Template talk:Alice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Children's literature (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Inclusion of "Pat"[edit]

Shouldn't Pat be included as a character seeing as though he played a major role in a chapter of Alice in Wonderland? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Resident Evil (film) issue[edit]

What? Why is Resident Evil in this? Just because a character is named Alice? --Hotdoglives 08:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Read the film plot more carefully! There are a number of references to the Carroll's Alice Universe, including Red Queen and her behaviour to behead people; white rabbit used for testing the T-Virus; the wall that opens to the train station appears as a mirror; etc. Also see Alice's Adventures in Wonderland#Cinematic adaptations.
My point is that the film fits perfectly in the section "Other related media", but if you insist we can move the literary films into the new "Media" (or "Media, based on the Lewis Carroll books") section of the template. If the name of the film is different from just plain "Alice" it's not the reason to exclude it. --Yuriy Lapitskiy 10:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't realize it had that many references to the Alice universe (I haven't seen the movie for a while). But it still seems strange to include in the template. I think it belongs best just on the Works influenced by Alice in Wonderland page. I think only works that are direct adaptations of something by Lewis Carroll belong on the template. --Hotdoglives 06:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I doubt that we need a separate template for, as you say, the "works influenced by Alice in Wonderland". A separate section within this template will be enough - I've just done that (moved R. Evil with some other films to a separate section). --Yuriy Lapitskiy 14:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Related Media[edit]

Right now, all the works listed under "other related media" are films. Should the label be changed to "film versions" or something to more closely reflect that? faithx5 16:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that this particular part of the template could be listed as "Film adaptations". Naturally, there are other films which draw influence from Alice, but they wouldn't necessarily be considered direct adaptations, unlike the films titled Alice in Wonderland. — ArkansasTraveler 18:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

"Universe" -> "books" substitution[edit]

I doubt it was correct - the template is not purely about books, but about the films etc. --Yuriy Lapitskiy 13:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Quotes in template[edit]

I assumed that the double quotes " used in the template were supposed to be two single quotes ' ' to italicize some of the titles, so I changed them. You can revert my changes if I was mistaken. Mr.absurd 02:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

sure thing :) --Yuriy Lapitskiy 12:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles) says that the titles of short poems should be in quotes. I reverted the change. - EurekaLott 13:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

New Poem[edit]

I added a new poem ("They told me you had been to her...") to the template but it is not showing up in the articles. What could be the problem? ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This is weird. Carlo (talk) 22:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
If I delete the template from the individual page, and then put it back, it's right. But you shouldn't have to do that, and I don't get it. Carlo (talk) 22:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Protected (including unreleased films in the template)[edit]

Unfortunately, I see some recent edit warring on this page; to encourage discussion, I've protected the page for a few days. Please take this time to talk things over and achieve consensus regarding the most appropriate page version to use. I see that two users at least have thrown around accusations of "vandalism," but don't yet see any reason why this is so. If it helps, consider making use of the dispute resolution process. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

My problem with the edits in question can be abstracted to the issue 'what belongs in this template'. (WRT 'vandalism' - i did not (and do not) see another warning template available to me which says "you've been asked to discuss large page edits prior to enacting them and you've ignored this request" -- for future reference, i'd be interested to know what the correct warning template for that sort of behaviour is).
For this situation, 'what belongs in this template' can be split into:
  • 'movies that haven't been released yet'
  • 'video games'
As far as movies that haven't been released yet, i personally don't believe that even Tim Burton's film should be listed here as we're enumerating things that are basically vapour in the public view. People can make the case that Tim Burton has historically had only a few pictures canceled and that it is likely that this film will be released: perhaps. But, MM has no such track record with film efforts, and even the movie in question has been continually labeled as (current year + 1) since 2005. I think it is basically nonsense to list this as an existing Alice work.
As far as video games, i don't see why this needs to be added to the template. If we do add this to the template, at what point do we say that items, for example, in the Work Influenced... article don't also belong in the template. It's one of those slippery slope items that i believe doesn't provide sufficient value to the template.
That concludes my ponderings and 2-cents. Quaeler (talk) 09:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Since we're more than half-way through the protection block and there has been no rebuttal, i will take silence to mean that i can continue to revert content add of the new video game section (and any whole new section not discussed here first). Also, i will revert content add of unreleased films (so that it is not a wishy-washy rule - this will include Burton's film). Additionally, unless similar rebuttal is voiced, i will leave comments in the article warning against making additions violating this precept without first commencing discussion here. Quaeler (talk) 07:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

An ugly gap (?)[edit]

Could you alter the template though so there isn't an ugly gap in every article it's on? Alientraveller (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about the gap — i'm unable to see anything out of the ordinary. Could you help this bug report by providing screen shots both of the ugly gap, as you see it rendered in your browser, and of another article, with a different template association, which doesn't have an ugly gap rendered in your browser? Thanks. Quaeler (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
There is clearly a gap at the start of the template rendered by the warning. I tried using <noinclude> but that didn't work. Alientraveller (talk) 08:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Not sure if you're not used to filing bug reports, not accustomed to critically decomposing your reasons for something, or what, but answering what was a pretty pedantic request with a hand-waving 'no really, clearly it is there' is basically a religious retort, super-unhelpful towards collaborative resolution on a technical matter.
That complaint out of the way, to be super-explicit, i removed all non-comment white space prior to the start of the markup for the navbox; i see no change in the width of the gap on my rendering, but if you could simply report back with a 'Yes' or a 'No' as to whether you see still see the gap, that would be helpful. (and, to apparently totally push my luck, if you still see it, if you could do what i originally requested, it would be helpful towards a resolution.). Thanks. Quaeler (talk) 09:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Didn't understand that, but thanks for fixing it, I don't see a gap on articles anymore. Alientraveller (talk) 11:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

film adaptations[edit]

shouldn't marilyn manson's upcoming film be added to this section? (talk) 12:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

No. Please read the above pre-existing sections. Quaeler (talk) 16:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


There should be another film adaptation added I believe, as it deals with the same characters and setting, though not the exact story. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_in_Wonderland_(2010_film) (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.

As mentioned in the above line, please see the above pre-existing sections. If really bored, also see here and here. Quaeler (talk) 01:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

More poems[edit]

I think that the rest of the poems from Alice's Adventures in Wonderland should be added to this template - Speak roughly to your little boy from Chapter VI and Lobster-Quadrille and Beautiful Soup from Chapter X. (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Jam tomorrow[edit]

I'd think that "Jam tomorrow" should be included in the template, possibly in the "Related Topics" section. It was a most interesting scene with the White Queen.

American McGee's Alice[edit]

As some of you fellow fans may know, there is a video game serving as a sequel to the original Alice books called American McGee's Alice. The game is a very dark, macabre continuation of the story, very Tim Burton-esque. Since its release, it has sold very well, developed an enormous cult following, and is finally getting a sequel in 2011. However, it's not included in the template; only by clicking on Works based on Alice in Wonderland is it mentioned, and even then not in great detail. Given that it is one of the most direct adaptations of Alice, and certainly among the most notable (not to mention the most notable video game adaptation), I would like to propose that it be added to the "Related topics" section of the template. Is there anyone who might agree with me on this subject? (talk) 04:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

  • First of all, let me say that I am the same person who wrote what is above; I just decided to finally register. That having been said, since it has been over a month and there have been no voices of dissent on this topic, I will go ahead and add AMA to the "Related topics" section of the template. The Mach Turtle (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

1983 Alice[edit]

Kirk Browning's Alice in Wonderland (from Great Performances) seems to be missed. IMDB: [1]. YouTube fragment: [2] Alone Coder (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Expanding the template[edit]

I'd like to propose that we have a look at Template:Oz with a look to revising the template here somewhat. I'd like to do some work on Alice book adaptations, and it would be very convenient to be able to subdivide these. There are sequels where Alice has new adventures; there are sequels were other people go to Wonderland. There are parodies starring Alice; there are parodies starring other people. Can we discuss this? -- Evertype· 18:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The table above is a first draft at altering the template. I want to do a second draft to deal with some of the adaptations. Please be patient; I'm trying to do a good job! -- Evertype· 20:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, there's my draft. Looking for comment. The whole idea is to be able to give a better framework for linking to articles. The Adaptations section, I believe is going to be particularly useful. Some of the links above are titles linking to authors when there is no article about the book, or vice-versa. -- Evertype· 21:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I like this second one, it treats derivative works other than film much better, Sadads (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I will tinker a bit more when I get a chance (it needs a wee bit of tinkering) and then post it. -- Evertype· 15:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done -- Evertype· 14:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't the 2010 film fit better in Reimagining, as it's more of a sequel à la American McGee's Alice than a true adaptation? (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
It might. though it is a film. Where does the SyFy Alice go? It's definitely a re-imagining. But Burton's is more of a sequel. -- Evertype· 14:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I heartily agree that Burton's film, despite its title, has to be considered a sequel or reimagining. I'll move it to the former.--Lemuellio (talk) 22:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Further Illustrators[edit]

Despite being permenantly associated with Sir John Tenniel, I feel the list of illustrators can be expanded. Mabel Lucie Attwell, Peter Blake, Salvador Dali, William Heath Robinson, Gwynnedd Hudson, Harry Rountree, Ralph Steadman and Margaret Tarrant seem the most obvious additions. Of course there are hundreds of them... (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

There are indeed hundreds of them. Should we have links to those whose articles have a section on their Alice work? -- Evertype· 13:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Peter Newell? Tove Jansson? Goustien (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
The Newell article does not mention Alice. -- Evertype· 22:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Another Disney adaptations[edit]

I think that the Disney's graphic novel Wonderland protagonized by Mary Ann and the Kingdom Hearts videogame series could be in the template, the world of Wonderland appears in these two works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Many illustrators added[edit]

We have a policy that changes to the Template should be discussed first. Many illustrators were just added, but I clicked on one of them and on that page there was no mention of an Alice illustration. I think that at a minimum illustrators should be listed only where their Alice contributions are notable enough to have been mentioned on their pages. -- Evertype· 09:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

These should never have been added. Way too tangential. I've removed all but Tenniel. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The porno films[edit]

I'd like to list Alice in Wonderland (1976 film) as a reimagining - rather than a "film" adaptation. It doesn't seem to have made much effort to be true to the story but is just a sexploitation of the characters and some of the plot. (There's also a Japaneses anime which made even less effort to follow the plot - more of a parody really - but I forget the name).

If no one objects, I'll move the title up in the template. See you in a week, okay? --Uncle Ed (talk) 05:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Missing Soviet films "Alisa v strane chudes" and "Alisa v zazerkalye"[edit]

There are two animated films known to every child in ex-USSR countries.

Alisa v strane chudes (1981) wiki, IMDB

Alisa v zazerkalye (1982) wiki, IMDB

Both are available on official Souzmult channel


http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0107FEB112C880A5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poimal (talkcontribs) 13:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Another TV series[edit]

There is an anime TV series based in the two books. Why it isn't included in the template? -- (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. —Flax5 17:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2014[edit]

Next to the film adaptation 2010 hyperlink, the page for the "2016 sequel" in brackets. (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done Stickee (talk) 10:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)