Template talk:Alice

message: 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 67.125.22.242 (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of "Pat" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Related Media 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Universe" -> "books" substitution 

message: 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)
replies: text: sure thing :) --Yuriy Lapitskiy 12:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Quotes in template 

message: 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)
replies: text: This is weird. Carlo (talk) 22:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  New Poem 

message: shouldn't marilyn manson's upcoming film be added to this section?81.193.21.18 (talk) 12:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Please read the above pre-existing sections. Quaeler (talk) 16:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  film adaptations 

message: 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. 85.65.69.166 (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  More poems 

message: 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? 76.107.137.39 (talk) 04:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  American McGee's Alice 

message: Kirk Browning's Alice in Wonderland (from Great Performances) seems to be missed. IMDB: . YouTube fragment:  Alone Coder (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  1983 Alice 

message: 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)
replies: text: I like this second one, it treats derivative works other than film much better, Sadads (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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? 82.69.39.91 (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Expanding the template 

message: 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... 89.240.196.191 (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Peter Newell? Tove Jansson? Goustien (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Newell article does not mention Alice. -- Evertype·✆ 22:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Illustrators 

message: 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 95.122.182.70 (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Disney adaptations 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: The porno films

message: 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=PL1E214889812E4303
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0107FEB112C880A5  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poimal (talk • contribs) 13:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Soviet films "Alisa v strane chudes" and "Alisa v zazerkalye" 

message: There is an anime TV series based in the two books. Why it isn't included in the template? --89.128.7.149 (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. —Flax5 17:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another TV series 

message: Next to the film adaptation 2010 hyperlink, the page for the "2016 sequel" in brackets.
77.97.110.60 (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Stickee (talk) 10:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2014 

message: What is the justification for using just the year on some entries?  This isn't a list of Alice in Wonderland adaptations, where you would only need to identify the ones that don't use that title (even if it were the correct one).  I know there would be a lot of repetition, but it would be more accurate and clear.128.151.71.7 (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Listing just the year