Talk:Wizard of Oz

RFM discussion: August–October 2023
Shouldn’t the sense “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, a 1900 book” be at (if we want to have it)? J3133 (talk) 10:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No, in my opinion. The two definitions given are SoP. They are more like the etymology for a missing definition for Wizard of Oz with a meaning not unlike "paper tiger". That definition would fit the Scarborough quote. DCDuring (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

We seem to include The in the title when it is capitalized (this is also consistent with Wikipedia):, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,. J3133 (talk) 05:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a precedent - article names at Wikipedia are normalised to have an initial capital. For normal English, capitalising title-initial 'the' has been declared a barbarism. --RichardW57m (talk) 08:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The Wizard of Oz instead of the Wizard of Oz is standard when referring to the book, per the quotations, not a barbarism. Including The in the title when capitalized is consistent with other entries on Wiktionary, as I mentioned. J3133 (talk) 08:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, The should be capitalised when it's the start of a title, and not capitalised when it's used outside the title (thus "The New York Times" and "the New York Times" are both accurate). Hence all of the citations currently given for that sense at Wizard of Oz capitalising it. There are some cases where it's conventionally capitalised in other proper nouns as well, like The Hague. In those cases and work titles it should be part of the entry title, I think, so I would support moving this (if, as you said, we want to keep it anyway—I would be inclined to just mention it in the etymology along the lines of monkey's paw). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 11:37, 4 September 2023 (UTC)


 * FYI there is an open RFD for this same sense. &mdash; excarnateSojourner (talk &middot; contrib) 02:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Sense deleted per RfD. J3133 (talk) 07:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

RFD discussion: August–October 2023
Rfd-sense: the book.

A book title should be excluded by WT:CFI.

I think that the entry referring to the character denoting a kind of paper tiger should be attestable and includable. DCDuring (talk) 12:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete the book (mention in etymology of course). The person type should perhaps be a common noun, not a proper noun. Equinox ◑ 13:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, although WT:NSE does not exclude book titles (and we should not want a categorical exclusion of book titles like Bible or Qur'an; a book of books is still a book), this is a rather useless sense. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  18:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note its not actually the full title of the book ... we could keep this on the basis of what we did with Zelda ... but I think even when abbreviating it, most people say The Wizard of Oz, not e.g. "I watched Wizard of Oz.", so I wont post a bolded vote for it. Actually, should the page be moved to the Wizard of Oz or do we exclude the article from such pages? — Soap — 19:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * See . As I mentioned there, we seem to include the article when it is capitalized. J3133 (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete the sense for being encyclopedic stuff and move the info over to the etymology where it should belong. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  04:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete the book sense. Soap is right that it's not the entire original title so there is technically some grey area but it's near enough to be irrelevant IMO (with "the" as in the head line it is the full title of the famous film and the book often gets reissued under it too). I think the selection of quotations for common noun sense 1 is pretty questionable by the way though I'm sure better ones are out there. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Sense deleted. bd2412 T 06:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)