This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Herby (Oz) page were merged into List of Oz characters (created by Baum). For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
I just found out that this entire book is a metaphor refencing the populist party in the early 1900's, WOW!
There should be entries on Dorothy's aunt and uncle!
Why not write them yourself? -- Woggly 11:25, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I posted the aunt and uncle's names, their is now links for you to write the articals under. -- Wack'd About Wiki 22:22, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I noticed that each which has two articals - one named by their actual name (example: Glinda), and one with their title (example: Good Witch of the North). THESE ARTICALS SHOULD BE MERGED. Do you agree? -- Wack'd About Wiki 22:51, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have created a new WikiProject about Oz: WikiProject Oz. I hope to create a community to help guide the continued development of the articles about the series and its authors, characters, etc. toward even more quality articles. If you are interested, please add your name under the "Participants section" and please leave any comments or questions on the project's talk page or my user talk page. [[User:JonMoore|— —Jo nMo ore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 00:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
The article states that Gregory Maguire's Wicked and its sequel are "heretical" -- is it just me or does that seem a little strong? Not to mention certainly POV? I'm not changing it because I don't want to step on any toes, and frankly I'm not a huge fan of Wicked either, but characterizing Wicked as heresy a very strong opinion and...well, it seems kind of pissy. Maybe "non-canonical" instead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.75.118 ( talk) 01:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episode and character, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. Ikip ( talk) 11:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Right now, we have a long list of characters. Most of them are redlinks; and if they were ever created they'd just eventually get merged back here anyway. I say we ditch the list in favor of descriptions; or at the very least unlink and columnize the list. Purple backpack89 02:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Take away the links, but put the list back.--01:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottandrewhutchins ( talk • contribs)
Are you not familiar with the term "work in prgoress?" This is a lot of work, and so far no one has been doing this. And then we have to make sure that if people did that they didn't plagiarize Who's who in Oz. Your edits are not bold. They are disruptive. Please stop. Restore what you did or I'll give you a vandalism warning. I'm not going to do it myself, because you've made work for me, but I'm not going to let you delete any more. -- Scottandrewhutchins ( talk) 21:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The reason I didn't say anything before is because user:toddst1 blocked me for two weeks because he doesn't understand WP:Offensive.-- Scottandrewhutchins ( talk) 21:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
How was I supposed to do it when an admin got overzealous and violated Wikipedia policy in blocking me? He has been reported to the Arbitration Committee.-- Scottandrewhutchins ( talk) 02:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
To interested parties: further discussion can be found at User talk:Purplebackpack89, where Scottandrewhutchins and I both expand on our ideas. Purple backpack89 17:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Please comment about the restoration of the list. Purplebackpack89 isnists that the characters are not bnotable because they were redlinked without a blurb. I assert that the characters are notable, but before so many of the major characters' articles were movied to this page, they were done as individual pages, and hence he created extra work for me with his disruptive edits. I would like the list restored, with blurbs to be added. Purplebackpack89 refuses to restore his disruptive edits and insists that he removed non-notable information.-- Scottandrewhutchins ( talk) 17:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I had done blurbs I think to the letter O, plus a few more. Note before I was editing, this article had no blurbs, just a list of some bluelinks and a lotta lotta redlinks. Purple backpack89 17:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Responding to the RfC notice--yes, please, do not include that insanely long list of minor characters. Per WP:NOT, "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner...". While that specific paragraph is about plot summaries, the principle applies equally to a massive list of characters. We do not want or need an exhaustive list of every single character that has ever appeared in one or more of the Oz books--only the most important and notable. Now, y'all can certainly argue about which of characters meet those standards, but I'm sure some sort of standard could be derived (probably based on number of pages, scenes, or chapters appeared in). There's another site called Oz Wiki where this information would be appropriate, but Wikipedia is not that place. Qwyrxian ( talk) 06:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request (disagreement on inclusion of non-notable characters at end of list): |
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on List of Oz characters and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. |
Per WP:FICTLIST, I recommend keeping the list of minor/non-notable characters (and de-linking any articles that do not exist). The list of minor characters is unobtrusive and comes at the end of the article. WP:NOT gives only general advice for this sort of information and does not expressly prohibit the inclusion of non-notable characters when a list is notable overall. However, WP:FICTLIST expressly permits the inclusion of the non-notables. Given that the list is already not a smooth read, even for the major/notable characters, I do not believe that it is unduly hurt by the non-notables at the end. Individual readers looking for information on Oz characters will benefit by finding that information, even when it's at the end of the list (and realizing that no further information exists).— Infoman99 ( talk) 09:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC) |
Qwyrxian wanted a reasonable standard. I gave Scott a chance to shoot first, and now I'll go:
I have a First Edition of The Tin Woodman of Oz (you can identify first editions of this particular book easily, because the first edition was published just before Reilly and Britton changed to Reilly and Lee, and only the first edition bears the name Reilly and Britton on the spine and title-page) and the glue which Ku-Klip the tinsmith used to glue body-parts together was most definitely MEAT glue in the text, not "magic glue". In fact, before I got my first edition I had several other later editions, including the large-sized paperbacks put out when I was collecting them in the late 1960s or early 1970s (I don't remember exactly how old I was when I got the paperback, but I kept it in my family's beach-house in Maine so I could read it while we were vacationing there) and it was "meat glue" in that edition as well - the text, not only the drawing by Jno R Neill. In fact I don't recall ever seeing "magic glue" until after the internet emerged in the 1990s.
I don't know when the powers that be decided to revise the text and the history, but it most definitely is a revision. I am entering the change, with a reference to the first edition itself. HandsomeMrToad ( talk) 02:46, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Happy Holidays, HandsomeMrToad ( talk) 09:56, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
I think that the organization on this page is confusing. I doubt that any reader looking for Jack Pumpkinhead will expect to find him in Winkie Country, or Tik-Tok listed under "outer lands". The page is essentially a jumble. I think the page would be more readable and useful if it was simply an alphabetical list, without splitting things into country of origin. We recently did this on List of Oz characters (post-Baum), and I'd like to do it here. What do others think? Toughpigs ( talk) 20:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Herby (Oz) page were merged into List of Oz characters (created by Baum). For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
I just found out that this entire book is a metaphor refencing the populist party in the early 1900's, WOW!
There should be entries on Dorothy's aunt and uncle!
Why not write them yourself? -- Woggly 11:25, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I posted the aunt and uncle's names, their is now links for you to write the articals under. -- Wack'd About Wiki 22:22, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I noticed that each which has two articals - one named by their actual name (example: Glinda), and one with their title (example: Good Witch of the North). THESE ARTICALS SHOULD BE MERGED. Do you agree? -- Wack'd About Wiki 22:51, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have created a new WikiProject about Oz: WikiProject Oz. I hope to create a community to help guide the continued development of the articles about the series and its authors, characters, etc. toward even more quality articles. If you are interested, please add your name under the "Participants section" and please leave any comments or questions on the project's talk page or my user talk page. [[User:JonMoore|— —Jo nMo ore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 00:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
The article states that Gregory Maguire's Wicked and its sequel are "heretical" -- is it just me or does that seem a little strong? Not to mention certainly POV? I'm not changing it because I don't want to step on any toes, and frankly I'm not a huge fan of Wicked either, but characterizing Wicked as heresy a very strong opinion and...well, it seems kind of pissy. Maybe "non-canonical" instead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.75.118 ( talk) 01:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episode and character, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. Ikip ( talk) 11:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Right now, we have a long list of characters. Most of them are redlinks; and if they were ever created they'd just eventually get merged back here anyway. I say we ditch the list in favor of descriptions; or at the very least unlink and columnize the list. Purple backpack89 02:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Take away the links, but put the list back.--01:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottandrewhutchins ( talk • contribs)
Are you not familiar with the term "work in prgoress?" This is a lot of work, and so far no one has been doing this. And then we have to make sure that if people did that they didn't plagiarize Who's who in Oz. Your edits are not bold. They are disruptive. Please stop. Restore what you did or I'll give you a vandalism warning. I'm not going to do it myself, because you've made work for me, but I'm not going to let you delete any more. -- Scottandrewhutchins ( talk) 21:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The reason I didn't say anything before is because user:toddst1 blocked me for two weeks because he doesn't understand WP:Offensive.-- Scottandrewhutchins ( talk) 21:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
How was I supposed to do it when an admin got overzealous and violated Wikipedia policy in blocking me? He has been reported to the Arbitration Committee.-- Scottandrewhutchins ( talk) 02:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
To interested parties: further discussion can be found at User talk:Purplebackpack89, where Scottandrewhutchins and I both expand on our ideas. Purple backpack89 17:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Please comment about the restoration of the list. Purplebackpack89 isnists that the characters are not bnotable because they were redlinked without a blurb. I assert that the characters are notable, but before so many of the major characters' articles were movied to this page, they were done as individual pages, and hence he created extra work for me with his disruptive edits. I would like the list restored, with blurbs to be added. Purplebackpack89 refuses to restore his disruptive edits and insists that he removed non-notable information.-- Scottandrewhutchins ( talk) 17:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I had done blurbs I think to the letter O, plus a few more. Note before I was editing, this article had no blurbs, just a list of some bluelinks and a lotta lotta redlinks. Purple backpack89 17:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Responding to the RfC notice--yes, please, do not include that insanely long list of minor characters. Per WP:NOT, "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner...". While that specific paragraph is about plot summaries, the principle applies equally to a massive list of characters. We do not want or need an exhaustive list of every single character that has ever appeared in one or more of the Oz books--only the most important and notable. Now, y'all can certainly argue about which of characters meet those standards, but I'm sure some sort of standard could be derived (probably based on number of pages, scenes, or chapters appeared in). There's another site called Oz Wiki where this information would be appropriate, but Wikipedia is not that place. Qwyrxian ( talk) 06:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request (disagreement on inclusion of non-notable characters at end of list): |
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on List of Oz characters and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. |
Per WP:FICTLIST, I recommend keeping the list of minor/non-notable characters (and de-linking any articles that do not exist). The list of minor characters is unobtrusive and comes at the end of the article. WP:NOT gives only general advice for this sort of information and does not expressly prohibit the inclusion of non-notable characters when a list is notable overall. However, WP:FICTLIST expressly permits the inclusion of the non-notables. Given that the list is already not a smooth read, even for the major/notable characters, I do not believe that it is unduly hurt by the non-notables at the end. Individual readers looking for information on Oz characters will benefit by finding that information, even when it's at the end of the list (and realizing that no further information exists).— Infoman99 ( talk) 09:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC) |
Qwyrxian wanted a reasonable standard. I gave Scott a chance to shoot first, and now I'll go:
I have a First Edition of The Tin Woodman of Oz (you can identify first editions of this particular book easily, because the first edition was published just before Reilly and Britton changed to Reilly and Lee, and only the first edition bears the name Reilly and Britton on the spine and title-page) and the glue which Ku-Klip the tinsmith used to glue body-parts together was most definitely MEAT glue in the text, not "magic glue". In fact, before I got my first edition I had several other later editions, including the large-sized paperbacks put out when I was collecting them in the late 1960s or early 1970s (I don't remember exactly how old I was when I got the paperback, but I kept it in my family's beach-house in Maine so I could read it while we were vacationing there) and it was "meat glue" in that edition as well - the text, not only the drawing by Jno R Neill. In fact I don't recall ever seeing "magic glue" until after the internet emerged in the 1990s.
I don't know when the powers that be decided to revise the text and the history, but it most definitely is a revision. I am entering the change, with a reference to the first edition itself. HandsomeMrToad ( talk) 02:46, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Happy Holidays, HandsomeMrToad ( talk) 09:56, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
I think that the organization on this page is confusing. I doubt that any reader looking for Jack Pumpkinhead will expect to find him in Winkie Country, or Tik-Tok listed under "outer lands". The page is essentially a jumble. I think the page would be more readable and useful if it was simply an alphabetical list, without splitting things into country of origin. We recently did this on List of Oz characters (post-Baum), and I'd like to do it here. What do others think? Toughpigs ( talk) 20:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)