From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Oz
, a project which is currently considered to be
inactive
.
Oz
Wikipedia:WikiProject Oz
Template:WikiProject Oz
Oz articles
| | ???
| This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment
scale.
|
|
| This template is within the scope of
WikiProject Children's literature
, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Children's literature
on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion
and see a list of open tasks.
Children's literature
Wikipedia:WikiProject Children's literature
Template:WikiProject Children's literature
children and young adult literature articles
| | Template
| This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment
scale.
| |
|
Wicked
and its sequels, all non-canonical are less releavent to this template than the original Oz books. I propose that they either be deleted or the original Oz books listed. --
Scottandrewhutchins
(
talk
) 19:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
[
reply
]
Nevertheless, the "canon" of Oz has always been a rather loose concept. I propose that Gregory Maguire be included in the list of authors.
68.148.173.40
(
talk
) 08:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
[
reply
]
You'd never know it looking at the template. Evidently the parodies make fun of the movies.
Varlaam
(
talk
) 00:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
[
reply
]
- Yes, you would if you actually looked at it.--
Scottandrewhutchins
(
talk
) 17:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
[
reply
]
- Bugger off, and put the bloody books in the template.
- And mind your manners.
Varlaam
(
talk
) 06:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
[
reply
]
- Apparently, the sarcasm got away from some here. It currently looks like baums books are properly represented.
Mercurywoodrose
(
talk
) 06:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
[
reply
]
Which film is this? is it the adaption slated for 2012, mentioned at
Adaptations of The Wizard of Oz#Future adaptations
?
[1]
or something else? It should not be in the template unless we know which film its referring to and whether its assured to qualify for an article. the film we already mention that i have guessed it is doesnt seem to be notable enough to be in the template (though i could be wrong, as any baum fan worth their salt should be salivating over accurately portrayed characters and a script based strictly on the book).If its this film
[2]
, its not notable yet.
Mercurywoodrose
(
talk
) 06:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
[
reply
]
DoctorHver
, what did "reimaged" mean? ?
Jonesey95
(
talk
) 13:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
[
reply
]
- It was supposed too mean Reimagining i.e those films that don't fit in with the oz cannon one way or another.
DoctorHver
(
talk
) 14:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
[
reply
]
Shouldn't
Yankee
and
Enchanted Island
be grouped with Thompson's other books?
Goustien
(
talk
) 03:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
[
reply
]