This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Through the Looking-Glass article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Why does the link for the html version with illustrations point at Alice in Wonderland?
Shouldn't it point to [ [1]]?
"While the game described (a list of moves is included)" - where is this list? I have not found it in any text I know of.
I HAVE A VERY OLD COPY OF 'THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS', THAT BELONGED TO MY MOTHER WHEN SHE WAS A CHILD. THE PUBLISHING COMPANY WAS 'THE SAALFEILD PUBLISHING COMPANY, OUT OF NEW YORK. THE BINDING IS COMPLETELY SHOT AND THE INSIDE ONLY TELLS ME WHO THE ILLUSTRATIONS ARE DONE BY AND OF COURSE THE AUTHOR LEWIS CARROLL. BUT I CAN'T FIND OUT WHAT YEAR THIS BOOK WAS PRINTED? I HOPE SOMEONE CAN HELP ME OUT? SINCERELY, LINDA SCHAEFER
Shouldn't this be renamed Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There for accuracy's sake? Rhindle The Red 12:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I suggest moving the unique elements of this section to the Works influenced by Alice in Wonderland page, and replacing the contents of the section with a wiki-main-article tag pointing to that page... if there are no objections prior 13:00 22.may.07 UTC, i'll do the migration. Quaeler 13:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I thought that most everyone saw the sexual elements in the Alice books. Thus, linking them to the burgeoning Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction (girls) would simply act as another link, one of many to which the Alice books could be privy. James Nicol 13:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Adding a section break just so we have an easier edit button to click on. First off, my comment about Lolita was not meant to be interpreted as "Lolita is a book that is only about pedophilia, and it has nothing else meaningful in it." It's one of my favorite books, and my feelings are completely the opposite. All I meant was, the book Lolita contains explicit description of an adult male having sex with a 12-year-old girl. The book contains written passages of pedophilia and child sexual abuse (and yes, adults having sex with 12-year-olds is sexual abuse). Alice does not. But you seem to be saying above not that you think Alice belongs in the category, but that the category should be deleted. What do you want? Do you want the Pedophilia in fiction page deleted? Or do you want Alice on the page? Obviously you can't have both. -- JayHenry 15:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Even supposing this interpretation of all the motifs in the book is true, I still don't see what it has to do with paedophilia. Girls grow up physically and sexually. An acknowledgement of that is not paedophilia. 86.174.4.203 ( talk) 14:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was move to Through the Looking-Glass -- Lox ( t, c) 09:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
This has been listed on WP:RM but seems to have been moved without waiting for discussion.
Gulliver's Travels is a very different case, in that the informal title is almost universally used, so it's clearly the common name.
Here's what I think is going on: Many, perhaps even most, people don't even realise there were ever two books! They know Alice in Wonderland as a book or a film, and if as a film they know there was a book. And they're right; Some (not all) combined editions of the two books have been simply titled Alice in Wonderland, as have many adaptations, notably several films. Those who do know of the two books refer to them as Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There (perhaps with a comma, but in my experience more often without it).
If this is true then the current redirect of Alice in Wonderland to Alices Adventures... is probably the most serious problem. This should instead be (or at least redirect to) the disambig currently at Alice in Wonderland (disambiguation), or better still a high-level article giving the information common to all the various books and adaptations, and linking to the more detailed articles on those that have them. Andrewa ( talk) 02:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
To Andrewa: Who decides? Consensus here once we have the data, I guess; but I would trust Andrewa not to twist data like one of our Fooish nationalists proving his national claim to Barland. ;>
By significant, I meant a significant proportion of English usage, in more or less the statistical sense. By "extreme accuracy", I meant to exclude such contexts as bibliographies, library catalogs, accounts of the publication history, and so on, in favor of writing for the general reader. Septentrionalis PMAnderson
In all three pairs, the first is included in the second. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
http://www.fromoldbooks.org/LewisCaroll-AliceThroughTheLookingGlass/ uses both titles but suggests that the long version is the proper title, no suggestion on the page that part is a subtitle (the page name does shorten it too). Andrewa ( talk) 06:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
http://www.antelope-ebooks.com/childrens/CHILD/ALG/ is another interesting page... it does render the second half in slightly smaller letters. Does that make it a subtitle? I don't think so, but there's something going on obviously. Andrewa ( talk) 06:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to get some comments for a proposed guideline about titles with subtitles. I would especially appreciate any comments from editors of Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There, since it's had a vigorous discussion about subtitles in the past (and I see you just moved it). You can direct any comments over to WP:Village pump (policy)/Archive 16#WP:SUBTITLES. Thanks! superluser t c 2007 December 23, 08:36 (UTC)
So is that an image of a first printing in the infobox? I guess I ask because I don't think it's really a very interesting image, and since all the wonderful John Tenniel illustrations are in the public domain, might it not be more interesting to use some more of them? commons:John Tenniel? -- JayHenry ( talk) 04:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Is it bothering anyone else that the Plot Summary doesn't include the part about the deer and the forest where everyone forgets their names? My guess is probably not, but I tried to insert it into the Plot Summary and this was reverted. Comments? -- 15lsoucy ( talk) 02:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm surprised there is no mention of the psychedelic context of the story. I'm sure there has been some academic stuff on this. No? Toddst1 ( talk) 06:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
It is my understanding, also shared among other Alice books (such as the Annotated edition by Martin Gardner), that the book was published in 1872. I think LC was still writing it in 1871. Can someone change this in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.189.164 ( talk) 02:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC) Amended quoting Oxford Companion to English Literature 5th Ed as authority. DickyP ( talk) 09:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Two things. Firstly, the article refers to the "Wasp in a Wig" chapter as "suppressed." While this term has often been used, it is generally in inverted commas and is clearly a joke that plays on the vogue for conspiracy theories. Jokes are inappropriate for encyclopaedia entries. When a section of text is voluntarily removed by its own author, a more appropriate term is simply "deleted."
More importantly, the article currently claims:
This claim is made without reference, nor any description of how "general acceptance" could be assessed. I have only been aware of the deleted chapter for a few hours; but from those few hours of visiting Lewis Carroll blogs, it seems to me that this claim is almost certainly untrue. A number of Carroll enthusiasts refuse to take a position, on the grounds that the debate is too unenlightening and too acrimonious. Those that do take a position are roughly equally divided, and many of them defend their positions, well, acrimoniously.
(I don't take any position myself, as I am not a Carroll scholar and know too little about the issue -- although I am deeply puzzled as to how an art object or document appearing without provenance could be accepted as probably genuine without a shred of positive evidence.) -- 202.63.39.58 ( talk) 07:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
The web citation in the reference on
included characters that look weird and out of place
because the page cited uses Cyrillic Windows-1251 encoding. I've replaced those with their Unicode equivalents:
Thnidu ( talk) 02:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Im doing a test and i cannot find this answer anywhere. Alice advances one square on the chessband everytime she crosses a little what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.99.48.74 ( talk) 22:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Through the Looking-Glass. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I found useful exhibition of University of Maryland Libraries, because it was 150 years Alice in 2015 https://exhibitions.lib.umd.edu/alice150/alice-in-wonderland/early-editions/macmillan-looking-glass I appreciate this reference is useful. Thanks! 80.72.73.95 ( talk) 13:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
At one point, the article says "It prompted a newfound appreciation for its predecessor when it was published."
What is it
Can we replace the word it with some other, more descriptive words?
Instead of "when it was published" can we write "when the book was published" or "when Through the Looking-Glass was published."?
What is the significance of the word it in the sentence "It prompted a newfound appreciation for its predecessor when it was published.
Are we talking about mirrors, fireplaces books? What is it exactly? 2600:100E:B000:7859:C46E:7232:AADC:D7A0 ( talk) 14:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Through the Looking-Glass article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Why does the link for the html version with illustrations point at Alice in Wonderland?
Shouldn't it point to [ [1]]?
"While the game described (a list of moves is included)" - where is this list? I have not found it in any text I know of.
I HAVE A VERY OLD COPY OF 'THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS', THAT BELONGED TO MY MOTHER WHEN SHE WAS A CHILD. THE PUBLISHING COMPANY WAS 'THE SAALFEILD PUBLISHING COMPANY, OUT OF NEW YORK. THE BINDING IS COMPLETELY SHOT AND THE INSIDE ONLY TELLS ME WHO THE ILLUSTRATIONS ARE DONE BY AND OF COURSE THE AUTHOR LEWIS CARROLL. BUT I CAN'T FIND OUT WHAT YEAR THIS BOOK WAS PRINTED? I HOPE SOMEONE CAN HELP ME OUT? SINCERELY, LINDA SCHAEFER
Shouldn't this be renamed Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There for accuracy's sake? Rhindle The Red 12:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I suggest moving the unique elements of this section to the Works influenced by Alice in Wonderland page, and replacing the contents of the section with a wiki-main-article tag pointing to that page... if there are no objections prior 13:00 22.may.07 UTC, i'll do the migration. Quaeler 13:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I thought that most everyone saw the sexual elements in the Alice books. Thus, linking them to the burgeoning Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction (girls) would simply act as another link, one of many to which the Alice books could be privy. James Nicol 13:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Adding a section break just so we have an easier edit button to click on. First off, my comment about Lolita was not meant to be interpreted as "Lolita is a book that is only about pedophilia, and it has nothing else meaningful in it." It's one of my favorite books, and my feelings are completely the opposite. All I meant was, the book Lolita contains explicit description of an adult male having sex with a 12-year-old girl. The book contains written passages of pedophilia and child sexual abuse (and yes, adults having sex with 12-year-olds is sexual abuse). Alice does not. But you seem to be saying above not that you think Alice belongs in the category, but that the category should be deleted. What do you want? Do you want the Pedophilia in fiction page deleted? Or do you want Alice on the page? Obviously you can't have both. -- JayHenry 15:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Even supposing this interpretation of all the motifs in the book is true, I still don't see what it has to do with paedophilia. Girls grow up physically and sexually. An acknowledgement of that is not paedophilia. 86.174.4.203 ( talk) 14:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was move to Through the Looking-Glass -- Lox ( t, c) 09:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
This has been listed on WP:RM but seems to have been moved without waiting for discussion.
Gulliver's Travels is a very different case, in that the informal title is almost universally used, so it's clearly the common name.
Here's what I think is going on: Many, perhaps even most, people don't even realise there were ever two books! They know Alice in Wonderland as a book or a film, and if as a film they know there was a book. And they're right; Some (not all) combined editions of the two books have been simply titled Alice in Wonderland, as have many adaptations, notably several films. Those who do know of the two books refer to them as Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There (perhaps with a comma, but in my experience more often without it).
If this is true then the current redirect of Alice in Wonderland to Alices Adventures... is probably the most serious problem. This should instead be (or at least redirect to) the disambig currently at Alice in Wonderland (disambiguation), or better still a high-level article giving the information common to all the various books and adaptations, and linking to the more detailed articles on those that have them. Andrewa ( talk) 02:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
To Andrewa: Who decides? Consensus here once we have the data, I guess; but I would trust Andrewa not to twist data like one of our Fooish nationalists proving his national claim to Barland. ;>
By significant, I meant a significant proportion of English usage, in more or less the statistical sense. By "extreme accuracy", I meant to exclude such contexts as bibliographies, library catalogs, accounts of the publication history, and so on, in favor of writing for the general reader. Septentrionalis PMAnderson
In all three pairs, the first is included in the second. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
http://www.fromoldbooks.org/LewisCaroll-AliceThroughTheLookingGlass/ uses both titles but suggests that the long version is the proper title, no suggestion on the page that part is a subtitle (the page name does shorten it too). Andrewa ( talk) 06:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
http://www.antelope-ebooks.com/childrens/CHILD/ALG/ is another interesting page... it does render the second half in slightly smaller letters. Does that make it a subtitle? I don't think so, but there's something going on obviously. Andrewa ( talk) 06:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to get some comments for a proposed guideline about titles with subtitles. I would especially appreciate any comments from editors of Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There, since it's had a vigorous discussion about subtitles in the past (and I see you just moved it). You can direct any comments over to WP:Village pump (policy)/Archive 16#WP:SUBTITLES. Thanks! superluser t c 2007 December 23, 08:36 (UTC)
So is that an image of a first printing in the infobox? I guess I ask because I don't think it's really a very interesting image, and since all the wonderful John Tenniel illustrations are in the public domain, might it not be more interesting to use some more of them? commons:John Tenniel? -- JayHenry ( talk) 04:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Is it bothering anyone else that the Plot Summary doesn't include the part about the deer and the forest where everyone forgets their names? My guess is probably not, but I tried to insert it into the Plot Summary and this was reverted. Comments? -- 15lsoucy ( talk) 02:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm surprised there is no mention of the psychedelic context of the story. I'm sure there has been some academic stuff on this. No? Toddst1 ( talk) 06:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
It is my understanding, also shared among other Alice books (such as the Annotated edition by Martin Gardner), that the book was published in 1872. I think LC was still writing it in 1871. Can someone change this in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.189.164 ( talk) 02:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC) Amended quoting Oxford Companion to English Literature 5th Ed as authority. DickyP ( talk) 09:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Two things. Firstly, the article refers to the "Wasp in a Wig" chapter as "suppressed." While this term has often been used, it is generally in inverted commas and is clearly a joke that plays on the vogue for conspiracy theories. Jokes are inappropriate for encyclopaedia entries. When a section of text is voluntarily removed by its own author, a more appropriate term is simply "deleted."
More importantly, the article currently claims:
This claim is made without reference, nor any description of how "general acceptance" could be assessed. I have only been aware of the deleted chapter for a few hours; but from those few hours of visiting Lewis Carroll blogs, it seems to me that this claim is almost certainly untrue. A number of Carroll enthusiasts refuse to take a position, on the grounds that the debate is too unenlightening and too acrimonious. Those that do take a position are roughly equally divided, and many of them defend their positions, well, acrimoniously.
(I don't take any position myself, as I am not a Carroll scholar and know too little about the issue -- although I am deeply puzzled as to how an art object or document appearing without provenance could be accepted as probably genuine without a shred of positive evidence.) -- 202.63.39.58 ( talk) 07:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
The web citation in the reference on
included characters that look weird and out of place
because the page cited uses Cyrillic Windows-1251 encoding. I've replaced those with their Unicode equivalents:
Thnidu ( talk) 02:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Im doing a test and i cannot find this answer anywhere. Alice advances one square on the chessband everytime she crosses a little what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.99.48.74 ( talk) 22:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Through the Looking-Glass. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I found useful exhibition of University of Maryland Libraries, because it was 150 years Alice in 2015 https://exhibitions.lib.umd.edu/alice150/alice-in-wonderland/early-editions/macmillan-looking-glass I appreciate this reference is useful. Thanks! 80.72.73.95 ( talk) 13:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
At one point, the article says "It prompted a newfound appreciation for its predecessor when it was published."
What is it
Can we replace the word it with some other, more descriptive words?
Instead of "when it was published" can we write "when the book was published" or "when Through the Looking-Glass was published."?
What is the significance of the word it in the sentence "It prompted a newfound appreciation for its predecessor when it was published.
Are we talking about mirrors, fireplaces books? What is it exactly? 2600:100E:B000:7859:C46E:7232:AADC:D7A0 ( talk) 14:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)