Current Events is a centralized spot on the wiki where the community can discuss topics that concern the whole of the wiki. Think of it as a talk page for the entire database. If you want to open up discussion about a particular article, please do so on the Talk: page for that article. Don't forget to indent and sign your posts to make discussion easier to navigate.
Dealing with the new Oz television shows
I find it very odd that no one has posted on here since 2009 even with the big development of Oz, the Great and Powerful, but anyway I bring this back to life in asking what the Wiki plans to do with the five planned new Oz tv shows. These if you don't already know include Emerald City, Red Brick Road, Warriors of Oz, Dorothy, and Dorothy Must Die. These will be directly based upon Oz unlike our coverage of Once Upon a Time and Supernatural that have their own respected Wikis, and perhaps should all be fully covered on this Wiki instead of them having their own wikis. For this to occur, we would need for example be able to record the episodes of such series and perhaps provide the transcripts. We may have never done this before, but with these many shows being planned, it might as well change the course of TWWOZ. The possiblites do exist for the transcripts of Oz movies and other Oz tv shows to exist on this wiki, as such is usually found on any other media-based wiki. This could be rigorous but I'd be willing to do such in starting with perhaps creating episode pages and transcripts for The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (1986 series) just to start with in testing the concept of having such on the wiki. Any thoughts? --Riadse96 (talk) 04:47, January 30, 2014 (UTC)
RPG in development
I just so happen to be the editor and art director for an upcoming tabletop RPG based on the original Baum books. That worthy of a mention or possibly a page?
Farseer Lolotea ● ( talk) ● ( contribs) 03:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
What should be included where?
In the Oz Wiki we have generally agreed that the canon consists of the "Famous Forty" Oz books. The Royal Historians of Oz are those commissioned by Reilly & Lee to write the "Famous Forty" and their other works can be considered "near canon." The main article (Description, History, Appearances) should only reference canon and "near canon" material. Films, TV series, and more recent books by other authors are not considered canon, but can be included in the main article below Appearances (in "Background" for example). New articles should not be created for non-canon characters or places. Phil 21:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Emerald City Confidential
Should there be any coverage of this new Oz-based point-and-click adventure game here?
- I don't know anything about this, but if you or anyone else want to create an entry for it, that would be great. Phil 14:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think we need any kind of a "spoilers" or "plot revealed" template. Many of these books are over a hundred years old. They're freely available at libraries and bookstores, and we even have the full text of many of them on the wiki.
I think "spoilers" are appropriate when we're talking about episodes of a current TV series that haven't aired yet, or a recent movie that people may not have seen. But it gets silly when we're talking about a book published in 1906. Dorothy killed the Wicked Witch of the West, Tip is really Ozma disguised as a boy, and Darth Vader is Luke's father. I think we can live without spoiler tags. -- Danny (talk) 21:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I thought I should start mentioning things that concern the whole of the wiki. Can you create a talk template? I left you a message on an article, but the little sign didn't come up, so I don't know if you'll see it. I also noticed there's no active talk pages on the left hand column. Oh yeah, it doesn't recognize our album template either. Thanks. -- Ken (talk) 05:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest using a consistent perspective, especially in articles about characters or objects. Many, but not all, say things like "Uncle Henry is a fictional character from The Oz Books by L. Frank Baum." To me this seems obvious and unnecessary in an Oz wiki. Is there any opposition to writing these articles from an in-universe perspective? Any out-of-universe information can be provided separate from the main article. Phil 22:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think the "fictional character" text is copied over from Wikipedia, and I agree that it should be taken out. I'd prefer to keep the in-universe and out-of-universe text on the same page, but they can be different sections... -- Danny (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
There are a lot of character names that begin with the. This seems awkward and causes a lot of unnecessary redirects. Unless there are objections, I will gradually change them over, which should simplify this wiki lot. Phil 01:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- I actually like having the article names be the same as the characters' actual names. The character is called "The Cowardly Lion", not "Cowardly Lion". I'd prefer that those articles keep "The". -- Danny (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- But the characters in question don't actually have names. "The Cowardly Lion" is called that, but it's not his name, it's a description. If "the" were actually part of the name, it would be capitalized. ("Dorothy said to The Scarecrow..." instead of "Dorothy said to the Scarecrow...") Also, when characters talk to each other, they don't use "the". ("What do you think, Scarecrow?" instead of "What do you think, the Scarecrow?") And it's just simpler to link within the wiki in cases where adjectives are added ("the poor [[Scarecrow]]" or "the wise [[The Scarecrow|Scarecrow]]"). I'm interested to see what you think of these distinctions, and I'll hold off on making any more of these changes until we can settle this. Phil 19:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Another thought. I've noticed that most other wikis avoid including "The" except as part of a title. For example, wikipedia has an entry for Scarecrow (Oz), and The Scarecrow (Oz) redirects to that. I'm not saying that we have to conform to everything wikipedia does, but it seems like a good model to follow. Phil 20:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think Doctor Who is a good example -- the main character's name is "The Doctor". On the Doctor Who Wiki, the article title is "The Doctor". But the "The" isn't capitalized in the middle of a sentence, as you can see here -- "Sarah is upset at the destruction of the robot and the Doctor suggests a trip to cheer her up." When characters talk about him, they call him "the Doctor" -- but when they talk to him, they say, "Doctor, what should we do?"
- The Scarecrow's name is "the Scarecrow", just like the Doctor's name is "the Doctor". They do address him as "Doctor", but you would never say, "Dorothy talked to Scarecrow about Cowardly Lion." "The" is a part of the name.
- I agree that the article name should be the actual name of the character. However I still think you're confusing names and descriptions. Nick Chopper is a name, "the Tin Woodman" is just a description. Scraps is a name, "the Patchwork Girl" is a description. The Scarecrow doesn't have a name (unless you want to go with Chang Wang Woe), "the Scarecrow" is just a description. There are lots of people and things in Oz without a proper name. Should we extend this policy to objects and rename the articles for "The Silver Shoes", "The Golden Cap", "The Land of Oz", etc.?
- I'm not very familiar with Doctor Who, but is "The Doctor" really his name or is it just a description for a nameless character? Did his parents (assuming he has any) name him "The Doctor"?
- Book titles should include "The" when appropriate since that is part of the title and thus a name, not a description.
- Setting aside semantics, grammar, and word usage, I just think it's clunky and awkward to have so many articles that begin with "the". If I were to look up "the President of the United States" in a dictionary or encyclopedia, I would look under P for "President", not T for "The". When I look for the Cowardly Lion, I type "Cowardly Lion" not "The Cowardly Lion". We can continue to discuss names vs. descriptions, but what's simplest? Phil 16:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, we definitely want to make things easy for readers to find what they're looking for. Using redirects and defaultsort tags, we can make sure that readers get to the right article, no matter how they're looking for it.
- In a category list, we can use defaultsort tags to alphabetize the articles correctly -- so in Oz Book Characters, "The Glass Cat" is listed properly under G, "The Hungry Tiger" under H, and "The Soldier with Green Whiskers" under S.
- For searches, redirects help people get to the right place -- so if you search for "cowardly lion", you'll get to the right page, whether it's "Cowardly Lion" or "The Cowardly Lion".
- I think what this comes down to is a matter of personal taste. I like the article titles with "The", and you don't. It seems like you have more time and energy to work on this wiki right now, so I'm happy to do things the way that you want them done. I wanted to explain my preference so you knew where I was coming from, but I don't want to fight about it or anything. If you still feel strongly that we should take "The" out of the titles, then I can go with that. -- Danny (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I understand your preference, but my preference is (obviously) different. We can get around the complications by using redirects and defaultsort tags, but why not go the simple way to begin with? Thanks for being flexible. I'll gradually start removing "the" as I go along. And since you've been so accommodating, I'll go along with whatever redirect pages you want to add. Phil 20:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)