Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:52, 25 January 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Wizard of Oz article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Oz (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oz, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OzWikipedia:WikiProject OzTemplate:WikiProject OzOz Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Film: Core / American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm This article is on the project's core list. This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Archives 1, 2, 3, 4 This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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.

related works

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

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)

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 carrots→ 11:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The request to rename this article to The Wizard of Oz has been carried out. If the page title has consensus, be sure to close this discussion using {{subst:RM top|'''page moved'''.}} and {{subst:RM bottom}} and remove the {{Requested move/dated|…}} tag, or replace it with the {{subst:Requested move/end|…}} tag.

• 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 02:31, 18 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. 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 Misplaced Pages. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - No strong reason to change. ←Baseball Bugs 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages." 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 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 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 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 22:50, 15 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 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 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 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 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 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 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)

• 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 Misplaced Pages 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 )".

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

Noetica 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 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 : 20102 (2.54%, = 20102/792125)
• Cork (material): 60934
  Cork : 19665 (32.27%)
• County Cork: 36999
  Cork : 19665 (53.13%)
• The Band: 190020
  Band : 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%)
  
• Something: 19698
  Something (disambiguation): 411 (2.09%)
  

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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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) - Misplaced Pages, the free en... en.wikipedia.org/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 Misplaced Pages." See also this related saga, of course. Its latest full-length episode.

I suggest we move on from this saga.

Noetica 23:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

"You have no basis for thinking I misunderstand how Google works with Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages pages in its page ranking algorithms? That's hilarious. Google's algorithms automatically "favor" Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 21:52, 25 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 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  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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 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)

Richard Thorpe scenes

I have put in a "citation needed" note after the description of the Thorpe-directed scenes that supposedly remain in the finished film because the source cited does not have that information, as once indicated. (I have that 50th Anniversary book and I just looked at the Thorpe chapter.)AlbertSM (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• All unassessed articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• C-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• C-Class film articles
• C-Class core film articles
• WikiProject Film core articles
• C-Class American cinema articles
• American cinema task force articles
• Core film articles supported by the American cinema task force
• WikiProject Film articles
• Requested moves