelines a primary topic for a title is chosen at an RM, does acting on that choice optimally serve the policy requirements at WP:TITLE?
  [Notably this policy imperative, but all the others as well: "The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists."]

In this discussion I have had something very detailed to say about reader behaviour. See especially my post just before this one (23:41, 25 January). Editor behaviour? That's a murkier topic, sometimes dealt with at ArbCom. ☺

I don't want to discuss any more on our theoretical disagreements here, B2C. Those are general matters; deal with them at general forums.

Noetica^Tea? 00:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Should we determine that there is a primary topic? No, we should determine whether there is a primary topic, and, if there is, what it is, for every single term that is or could be a title on WP, including The Wizard of Oz. And how we determine whether there is a primary topic for a given term is by looking at reader behavior with respect to that term.

Let us not fail to appreciate that recognizing primary topics and titling articles accordingly is done specifically to serve our readers as best we can. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Partial Support and Oppose The The Wizard of Oz should point to the disambiguation page and there should only be one disambiguation page. It seems contrary to have a list of articles on the Wizard of Oz page and then have a separate Wizard of Oz (disambiguation) page. The Wizard of Oz page should point to the disambiguation page with the film listed there. The film shouldn't have more prominence than other references and shouldn't occupy the Wizard of Oz space. --DHeyward (talk) 04:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Care to revise that to a straight "support", DH? Both Wizard of Oz (disambiguation) and The Wizard of Oz (disambiguation) are simply redirects to the single disambiguation page The Wizard of Oz. That is perfectly standard. Noetica^Tea? 05:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Well it's not a vote, so if he does care to reform his stance I think he should also expand on why he doesn't regard the film as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, or why he thinks that criteria shouldn't apply. Betty Logan (talk) 05:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was sloppy. The Wizard of Oz and The Wonderful Wizard of Oz should all point to a single disambiguation page with references out to all the various incarnations. The movie and novel are too convolved to distinguish a primary topic and the names appear to be interchangeable in modern use. Neither of those namespaces should have article content as, in general, the public makes no distinction. Second choice is The Wizard of Oz is 1939 film and The Wonderful Wizard of Oz is the book but both hat reference the same, all inclusive disambiguation page, not two separate disambiguation pages that "See also" each other. --DHeyward (talk) 07:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The first choice of redirecting The Wonderful Wizard of Oz to the dis page makes little sense as that title applies only to the book. The second choice is exactly what is being proposed. The Wizard of Oz becomes an article about the 1939 movie with a hatnote to the dis page at The Wizard of Oz (disambiguation). The book article is unaffected. No one has suggested two dis pages. Apteva (talk) 09:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

There already are two dis pages. I oppose any change that leaves two dis pages. The_Wonderful_Wizard_of_Oz_(disambiguation) and this The Wizard of Oz are currently both disambiguation pages. One has disambiguation in the title but that doesn't change what the other one is. I support the move of the movie to The Wizard of Oz as long as the current contents of the The Wizard of Oz are merged with The_Wonderful_Wizard_of_Oz_(disambiguation) so only one disambiguation page exists. I am okay with the The Wizard of Oz being the merged disambiguation page or as the movie as long as there is only one page dedicated to pointing to all the variations of references to adaptations of "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz". Having The_Wonderful_Wizard_of_Oz_(disambiguation) and The Wizard of Oz (disambiguation) is not acceptable as a fork and I Oppose any change that creates that scenario. I support any change that creates a single disambiguation change regardless of whether the movie and novel occupy the main title space or point to the single disambiguation page. I prefer 3 pages, related to this discussion: The Wizard Oz containing the most popular movie pointing to the The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (disambiguation) as a disambiguation reference at the top. I prefer the non-1939 movie references on the currrent The Wizard Oz be transcluded to the current The_Wonderful_Wizard_of_Oz_(disambiguation) page so that we don't have two separate dis pages from what is ostensibly one source. --DHeyward (talk) 04:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Whether the page is moved or where has nothing to do with how may dis pages there are and if anyone wishes they may simply merge them into one dis page, but I would recommend waiting until this RM is closed. Apteva (talk) 06:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - It works fine just the way it is, in my view. Anything else is needless complexity. Jusdafax 05:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - the current title is clearly the most helpful to readers to find the article they are searching for without going unnecessarily to a dab page. In fact, it was only upon visiting The Wizard of Oz that I realised how many different versions there are, although many are little known. PRIMARYTOPIC? that's a fight between The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) and The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, the latter being often identified by the simpler, ambiguous common name. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 03:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • First, only one of those would be called The Wizard of Oz, second the movie gets over three times as many page views as the book so even if both used exactly the same title the film would still be the primary topic and would use the simple title The Wizard of Oz. Of the only titles that could be called The Wizard of Oz, the 1939 movie gets vastly more views than any and all of the others. This is a very clear application of wp:primarytopic. Apteva (talk) 03:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
    • First, so what? Second, if the movie's dominance in pageviews does uncontroversially make it the primary topic for this title, so what? Show that altering the present extremely efficient arrangement (as measured by a survey and analysis of all the pageviews) would be an improvement for readers! You do not show that; nor does anyone else. I have shown, to the contrary, that readers would not get helpful prompts on a Wikipedia search, and would not get such immediately helpful hits on a Google search. You do not engage with points that have been clearly and forcefully made, backed by the prime concern expressed in the nutshell at WP:TITLE, and elsewhere on that policy page: Help the readers, not the editors. Noetica^Tea? 04:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Good golly, Miss Molly. This argument is still going on. Why, I could have walked to Kansas by now. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • In toto, Toto, totally too much. Noetica^Tea? 04:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
    • FYI, we really should make it a rule of thumb that all of the 1,000 most viewed pages are automatically primary topics. This one is number 612. Apteva (talk) 09:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
      • A statement of that sort is opinion, Apteva. Distinguish opinion and information. I see from here that 10% of the top 1000 or so articles include added precision (or what many like to call "disambiguation"). Few would agree with you that Community (TV series), Castle (TV series), and Drake (entertainer) should be moved to Community, Castle, and Drake. The system works fine for all of those. Noetica^Tea? 09:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
        • "Added precision" and "disambiguation" are two totally different issues when it comes to choosing a title. We add a dis when there are two pages that are otherwise identical to separate them. We add precision when necessary, not just to add precision. Our preference is to have only as much precision as is necessary. Many editors think that disambiguation is just a big long word of unknown meaning. No, it means only one thing – there are two pages that want to use an identical title and we distinguish between them by adding a disambiguation. We create a disambiguation page to list all of the pages that would otherwise have the same title. Just looking at the titles in the top 100 that have a parenthetical after them, none of those are for adding precision, and all but sex (disambiguation) can likely safely be moved to being their primary topic and removing the parenthetical. Sex already is at sex (at number 64), and almost as many people are clicking on the hatnote to see what other types of sex there are as are typing in sex. Apteva (talk) 11:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: Is the primary topic for all films named "The Wizard of Oz" but not all articles pbp 04:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose such a move does not work logically. The film is based on a book of the same name. Thus at some level if a topic needs to be primary, it ought to be the book, not the film. That said, in actual speach people most often refer to the character, not the film, when they use the term. I think we probably could rename the article to The Wizard of Oz (film), but I do not think we should go further than that. Other film are secondary, and so I can see this film treated as the primary topic where films are involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. While the film is the most common topic with the name "[The] Wizard of Oz", it's definitely not more common than the character and the misnomer for the book put together. There's really no primary topic, and thus the current arrangement of pages is best. Nyttend (talk) 03:02, 11 February 2013 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Thorpe footage

I have deleted all references to the statement that some Richard Thorpe-directed footage remains in the film. There is nothing to substantiate this claim. In the book "The Wizard of Oz: The Official 50th Anniversary Pictorial History", there are many still photos from the Thorpe footage, and each photo has a caption describing in detail what was changed after Thorpe left. AlbertSM (talk) 01:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

• Walters, James (2008). "Making It Home: The Wizard of Oz (Victor Fleming, 1939) & The Woman in the Window (Fritz Lang, 1944)". Alternative Worlds in Hollywood Cinema. Intellect Ltd. pp. 55–80. ISBN 1841502022.

This one's for you, fans

Video arcades are my favourite places, but I'm not sure where thisshould be cited. It's the latest game to be added to the long list of "stuff" depicting the movie. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 15:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

is there an article about WOZ merchandise? NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 01:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Dale Paullin, born in 1923, known by the stage name of Paul Dale, was chosen to be the first Lolly Pop boy. Mervyn LeRoy, one of his directors, and Dale appeared together in a photo in a 2013 LIFE magazine on page 36,"The Wizard of Oz - Life Collector's Edition Issue - 75 Years Yellow Brick Road." When there was a director change, Dale was replaced by Jerry Marren. Jan. 15, 1942, on a train from Marshalltown to Chicago, Dale met the Kramers Hollywood Midgets and joined their troop. He worked with them for 25 years until 1967. For five years, during this time, Dale appeared in radio and television spots for Phillips Morse as West Coast Johnny and Buster Brown. In 1949, Dale's manager,Henry Kramer, was contacted by William Castle for Dale to appear as a star in his movie, "It's A Small World". This movie, later shown world wide, was shown first in 1950 at the Orpheum theater in Marshalltown, Iowa. On Feb. 29, 2013, a Tribute showing was held at the Orpheum theater in Marshalltown, Iowa, where Dale now lives. Dale authored his own book, "Amazing Daring" -A man forced to live in a child's world. He married Mercedes in 1969, she died in 1990.

This information is fact related by Mr. Dale Paullin and is all verifiable. I may be contacted at my e-mail; he does live at Villa Del Sol in Marshalltown, Iowa where he can be reached as well. He has donated much of his personal memorabilia to the Historic Museum in Marshalltown. I was personally present when this occurred. My name is Linda Clark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.97.50.162 (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

{subst:TheWizardofOz(1939film)|NewName|Why}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.5.178.60 (talk) 14:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Movie set in 1900 or 1939?

An IP just changed the year the movie is set in from 1939 to 1900. I was all set to revert when I realized I couldn't be sure there was any proof I could think of that the plot is set in 1939... no autos, radios, or other post 1900 technology are shown in the sepia-toned sections set in Kansas. Even Miss Gulch's bicycle could have been from 1900. Thoughts? Jusdafax 12:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you thinking of continuity with the recent "Oz -- the Great and Powerful" movie? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The BOOK was first published in 1900; perhaps that is where they got the idea. I don't recall a year specified in the book. History Lunatic (talk) 05:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)History Lunatic

Though there is an automobile tire hanging as a swing, as I said earlier there is no obvious post 1900 technology in the film whatsoever, and it is not made clear what year the film is supposed to be set in. I see the plot section has been reverted to 1939. It might be easiest to pull out reference to the year completely, seeing as it is unsourced information. Jusdafax 08:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Pull the year. Most films are set in an indeterminate timeframe; we don't say "In 1962, James Bond is sent to Jamaica to investigate...". We simply relate the events of the plot. If the year is important, then the film will establish it like in the Back to the Future films, or provide a historical reference point like the Civil War in Gone with the Wind. Betty Logan (talk) 09:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I changed it to "the early 1900's" after some thought. Hopefully that will satisfy everyone. Thanks! Jusdafax 23:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

related works

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

GA task force

This article has great coverage, and with a bit of work we could easily get this to GA I reckon. It's one of the best known American films ever made and it's the 75th anniversary next year as well, and Disney has just released a new Oz film, so this is a very topical article right now. I think it's a great time to get it to GA, and then try and get it promoted to FA before the anniversary. Therefore I would like to put together a task force of maybe 3-4 editors (although anyone would be welcome) with each editor getting their own sub-section to develop. Betty Logan (talk) 22:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• This is a great idea, but first things first. The article should be checked against the B-class criteria, to raise it from the current C. Jusdafax 12:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

With the above in mind, here are the B-class criteria for version 1.0, presumably a yardstick of sufficient merit. I believe a checkoff of the points reveal that the article should now be rated B, with possibly minimal editing needed. Jusdafax 02:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 31 October 2013

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved (opinions nearly 50%/50% after 48 days). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

---

• The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) → The Wizard of Oz
• The Wizard of Oz → The Wizard of Oz (disambiguation)

– WP:PTOPIC. --Relisted. Steel1943 (talk) 08:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC) 184.5.178.60 (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

(Added implied additional move from The Wizard of Oz to The Wizard of Oz (disambiguation).) Steel1943 (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose - Firstly it isn't at all evident from Google books that this film is more notable than everything on The Wizard of Oz combined. Secondly moving the dab to The Wizard of Oz (disambiguation) is just going to result in mislinks to the film which won't be picked up for editors using editing tools or getting notifications from the dab notification bot, they'll never even know they just linked to the wrong article. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Incorrect links are not particularly a reason to avoid a primary topic. We get such links to Apple and Mouse and George Washington all the time, and we manage to fix them. In this case, the name of the film differs from the name of the book, and I can't see any of the other terms on the dab page being used without some kind of qualification to make clear which sense is intended. bd2412 T 17:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is surely the most notable film titled "The Wizard of Oz", but the book is often referred to by this title as well (that this is techically incorrect is irrelevant), and of course so is the particular fictional wizard. I doubt that any one meaning predominates. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose not the primary topic and other films with this title too (WP:NCF). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

NCF explicitly allows for films to occupy base titles when they are the primary topic. If you don't think this one is, that's fine, but NCF is largely irrelevant here. --BDD (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Since the book's title is "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz," it's quite obvious that people are looking for the work actually titled "The Wizard of Oz" when searching that exact name --GeicoHen (talk) 02:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. We've already had this discussion (see archive 2). You're gonna need an army of flying monkeys to budge the opposition. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support, the film is very likely to be the topic with the greatest lasting historical significance at this exact title. bd2412 T 15:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I oppose the second move so that leads to me opposing the first one as well. There were three Wizard of Oz films and while the 1939 one is the most well known, having the year identifying its release only helps readers locating the page. Wizard of Oz should refer to the entire body of work on that topic. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Can you explain how a person is helped by "having the year identifying its release"? If a reader comes to Wikipedia to search for information about this film, how can you assume they already know the year this film was released? Or that they can find differences between this film from The Wizard of Oz (1933 film) in the title, especially when in that time films weren't released in the same years around the world[2]? © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 18:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per, Clarityfiend & Liz. Mlpearc (powwow) 15:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support I realize this was discussed before but consensus can change, this is the best known meaning of "The Wizard of Oz", Baum's original book, the only other meaning which comes anywhere near it, is actually The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, and its article so titled. PatGallacher (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support. I think the movie is significantly more significant (woohoo, I need a thesaurus) than the book. Red Slash 03:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mlpearc. Beerest355 Talk 20:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support This film is among the most prominent ever produced, and certainly the best known Wizard of Oz property. The article is hot hot hot, and the dab page is getting many more views than a dab usually gets. That strongly suggests some sort of correction is in order. --BDD (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Unless someone explains how an article with two disambiguators gets much more hits than the book or other things based on it, this is clearly the PTOPIC. It took at least three RMs to move Anne Hathaway, the same RMs for Chicago, and many examples exist; consensus can change. If people confuse "The Wizard of Oz" with "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz" is clearly not our problem. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 19:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Tbhotch and BDD. This clearly is the primary topic, the novel which preceded this film doesn't even share the same title.LM2000 (talk) 23:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Someday there will be "The Wizard of Oz" in 2010s, as there is already the Oz film last year (or this). George Ho (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - There are no plans for a 2010s "Wizard of Oz" as far as I'm concerned. --GeicoHen (talk) 01:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - We already rejected this bad idea. It ain't broke, so don't fix it. Jusdafax 01:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - the book may not share exactly the same title, but it is clearly a major contender for primacy. Under the principle of least WP:ASTONISHment, we should maintain the disambig page.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Tbhotch and BDD. The film is clearly the primary topic of the exact title The Wizard of Oz by any measure. The book is the only serious competition, and it has a title that's clearly distinct enough that we don't need to direct readers to the dab page. The move will serve more readers, better.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Although it may have been the case in previous years, I'm not so sure that we can assume the 1939 film is necessarily what most users are after anymore.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 05:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support - I don't see a policy based reason to oppose here. The policy based argument to support is overwhelming. The only other serious contender for this title, the book, isn't even ambiguous with the title in question here. This film is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. For anyone mistakenly searching with the book with this title, a hatnote link is perfect for such a case. --B2C 21:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. The book is the original title and should not be kicked into the dustbin because a film was made, no matter how popular. I am in favor of respecting primacy. Binksternet (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC) Moved from "Discussion" section. --George Ho (talk) 07:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, since I have been corrected about the title of the original book: The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. I am now in favor of moving the film article to The Wizard of Oz, and I also support moving the dab to The Wizard of Oz (disambiguation). Thanks to IP 66 who alerted us all to the error. Binksternet (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose – titles should help the user know what the topic of an article is, as WP:TITLE explains: "The title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects." Removing disambiguation from such an ambiguous title does nobody a service. Dicklyon (talk) 07:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Is there any mileage in moving Adaptations of The Wizard of Oz to this title per WP:DABCONCEPT? It seems to me that the primary meaning is—if not the 1939 film (undoubtedly the most notable adaptation)—is the whole "wizard of Oz" intellectual property i.e. Baum's book and all the adaptations. If we can't agree the 1939 adaptation is the primary topic, we can probably at least agree that Baum's IP takes precedence over all non-Baum related articles. At Adaptations of The Wizard of Oz, in the lede both the book and 1939 film are namechecked. Then we get a list of all the adapations, and also a template at the bottom that provides an index to all WoZ works and characters. When determining the primary topic it is very difficult to narrow down to one book or film, because serious encyclopedic coverage tends to encompass all of the books and adaptations, but one thing is for certain and that is the meaning of the term is synoymous with Baum's creation. Betty Logan (talk) 01:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Well looking at the survey above my guess would be No to moving it, as the majority of people are opposed to the move67.170.169.30 (talk) 03:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I would strongly support such a move (or at least replacing the {{disambiguation}} tag now on that page with {{media index}}, and organizing the page accordingly. It is highly, highly unlikely that any person typing "The Wizard of Oz" into our search box is actually looking for something like [Ozzie Smith]] or Meco Plays The Wizard of Oz; they are looking for the book, or the 1939 film, or information on the media franchise encompassing both of these. Note that the above discussion is not a rejection of such a move; it only addresses the question of determining the 1939 film to be the primary topic of the term. bd2412 T 21:03, 22 November 2013 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Landlady?

I notice the Plot section gives the impression of Miss Gulch as owning Uncle Henry's farm. I'd question that description. Aunt Em says to her that she owns "half the county" but there is no indication Gulch is their landlord. Indeed, Gulch threatens to "take" their farm. Suggest we replace "the mean landlady" "a mean landowner." Jusdafax 23:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Neither "landlady" nor "landowner" is a necessary detail. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

True, and I see it was deleted. But that leaves "the mean Miss Gulch" as a descriptor, which doesn't tell us much. I have added "neighbor" which helps readers to understand who she is. Jusdafax 22:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested move, further comments

• Oppose - Most importantly, nothing is gained by eliminating the identification in the film's page title. Further reasons for opposition: The movie is a derivative work which shares (in common usage, as noted previously) the title with the book. The book is prominent. Why invite confusion? Zaslav (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Drop the stick and back slowly away.... Mlpearc (open channel) 20:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)