Talk:Legends of Oz: Dorothy's Return

Possible conflict of interest
Please note that a contributor to this article,, has a potential conflict of interest. The editor is a publicist for a PR firm (as he mentioned on his user page). It was at a previous version of this article, now at Article Incubator/Dorothy of Oz (film) that this was discovered when he commented that he was a rep for the production studio. I warned him of this conflict of interest in June, and his response was: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATaurenlegend&action=historysubmit&diff=369620506&oldid=369611395 'Thank You for this feedback' It was very clear and precise. I will not be contributing to the Dorothy of Oz (film) page.]. Despite this, he is editing this version of the article. I have again tagged his page for WP:COI --Logical Fuzz (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect information
I strive to create an honest accurate article that speaks nothing but clearly referenced facts. I support all my edits with references to reputable news sources such as Variety Magazine and Entertainment Weekly, yet my revisions are removed. Someone continues to adjust this article with inaccurate information. I will discontinue to edit this article but I leave Logical Fuzz responsible for making sure that all edits and revisions are accurate and necessary, since he/she has taken such a vested interest in Dorothy of Oz (film). --Taurenlegend 16:26, 18 November 2010 (PST)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Dorothy of Oz (film) → Dorothy of Oz – Move over redirect as this seems to be the most common use of the title. —Ost (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose (for now). I don't think that the title's most common use is for a film that is still a year and a half away from being released, as per WP:CRYSTAL.  The three articles with the title seem to be equally as common, and I've gone ahead and changed Dorothy of Oz into a disambiguation page (instead of two hatnotes in this article).  It's very possible that after the release of the film that will not be the case, but we won't know until then.  I'd suggest re-requesting a move next year when the film is released (or whatever the date may be). – Dream out loud  (talk) 19:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I based this request on the pageview stats for the pages; The film has more than 10 times the number of hits as the manhwa and the book isn't even a red link on its list. I'm fine with the dab solution, but I don't believe that it is necessary. Also, the manhwa is Korean, not Japanese as you stated on the dab. —Ost (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak support - Looks like an okay film with a bit of a following. Certain to be the primary topic in the future so getting a little bit ahead of ourselves shouldn't have any long-lasting consequences. Marcus   Qwertyus   20:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose I think the character Dorothy would be more likely. As most people refer to her as Dorothy from Oz or Dorothy of Oz, as they don't know the character has a last name. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 06:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Ridiculous nomination IMO, the rationale is unsubstantiated and the only support is in flagrant violation of WP:BALL so the DAB should stay where it is for now. If and when this unreleased film becomes the primary topic, that's the time to consider a move. Andrewa (talk) 10:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Based on a Novel?
Is it an original screenplay or is it based on a novel? 92.20.132.164 (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

"Huge" or "Sizable" box office bomb?
A few weeks ago, I changed the adjective "huge" from the top of the article because it sounded like POV speak, and I changed it to the neutral "sizable" ("sizable" was also the adjective used in the "Box Office" section long before I even found this article) and twice now, this user 174.113.185.73 (who has an apparent history of disruptive editing) reverted the top passage word back to "huge". On top of that, the second time this user even changed the word to "huge" in the box office section as well and added to the page this tag; <! --DO NOT CHANGE HUGE TO SIZABLE-- >.

For the sake of collaboration, I wanted to mention this here. Can I assume that I have permission to remove the tag and put the term "sizable" back on both the header and the box office section? If I don't see any objections here within a week, I'll go ahead and switch it back. Wikicontributor12 (talk) 08:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Alright then, it has been a week, I'll go ahead and change it back (put "sizable" back in place of the POV "huge"). Wikicontributor12 (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Controversy over Investors
There was actually some major controversy over the investment method used for this film, which definetly belongs in this article. I'll see about writing a section later, but here are some articles about it. I'll see if I can find more that are better, but these are a pretty good starting point.

http://www.cartoonbrew.com/business/legends-of-oz-investors-who-each-paid-100000-believe-hollywood-conspiracy-destroyed-film-99641.html http://www.cartoonbrew.com/ideas-commentary/legends-of-oz-producer-greg-centineo-knows-why-the-film-flopped-99612.html http://www.cartoonbrew.com/box-office-report/legends-of-oz-dorothys-return-has-record-breaking-bad-debut-99410.html

Luthien22 (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Forbes Link is Dead
The Forbes link doesn't go to the article that it's supposed to; in fact I can't find that article on their site at all. This is a problem since it's the only source for the bad opening weekend, which is one of the few reasons this film is notable enough to have an article. This needs to be fixed. Luthien22 (talk) 16:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Change
COI Disclosure: I work for Aviron Pictures, which has been incorrectly referenced on Wikipedia as the same company as Clarius Entertainment, the distributor of Legends of Oz: Dorothy's Return. As such, the Clarius Entertainment hyperlink on this page incorrectly redirects to the Aviron Pictures page. (Please note that the larger issue regarding divorcing the two companies on Wikipedia has already been requested via the Aviron Pictures Wikipedia page.) Legends of Oz: Dorothy's Return has no affiliation with Aviron Pictures and should not link to the Aviron Pictures Wikipedia page. Thank you. Westlake8992 (talk) 20:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

India?
Can someone explain to me why these changes to this article have been allowed to remained unchallenged and basically removed. An IP-address user basically inserted some acceptable content in other edits, then sneakily rounded off their work with inaccurate information in this diff, by claiming that this is an "Indian" movie. It is not and this needs to be corrected. I cannot understand why on Wikipedia that people are able to get away with such things, while more established and well-meaning users meet more adversity--Carmaker1 (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Legends of Oz: Dorothy's Return. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141114051458/http://bewarethespaceman.com/test/7428-huge-spacecast-guest-follow-the-yellow-brick-road to http://bewarethespaceman.com/test/7428-huge-spacecast-guest-follow-the-yellow-brick-road

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)