# Talk:Alice (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland)

The article says "However, Alice has been colored by Tenniel in a blue dress, with white stripes at the bottom. Her pinafore is outlined in red." Can someone tell me where this information comes from? I'm not aware of Tenniel ever coloring his own illustrations, let alone coloring Alice's dress blue.

i don't know. Tenniel (or one of his students) colored Alice in yellow for The Nursery Alice.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.169.129.165 (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
---
Moved from article:  Possibly the most unusual Alice connection from this time came from singer songwriter Virginia Astley, whose middle name is Alice. Her instrumental album, From Gardens Where We Feel Secure is the perfect soundtrack to the stories and is full of special effects recorded not a long way from Godstow. She would go on to create some very obvious Alice songs such as Over The Edge Of The World and Nothing Is What It Seems. Her family were from the Daresbury area as well
There doesn't seem to be a direct Alice connection; it's more like fan speculation. If anyone can find a connection, please feel free to re-add this to the article. (For example, an interview where Astley specifically said something about Alice in reference to the album) PMC 21:58, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
---
I made some changes to the images... mainly, i removed the Alice Liddell photo. It is available on the Alice Liddell page anyway. Besides, Alice in Wonderland was never drawn to resemble her. Flearosca
Actually Dodgson did draw Alice to resemble Alice Liddell in his original book "Alice's Adventures Underground".

Image:Aliceinwonderland0024.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of those who have never seen, read or heard of Alice from Lewis Carroll's books; do we need the American McGee's Alice in this article? I think it is just fine in the other; whereas here it confuses those few who have never been exposed to the classic version of Alice, if there is anyone who hasn't. What's your thoughts, people?

...when the article Alice's Adventures in Wonderland also exists? I'm trying to find the called/named dialogue, and it would be preferrable if the facts aren't scattered like this. ... said: Rursus (mbork²) 10:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. Are you looking for quotes from the book? (This article is about the character Alice from Alice in Wonderland.) Kaguya-chan (talk) 22:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Tim Burton has clearly stated that his 2010 Alice film will not be a sequel, nor a remake, but a reimagining of the story. I would change it for sakes. xwexarexbulletsx 19:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Tho he did not want it to be a sequel it is the first movie was the first book the 2010 movie is the second book and yes their are two books.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madamn a (talk • contribs) 02:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC) 
I agree. Tim Burton's Alice although related to the original Carroll Alice is more like a parody of the same than a reimagination fo the character. Can we please remove that section from the article, it is shameful for all the Alice-lovers T.T 177.16.161.208 (talk) 10:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems the author of the above article has given very good reasoning as to why she believes this book is actually based on Math and not just random, fanciful stories.  Might want to add this possible Interpretation to the list.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/opinion/07bayley.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robmburke (talk • contribs) 16:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC) 

Hi. I'm RoyboyX, an admin from Wikitroid, the Metroid Wiki (part of Wikia) and I'm currently having a discussion over there on whether to do something similar to you: that is, feature a non-princess character in a princess category.
I've used Alice as well as Xena, Warrior Princess to (try) to get my reason for this across. Alice was a queen in one of her books (or was it both?) and she regularly appears in Disney Princess media (though she is excluded from the official lineup). Due to not really being a princess, but having these reasons, she is in the fictional princesses category. I use a similar excuse for Samus Aran, the main character of the Metroid series and the subject of the discussion over on Wikitroid. Samus, like Alice, is not a princess, but she is a queen in one of the Captain N: The Game Master comics and she has the nickname Princess in Metroid: Other M. Those two reasons are why she is in our princess category, and why I've come to you.
So, this is my question: are Alice and Xena in the princesses category by mistake, or is this a decision made by Wikipedia admins/b'crats/users/blah blah? --99.241.195.62 (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, lets see. Alice did become a queen in Through the Looking-Glass, but no where is she considered a princess in the books, plus Disney doesn't officially consider her a princess. She is a "princess of Heart" in Kingdom Hearts, but that is really just an adaption of Disney's interpretation of Alice. The original Alice, Lewis Carroll's Alice, is not a princess so she shouldn't be in the princess category. Kaguya-chan (talk) 23:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, there's no reason for Category:Fictional princesses to apply here.  I'll remove it.  Powers T 23:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
She was a pawn who was queened, not a princess. -- Evertype·✆ 19:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi everybody. File:Alice in wonderland 1951.jpg appears to be screen-shot from the 1951 Disney film. As I understand it, this picture is incorrectly labeled and should be marked as fair-use because it is a screen-shot of a copyrighted film. Any ideas? Kaguya-chan (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd like us to describe the character's personality more, as well as any changes that her adventures wrought upon her during the two main stories. Let's move the media stuff like Disney Princess out of the Interpretations section. 
I also wouldn't call her so much logical, quaint, or pedantic as "precocious" or "introverted". Based on my own (many) readings of both Alice stories, I find that she spends a lot of energy thinking about her relationships with other characters or wondering about what they might do. This seems typical of girls, rather than "quaint". We might also consider the Victorian Era and the notion that children should be seen and not heard, and how this relates to Carroll's main character who is so consciously modeled on a real little girl of his acquaintance. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Does anybody know?
"Morton N. Cohen suggested that although Alice was physically modelled after Alice Liddell, Carroll drew Alice's characteristics from himself"
I'm asking because Alice Liddell physically looked NOTHING like Tenniel's drawing of Alice, so that seems strange to me. 207.237.209.237 (talk) 03:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I think he's refering to Carroll's drawings in the first version (Alice's Adventures Underground) for Alice Liddell. I'll doublecheck. Kaguya-chan (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Here's the quote from page 195: "The physical model for Alice wandering through Wonderland is Alice Liddell; the spiritual and psychological Alice is Charles himself." Keep in mind that this is only Cohen's opinion. Hope that helps. Kaguya-chan (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I just got notified that File:Alice1987filmCareBearsAdventureInWonderland.jpg was removed from this page (and is now up for deletion as a result) because:

following discussion. Insufficient encyclopedic value
It made me think "what discussion? I didn't see this brought up on the talk page about this article. So I look at Grand's history to find out where this might have happened... which is Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review/Archive_27#File:Alice_.28Alice.27s_Adventures_in_Wonderland.29, opened April 14 and not brought up here at all. Why was this issue not brought up on this talk page? It seems wrong to do this behind the backs of those who edit this article and monitor the talk page and article. Ranze (talk) 03:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I've reopened the discussion here. There was a clear consensus to remove the care bears image. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs)  21:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi everybody!
I was wondering if it might be better to have an Alice (Disney) page to supplement the one here. As a pro, it would contain more information about the influential (off the top of my head I can think of at least two scholarly sources that support this)  Disney version that feels awkward (at least to me) to cover in depth in this article. Alice (Disney) would also cover the Kingdom Hearts series (which uses the Disney Alice) and the Once upon a Time TV series as well. For an example of how this would likely look, compare Evil Queen (Disney) with Queen (Snow White). Any thoughts? Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The extended content about Disney's portrayal is now a section at Portrayals of Alice in Wonderland#Disney. I've moved the redirect to point there, it contains the descriptions of Kingdom Hearts and Once upon a time that previously were here. Diego (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay. Thank you for fixing the redirect. :) If you think a Disney-specific page is not necessary, then I guess it's not. Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm thinking that a better structure would be to move the Stage and Other media sections from Portrayals of Alice in Wonderland back here, and dedicate that page to just the Disney portrayal; but that would mostly undo your very bold edits from last wednesday. Can you elaborate on why decided to create that extreme condensation of the content? Diego (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I think moving the "Other" back would be lovely, as well. Unfortunately, the "stage" section is currently outdated and inaccurate, sorry about that. As for everything covered by the "Other" section that currently does not have a citation, I do not have a cite for the "Care Bears" film, the Woody Allen film (not sure it has to do with Alice), The Oz/Wonderland Chronicles, and the Alice TV miniseries. I do have a cite for the Alan Moore graphic novel, and The Looking Glass Wars series. I don't think Megami Tensei is relevant, as it seems to be speculation. The two anime series only have one Alice-themed episode, so I'm leaving it up to you if you think that they are sufficently relevent. Also, unsure if "Alice's Bloody Adventures in Wonderland" is notable in general. The Czech Alice film  is already covered, as is the American McGee video games. Personally, I wonder if it then would be better to rename "Portrayal of Alice in Wonderland" to "Alice (Disney)"? As for undoing my edits, well, I guess that depends on how much detail you want to go into for each pop culture reference. I prefer short mentions, but I can compromise with 1-2 sentences for the "Other" section. :)
Second, I guess I should have elaborated on my plan. Sorry about that; next time I'll try to not be so mysterious about it. :) My reasoning is that there's a ton of Alice portrayals out there, and the current structure of the page was... awkward. Very awkward. Very simply, it was "film "film" "film", then a massive break for 3-4 paragraphs on "how Disney made the Alice film". Logically, I didn't think that particular structure made a ton of sense, and it seems very imbalanced to me. I'm not saying that that particular info is useless, it just doesn't seem to fit here. A better place for the that development info would be either in the Disney film or a separate page for Disney's Alice. Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 23:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Diego Moya!  I'm afraid I respectfully disagree with your edit [that removed Kingdom Hearts and Country of Hearts from the paragraph on video games https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alice_(Alice%27s_Adventures_in_Wonderland)&diff=prev&oldid=612317070] I'm a bit confused, as the topic of the paragraph was video games, and KH , Country of Hearts, and the two American McGee ones all fall into this category. Yes, the content is varied, but Alice herself appears in all three. 
As for the other that removed the topic sentence from the paragraph on Alice in fiction, yes, the topic sentence is really boring. And plain. But it had a purpose. Alternatively, "Alice has appeared in literature" would suffice. Would that be a good compromise? Thank you,  Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the Kingdom Hearts in the same paragraph is that it was placed right after a detailed description of  American McGee's Alice, which made it look related to that game. I.e. the "Additionally" word looked like it was referring to "Alice, still traumatized by the loss of her family", rather than to "Alice has appeared in video games".
And the problem with either "Alice has appeared in literature" or "Alice also appears in fiction" is that it doesn't say anything new that hasn't already been said in the article: Alice is fictional, and was created in literature, so those sentences are true regardless any new appearances in other media. I think what you mean to say is that "Alice appears in other literature" or "Alice appears in literature besides Alice in Wonderland". I don't think that remark is necessary, but if you feel it's needed, please make it say something that is specific about the content of the Other section.  Diego (talk) 06:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Diego!  Thank you for your reply. Those are several, valid points I had not considered. I'll think a little on how best to incorporate those pesky video games. Maybe moving the order to KH, Country of Hearts, & then McGee's Alice? I will be borrowing "Alice has appeared in literature, besides Carroll's novels." It's exactly what I was looking for. :) Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Alice (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Caeciliusinhorto (talk · contribs) 13:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I will review this article.  Expect initial comments in a few hours. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Having read through the article, I have two major initial concerns:

There are portions of the article where it seems that the focus is on the Alice books, rather than Alice herself.
The article seems to use quotes excessively and unnecessarily.  I would significantly cut down the number of direct quotations.
I have a number of more minor quibbles too, but those are the two major ones.
Some examples of these problems:

The entire subsection on stage adaptations mentions the names of two actresses that have played Alice onstage; the rest of it is just about the adaptations of the books.  Does this merit a 150+ word paragraph?
Even worse is the section on other adaptations, where I don't see a single word which is about Alice as a character.
Paragraphs 2 and 3 of §Cultural impact are similar.
re. misuse of quotes, what does the quote add here: author Lewis Carroll often did not remark on the physical appearance of his protagonist, offering only "very few details".
or here: Edmund Evans printed the illustrations in colour through chromoxylography, which "used a number of woodblocks for each image, with colours mixed to produce a variety of hues and tones"?
And some minor quibbles:

"Looking-Glass Land" is capitalised twice in the article.  Is this really a proper noun?
"Although she shares her name with Alice Liddell's given name": repetition of "name".  Just "Although she shares her given name with Alice Liddell" is fine.
"scholars disagree about whether or not she can be identified as being strictly based upon Liddell" – reads awkwardly at best.  "scholars disagree about the extent to which she was based upon Liddell", perhaps?
Of the section §Personality, only the second paragraph appears to be substantially about... well, Alice's personality.
The footnote about the weather on that famous "sunny afternoon" is interesting, but not really relevant to the character Alice...
Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for taking the time to review! As for your major concerns, I definitely see your point about excessive and unnecessary quotes, and I'll be cutting back on them over the next few days. The second concern will be a little trickier to address, but certainly not impossible! I'm currently reworking paragraph 2&3 in Cultural Impact to focus on the character, i.e. how Victorian reviewers thought about her, and to shift the focus of paragraph 3 onto how Freudians read the character and less a general summary. And I think that brings us to the Adaptations section... I'm not opposed to getting rid of it entirely, and adding a line or two in Cultural Impact about the numerous Alice and Alice-like adaptations. You make a very good point that it doesn't have much to do with the character, and I'm struggling to see how it could be salvaged to focus on the character, and not exist as a retread of material covered far more skillfully elsewhere. I think I've addressed your minor concerns, if there are more, please let me know! Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I definitely think that you can get the article up to GA standard pretty easily from where it is.  I'll check back on the article in a few days (perhaps Friday afternoon), and see how it's going; if you think it's finished before then, make a note here or on my talkpage and I'll get to it sooner if I can. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Coming back to this review slightly later than expected. It looks like you've fixed all of the issues I had with the article.  Going through the Good Article criteria one last time, I noticed that File:Clara-in-blunderland-cover-1902.png doesn't seem to have an appropriate copyright tag.  Presumably it is public domain (archive.org seems to think that it is); assuming that it was published in the US in 1902 as it was in the UK then template:PD-1923 is the correct one. Other than that, the article looks good to me. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Wonderful! I'm happy to hear it! I've gone ahead and added the template. Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 01:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
All looks good to me. Congratulations! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


### Non-reviewer comments
@Rapunzel-bellflower: you are citing the following sources which are not found in the bibliography (wrong years perhaps):

Sigler 1990
Rackin 1990
Kelly 1990
Kelly 2011 (should be Kelly & Lewis 2011?)
Leach 2010
Regards – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, @Finnusertop: for catching that! You're correct: for the majority of the examples, I cited the wrong year. The last one refers to a later edition of Leach's work. I'll see if I can't work it out that only one edition is referenced. Best wishes, Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 02:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi everyone,
I was wondering if the plot summary--which admittedly doesn't do the books justice in the least--should go. It's not particularly relevant here--Alice doesn't change as a character because of the events in the books--and the main pages for the books covers the summaries far better. Thoughts? Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 01:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello there,
I am trying to translate this article into Turkish, but I do not understand the "Victorian orphan trope" clause in the "Cultural impact" section. What does that mean? --Hedda Gabler (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

It's in the sense of Trope (literature) which points to List of narrative techniques. The (far-fetched IMHO) claim is that in the period leading up to Alice some literary works used a recurring theme of the plight of an orphan, and Carroll used that idea as a theme in this book (the orphan must make their own way in the world, alone, with no one to help them). The text was added by Rapunzel-bellflower in September 2017 (diff) and they might like to comment. For translation, that's possibly enough background but if interested you could probably get more informed views at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. Johnuniq (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: thanks! --Hedda Gabler (talk) 23:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Hedda Gabler! I definitely don't agree with Kelly's claim either, but I can definitely take another look at the source material if you have any lingering questions about this or the rest of the article. Thank you for translating the article! Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 08:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

It says "A child in the mid-Victorian era" which I think is unnecessary as the dates it was written was in the mid Victorian era...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krystal Kalb (talk • contribs) 00:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)