Talk:Alice in Wonderland dress
'These are often combined with hooped stockings, as orignally envisaged by Tenniel' - actually she only had hooped stockings in 'Through The Looking Glass', 1872. In 'Wonderland', 1865, she has plain stockings. Presumably she was a fasionable young lady, and they became popular in the intervening seven years!
Restoration of page
Page was recently deleted by someone whose opinion was that it was original research and not sourced, which is clearly not the case, so restored again. Also this page is linked from Victorian fashion 1860, link now working correctly again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Birgit Compton (talk • contribs) 13:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Original Research that is Wrong
The person who wrote this article doesn't know as much about Alice's dress as they think they do, and almost everything written here is incorrect. For example, Disney did not popularize the "blue dress". It had already been the popular image for decades; Disney merely went along with it. Alice was also always blonde, never a brunette. The Nursery Alice, which was colored under the supervision of Dodgson himself, shows Alice as a blond for goodness sake! (Although it's clear the writer here isn't familiar with The Nursey Alice, since they seem confused as to why the dress in the 1999 movie is yellow rather than blue.) The story of Alice's dress in popular culture is complicated, and the person who wrote this article clearly isn't aware of most of it.
I also don't understand why there's such a lengthy description of the dress construction, including detailed overview of colors, when the original illustrations are in black and white and very few details are discernible. Making assumptions about construction details (like the trim on the sleeves) in not encyclopedic. On top of that, many of the details described are incorrect. (E.g, Alice does not wear "Mary Jane"-style shoes in Tenniel's illustrations.)
Furthermore, this article most certainly IS made up of "original research" and is not "sourced" at all. Merely linking to the splash page of a website that talks about the books and movies in general does not constitute "sourcing". In fact, the way the "sourcing" is done indicates the writer doesn't actually understand how sourcing works. (E.g., the title of the book is sourced to the book.)
If you can't provide valid sources of specific details, it's original research.
Is there really even a need for an individual article about this subject? It seems like this should be on a "fan page" or something.
Removing Original Research, Misinformation, Etc.
After years of dealing with the misinformation, original "research", and incorrect assumptions that this page was built upon - as well as seeing this misinformation repeated ad nauseum on other websites and in discussions - I have edited it.
I attempted to keep as much of the original meat as possible, but rearranged it and removed the original "research", misinformation, and non-factual information (opinions) as well as the analysis of the design of Alice's dress. (I cannot understand how anyone can discuss intricacies such as the type of lace trim used on Tenniel's Alice's dress when one can't even ascertain from his illustrations whether the trim is even lace or not. These are opinions, not facts. If someone would like to add it back in, it should be presented as an analysis from the perspective of costume history and all assertions should be sourced.)
I have also attempted to add some legitimate sources to back up claims made in the article, and removed one source that was used incorrectly. (Someone apparently mistook the image shown on http://www.frieze.com/uploads/images/front/alice_wonderland.jpg as having been created by Tenniel BEFORE The Nursey "Alice" was done. No clue where they got that from - the image is a later colorized version of a Tenniel illustration that has nothing to do with Tenniel. The first time Tenniel depicted Alice in color was in The Nursery "Alice", and the yellow dress version is the only color version Tenniel was ever involved with. Providing a source is more than just linking to an mis-attributed image that backs up the claim you're making.)
I also removed content not related to Alice's clothing. The discussion of her hair color does not relate to the discussion of her costume. If the color of Alice's hair is included in the analysis, then this page is not about Alice's dress, it's about colorized versions of Tenniel's artwork. (However, it is correct that Tenniel's Alice was most likely meant to be a blond even in the original black-and-white illustrations. The child models Dodgson suggested that Tenniel use were both blond.)
I do not believe that the image of a homemade Alice costume should be used in this article, but have left it. (I also do not believe the image was uploaded with permission from its creator.) If anything, an image of Fiona Fullerton from the 1972 movie wearing the dress the costume was based on would be better, as it would directly relate to the text of the article.
This is still not well-written and is definitely not sourced properly. Yes, I'm lazy and don't feel like digging out my Annotated Alice and other references and looking up page numbers. Unlike the information that was previously here, I have not made anything up out of whole cloth. I have attempted to limit this to indisputable facts.
As a matter of fact, I still do not feel that this subject (fascinating as it is) warrants a Wikipedia article. I would suggest that this article be deleted. The term "Alice in Wonderland dress" is not an encyclopedic term, and this subject would be better-suited as a subheading on a page discussing the character.
BTW: I am not a "wikipedia person" and hope someone who knows how to use the interface properly will fix anything I did wrong.
I just added the Notability template to this page. As I said above, "Alice in Wonderland dress" is not an encyclopedic term. I don't think this subject warrants its own page. If it does, then there should also be pages like "Pippi Longstocking Hairstyle" and "Wizard of Oz shoes".
It's a bit silly that I took the time to heavily edit an article I think should be deleted, but I've just grown too tired of seeing information from this page repeated in other sources as facts. This article as it was did a great disservice to people looking for factual information about an obscure subject that is difficult to study because it's rarely discussed, and unfortunately, the damage has been done. Particularly egregious was the part that said "However, in Tenniel's early coloured works, her dress was blue, her pinafore white and outlined in red, white stockings, and she was blonde." Looking at previous revisions, I now see that this patently incorrect statement was the result of a succession of misinformed people editing the article.
- We have a fairly lengthy article on Ruby slippers, and Jimbo Wales has said personally that articles such as Green Versace dress of Jennifer Lopez are allowed... AnonMoos (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- The Ruby Slippers and Jennifer Lopez's dress are specific, identifiable, tangible items that are very well-known and warrant a lengthy description, so it makes sense to have articles about those things. "Alice in Wonderland Dress" is not a specific or tangible item. Note that in my example, I compared "Alice in Wonderland Dress" to "Wizard of Oz shoes" rather than "Ruby Slippers". "Wizard of Oz shoes" is vague, just like "Alice in Wonderland dress". I still don't think the subject warrants its own article, but if it did, a title like "Alice's Dress from Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" would be better. (I still think if this subject is to be discussed, it would be better to make it a section on the page that discusses the character.) Olivix (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)