Talk:Jabberwocky

message: "This article needs splitting into multiple articles and making into a disambiguation page." Oh, for cripes' sake! Wetman 18:03, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation

message: The glossary on this page only covers the words in the first and last verses. However, those are not the only verses that contain words that Carroll created. Are the words in the glossary the only words he ever defined, or what? If so, should we include the possible meanings of words like "uffish" "galumphing" and "frabjous"? StellarFury 16:19, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't the terms Jabberwocky and/or Jabberwock be defined in the glossary? 129.59.172.61 (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Glossary

message: Should we talk about stanza or verse?
"Stanza" is the correct word for a group of lines in a poem. However, nobody knows this word.
"Verse" it the word most people understand. However, it really refers to a single line in a poem. --Kasper Hviid 22:02, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on what you're talking about. If you're talking about "stanzas," use the word stanza; if you're talking about verses, use the word "verse." It's the reader's own damn fault if they don't know the difference.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.250.135 (talk) 03:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who can really say what "most people" understand? I think most people would understand English a lot better if we all weren't constantly trying to second-guess the ignorance of others. Use the right word for the job and expect "most people" to use a dictionary if they're not sure of the meaning of that word.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.104.239.16 (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just link to the stanza and verse articles. Sheesh. --maru   (talk)  contribs 01:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you completely, maru. What does it matter? I speak for myself when I say, "End of discussion." --Powerfulmind 00:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stanza or Verse?

message: I just thought of something... is it possible that this poem is a source of inspiration for the star wars' species of wookies? just a random thought.--naufana 22:31, 11 march 2005
I don't believe a glee club from a university is significant enough to be included as a Derivative Work. This adds nothing to anybody's understanding of Jabberwocky as a cultural phenomenon.--DominicSayers 13:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reluctantly amended the Warhammer reference, although I would be more than happy for this to be removed altogether for the reasons mentioned above. --DominicSayers 13:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Topics

message: There are numerous punctuation errors in the poem as it is here in this article.  I am proposing this corrected version:
    ’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
    Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
    All mimsy were the borogoves,
    And the mome raths outgrabe.
 
    “Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
    The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
    Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
    The frumious Bandersnatch!”
 
    He took his vorpal sword in hand:
    Long time the manxome foe he sought—
    So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
    And stood awhile in thought.
 
    And, as in uffish thought he stood,
    The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
    Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
    And burbled as it came!
 
    One, two! One, two! And through and through
    The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
    He left it dead, and with its head
    He went galumphing back.
 
    “And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
    Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
    O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!”
    He chortled in his joy.
 
    ’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
    Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
    All mimsy were the borogoves,
    And the mome raths outgrabe.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.195.232.124 (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The oldest editions on google books, from 1887 and 1898, both use the semi-colon. (http://books.google.com/books?id=u5MNAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=through+the+looking+glass#PPA116,M1), (http://books.google.com/books?id=ZyOUoHvxmjcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=through+the+looking+glass) Carlo (talk) 05:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Punctuation

message: The edit by 198.54.202.18 at 15:51 on Jun 12, 2005 changed nonsense to nonsensical in the sentence “It is generally considered to be the greatest nonsense poem written in the English language.” Nonsense, while usually a noun, also has an adjectival use. Nonsensical can only be used as an adjective. In my opinion, as long as nonsense is an appropriate word, it would be the better word because it is two fewer syllables. Chris Capoccia 03:00, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
:I've always heard the genre referred to as nonsense verse or nonsense poetry, never as nonsensical poetry. Wikipedia has an article called Nonsense verse, and Google returns several hundred thousand more results for the original wording. I think it would be safe to change it back. - EurekaLott 04:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Nonsense or Nonsensical as an Adjective

message: I changed it from 'the greatest poem in nonsense verse' to 'one of..' Even it were the "best" nonsense poem by Carroll, it would have to be better than The Walrus and the Carpenter or A Sitting on a Gate, or even Snark. And that's even before considering Edward Lear who I always believed was undisputed master of the genre, and The Bong with the Luminous Nose or The Owl and the Pussycat. Plus there is a awful lot of more recent stuff by e. g. Roald Dahl, Spike Milligan and Ogden Nash. Let's not get carried away.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zargulon (talk • contribs) 22:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the editor had a more narrow sense of nonsense verse in mind. For example, The Walrus and the Carpenter, although containing a few odd situation, uses no strange words and is fully parsable - it could be argued that tWatC isn't nonsense verse at all. Shinobu 09:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Greatest? 

message: Is it really necessary to have 5 Polish translations on this page?  Are these all on a website somewhere that can just be linked to?  It seems overkill to have here (maybe more appropriate for Polish Wikipedia). --JW1805 19:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, this is impressive but serves little purpose here. NTK 04:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Subpage, or move to Polish Wikipedia and add a note saying "on the Polish page (interwiki link) there are a few translations in Polish". Bye, Shinobu 09:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't read Polish, but I don't mind having five translations. However, a brief paragraph describing obvious differences so that a non-Polish speaker can understand key points would be useful.--Revth 03:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Why are there translations at all?  How different people translate the first stanza into various languages doesn't seem notable and doesn't contribute much to the article.  I'm going to remove it unless someone comes up with a good reason to keep it.  — ShadowHalo 02:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with ShadowHalo. From my point of view either removing them from this article and/or creating a new article dealing with those translations would be ok. -- Pichote 08:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This. ... is getting crazy. There are too many translations. It is not normal to give so many translations. And they are easily available to the curious as the foreign languages are listed on the left of the page. So remove this section! 194.207.86.26 (talk) 07:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translations 

message: I had no idea the word chortle was invented by Carroll. Interesting... — mæstro t/c, 12:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chortle 

message: Wocky has it's origins in latin and means "the son of". Jabber means nonsense talk... so Jabberwocky is the offspring of a load of beautiful nonsense. Oh Callooh! Callay! Mr Carol.
Robin—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.104.56.98 (talk) 03:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you figure that "wocky" has its roots in Latin? I have looked it up and I know 1. that there are no W's used in the Latin language so the only word close os voco, vocare which means "to call".—Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.152.221.239 (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wocky Jabber 

message: Why is the illustration linked instead of shown? I have never edited images, so I am hesitant to change it -- though I could research how it works and be bold --Scix 19:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Forget it, I seem to have gone insane. --Scix 19:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image linked?

message: One of the the quest rewards is a staff called the Wabbajack. It's different in sound and it's not a precise enough anagram of Jabberwock to suggest a reference, but the Daedric Prince who gives it to you is  Sheogorath, who's sphere is madness. His behavior, and the staff's ability are both nonsensical enough to suggest a reference, but I might just be grasping at straws here. --69.66.40.40 08:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference in The Elder Scrolls series? 

message: Many of the references in popular culture and derivative works are non-notable. I suggest we pare this list down to the essentials, removing much of the cruft that has accumulated. leontes 23:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've took away the majority of refences towards in popular culture and gaming lists. If people feel they are necessary, possibly spinning of the information to seperate articles may be preferable than to adding them back in, as the list was becoming ungainly and full of unnotable sources. The derivative works portion could also do with some major trimming  leontes 01:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the bits I think can go with little loss. Thincat 11:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After a rather abrubt revert saying "discuss it just don't delete it", here is discussion as to why things should be changed in the page.  First off all, the jabberwock picture is too large as it is, it is larger than any other picture on the page, and stylistically, I personally think it should be smaller  The statement "Jabberwocky is also a popular Choral piece, often performed with choreography and props." Has no citation nor any explanation as to its importance. Choral piece? To what music? In what format? Ever scholastically?  The statement ""Jabberwocky" (voiced by Rogue) appears as track 5 on The Crüxshadows CD single "Tears", released December 4, 2001 on the Dancing Ferret Discs label." is not wikilinked, and has no explanation of importance...  Who is rogue? Is Dancent ferret discs important?  Did it have any cultural impact?  Also, Tempest115, why did you revert my edit, did you see I wikilinked some things? Why would you change those wikilinks, do you feel this article is better without wikilinks?  The addition of the mimsy of the borogroves movie and film,  even though references the poem, don't't deal with the content of the poem, only the use of one word, mimsy, for the use of a character in the story... Is that really notable?  Why is the super-nintendo game important?  What does it say beyond the beginning of the paragraph which says "The creatures and characters of the poem are often referenced or cited in popular culture, leading to many appearances in many mediums since its writing." Is that not covered, why mention the super nintendo meantioned at all?   Why mention the simpsons article?  Anyone disagree with these changes?  I personally think we should keep the list clean and concise on this page, dealing with notable references to the poem. If a list is necessary, possibly a page cultural influnces of Jabberywocky may be in order, however, I think they certainly don't belong on this page leontes 03:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I mostly agree with Leontes with one main exception: I think the note about The Last Mimzy and Mimsy were the Borogoves is probably okay.  Being the inspiration for a well-known story and major Hollywood film is pretty noteworthy.  But the rest of it, obscure song references and such, is probably best left out of the article.  Oh, and 500px is wayyyy too big for the article.  On many monitors that's going to stretch across more than half the screen and look ridiculous. --JayHenry 03:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry about that. I tried to get it to fit around the text, but after I saved the page I realized it was much to big, but I didn't get a chance to change it. Oops. InsidiousTweevle 17:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I resized the picture and made the changes again, one at a time...  I removed the Mimsy mention from the paragraph as it is still mentioned in the see also section and seems reduntant to have twice, if better served in this section, feel free to readd.  I still believe the Simpson's comic mention is unnecessary. What is consensus, keep or remove? leontes 15:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good work, Leontes, I think it looks great.  I'd vote to remove the Simpson's comics reference as it's pretty trivial.  Having Mimsy were the Borogoves in the See Also section is just fine, IMO.  Just as long as it's included somewhere. --JayHenry 16:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks good to me. I agree that the Simpsons comics bit doesn't really deserve a paragraph to itself. Perhaps if there were a short list of references or something it could be mentioned there? Anyway, good job. InsidiousTweevle 20:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the fiver pillars of wikipedia Wikipedia:Five pillars and WP:Trivia all non-notable references must go. This includes everything that is non-notable, but merely references.  It's tempting to include every mention of jabberwocky everywhere, but they just aren't notable. A short paragraph explication is all we need. 04:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Bloat 

message: There is at least one more translation into Spanish, in which "the mome raths outgrabe" is rendered as "rugestornuflan agregues los zaes." Erudil 16:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another Spanish Translation

message: Late last year, some were discussing the removal of the translations of the first stanza.  Is anyone really against this?  It seems a little extraneous to have so many foreign translations in the English Wikipedia.  On a lighter note, the only reason I'm reading this page is because the poem was mentioned here. --Brandon Dilbeck 06:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that they should be removed or taken to their own article.  Jabberwocky in translation or the like. The casual reader won't be interested in the translation, although it is interesting. leontes 14:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, there are too many here....and people just keep adding more.  Put them in a separate article.   --JW1805 (Talk) 15:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, a casual reader would get nothing out of them; since the original was written in English the translations don't contribute anything to the understanding of the poem.AshcroftIleum 05:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove translations? 

message: The first stanza of the poem originally appeared in Mischmasch, a periodical that Carroll wrote and illustrated for the amusement of his family. It was entitled "Stanza of Anglo-Saxon Poetry." Carroll also gave translations of some of the words which are different from Humpty Dumpty's. 67.188.172.165 17:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible vandalism?

message: Don't shoot me, I appreciate all the work done to reduce bloating, but I still think the article should mention the vast amount of tributes and parodies out there. I also think it should show the two approaches writers have taken (i.e. altering words, or using it as poetic form) and mentioned one writer for each approach (deliberately choosing authors with wikipedia articles to avoid non-notable content). Should I add the first stanzas to give a sense of what I mean, or would that weigh down the section? (I guess the real question is - is it clear enough the way it is now?) AshcroftIleum 04:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strunklemiss is awesome; I think it's a great example. I think the link is enough though, no need to add stanzas or anything. I don't know the specific Frank Jacobs version, I think he's had a few, but I guess it's as good of an example as any other variation.134.74.21.230 16:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't take it personally. It looks like that editor removed your reference because it was better suited under the bandersnatch article. So, Larry Niven's work is still covered, just not on this article. I wouldn't worry about it too much (and, of course, WP:AGF).  --Midnightdreary 03:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Derivative works

message: Any comments from folks on the publication date?  I've seen 1872 as well.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.128.216.56 (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I have completed a peer review on this article, almost a year after it was requested. It can be viewed here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Jabberwocky/archive1. Not sure why there was such a delay!! --Midnightdreary 11:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review 

message: I suggest we tolemn this article into bredgil phosonders. 124.30.235.62 (talk) 06:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Willinum 

message: If someone translated 'Jabberwocky' into a modern version, it would help.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.232.112 (talk) 02:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I follow what you mean by a Modern Version. The Jabberwocky is written mostly in modern "English". —Peco! Peco!TALK 13:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jabberwocky 

message: This user has made edits to this page that I consider disruptive; thus I have reverted them, but the user didn't agree and reverted again. Since similar edits have been made to a number of other articles, I am discussing the issue at User talk:69.225.251.134; I say this in case anyone is wondering whether any discussion about it is going on at all. --LjL (talk) 01:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What are the "absurd ones"? -lysdexia 02:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

text: What "absurd ones", where did I say that? I probably forgot. If you mean the changes you did to this article that I find a little absurd, then mainly:
*capable of extending its neck -> capable of outstretchan one's neck
*Manxome: Fearsome; the word is of unknown origin. Its stem may be manic. [in other edits, you cited a number of other "possible" stems; where's your source?]
Other changes were simply a little gratuitous, as I said in the edit summary, such as:
*A swift moving creature -> A swift-going creature
*A thin shabby-looking bird -> A gaunt shabby-looking bird
but no big deal here.
--LjL (talk) 02:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by 69.225.251.134 and reverts 

message: This has no great independent significance and is not particularly large. It should be merged here.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This proposal has sat way too long so I have completed the merge. Please feel free to undo or modify this as you may see fit. --Mcorazao (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted. 163.41.157.104 (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There doesn't seem to be any consensus to merge, and with the now extensive "popular culture" material, Vorpal sword now seems to be of sufficient length to stand alone. -- Radagast3 (talk) 14:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vorpal sword 

message: This section is trivial. I don't think it belongs on this page. Pollinosisss (talk) 01:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried to keep the list under control by pruning and adding warning messages, but I've been unable to keep up with the increasingly trivial additions. At the very least, the section needs to be trimmed dramatically. - Eureka Lott 15:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The title of the section is "Derivative Works." If the work isn't heavily based on the poem to the extent of possible copyright infringement, and just uses the word or a mere reference, it can hardly be called derivative. Ong elvin (talk) 13:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Derivative Works

message: Burbled – Possibly a mixture of "bleat", "murmur", and "warble".[8] Burble is also a pre-existing word, circa 1303, meaning to form bubbles as in boiling water. The dutch word broebelen still remains this meaning of bubbling boiling water.
Where does "bleat" fit into this? It seems like a combination of bubbled and warbled more than anything. Also, burble apparently existed as a word for bubble too. I just don't see how bleat could fit in more than bubble. Additionally, there's no source. I'm a complete wikipedia newb, and I'm hesitant to change it though. Thoughts? 69.4.55.154 (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a source; you just missed it. "Bleat", "murmur", and "warble" is Carroll's own suggestion, although he made it up AFTER he coined the word (or subconsciously borrowed an older word and thought he coined it, which I think is possible). Carlo (talk) 02:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burbled 

message: I think there are several problems with the recording of the poem on this page:
* The reader pronounces the "ome" in "manxome" as in "tome".  Being a portmanteau of "manly" and "buxom", I would have thought "manxome" should be pronounced like "buxom".
* The reader completely mispronounces the word "tulgey" as "tugley".
* The reader seems to say "and with his head" instead of "and with its head".  This is not so much of a problem as the other errors. --Hpesoj00 (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're right about "tugley."  I've always pronounced "manxome" like "buxom," too, but I don't know that it's a portmanteau of "manly" and "buxom" - I don't recall Carroll ever saying this, and I suspect it's something that others have assumed after the fact.  So the way we both pronounce it might be wrong. Carlo (talk) 15:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation of recording 

message: "'Jabberwocky' was meant by Carroll as a satire designed to show how not to write a poem." This sounds apocryphal and far fetched, never mind that it stands in implicit contradiction with the previous statement that "[Jabberwocky's] structure is perfectly consistent with classic English poetry." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orthotox (talk • contribs) 20:30, 1 May 2010 
:I dont totally agree w/ ol' Orthodox there, and might add...On & on you all go.. what's this word mean? or whats it's origin?etc etc.. folks, YES it IS a non-sense poem, but it is ALSO a SOUND poem... it didnt matter what words or non-words were used(or even if they had ANY meaning), it got the point across.. somebody killed something. and that's all, that's it. Chaplin did this very well in 'Modern Times' restaurant scene, near end of movie.. mouthing sounds, pantomiming action and GETS the story across, perfectly well. And that's why, how it works.. makes sense?? crazy words in a "structure.. perfectly consistent with classic English poetry." Geez, folks, lighten up, he was having fun. 2602:304:CDAF:A3D0:C0C2:125A:C5C6:B8AF (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: how not to write a poem

message: "Possibly a mixture of "bleat", "murmur", and "warble". Burble is also a pre-existing word, circa 1303, meaning to form bubbles as in boiling water. The Dutch word broebelen still retains this meaning of bubbling boiling  water."
The word blubbern, which sounds very close to "broebelen", also exists in German. I am Swiss, but I think it is also used in Germany, I'm not sure. It's "blubbere" in Swiss German.
--77.57.214.104 (talk) 10:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similar word for Burble also in German 

message: The article on vorpal sword mentioned that "vorpal" can be formed by taking letters alternately from "verbal" and "gospel". This and the fact that "snicker-snack" looks very similar to a swedish term "snickesnack" meaning "rubbish" as in deceitful or nonsensical talk, could be added to the article. I have no sources though since this is my own theory and the term could possibly be too modern for Carroll to have known of it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.227.152.85 (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comment.  I've added the note about "vorpal" as you've suggested.  Wikipedia can't accept your idea about snicker-snack, though, as there is a policy against original research – only ideas already found in reliable sources can be included.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 14:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of, and relation of snicker-snack and vorpal 

message: Thought I'd point out there are numerous instances where grammar is weak. I only skimmed the Translations section (Translations ), but even in the first sentence I saw errors.
Anyone feel up to the task of rewriting the section? (I didn't read the rest of the article, but it may suffer similar problems) 86.22.36.40 (talk) 22:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect grammar usage 

message: I have removed the section on the neuro-lingustics of nonsense sentences.  The fact that they happen to be called "Jabberwocky" phrases does not mean they are about the poem in any real sense.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neuro-linguistics 

message: I can't check but does the reference used on the definition of Gimbal makes sense/is actually where the word came from in this poem?
Etymology of the word gimbal suggest it has been around since the 1600s at least, but maybe the author did not know of it. Gimbal.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.152.140.68 (talk) 04:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That definition of 'gimble' is spoken by Humpty. As it mentions in the article, the poem is designed not to make much sense. It is a satire on pretentious verse. I've added the Oxford English Dictionary definition on Gimbal. Thanks for that. Span (talk) 12:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gimbal 

message: Re today's IP edit, I checked the reference and Carroll was definitely discussing publication formats with Macmillian in 1868. The WP article doesn't suggest there was a 1868 edition of the book, just that it was in the process of being put together. Span (talk) 09:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've linked the diff, in your comment, for future reference (when "today" is no longer today ;) Hope that's ok. –Quiddity (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. Thanks. Span (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: 1868

message: See  and --Nowa (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Brillig a Dutch word?

message: Consistent vandalism on this article, perhaps a protect or semi protect would help.  Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 18:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's done. Span (talk) 12:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

text: But would that tell us anything about the poem or the poet? Has it altered the way in which people today understand the poem? Has a critic discussed this song in a way that reflects on the nature of the poem? Why would readers of this article think that this recitation is relevant? It is possibly appropriate for a mention at Ambrosia (band) – I really don't know. Thincat (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needing Protection 

message: The Israeli band Greedy Adam performed this song at 2013, can we add this information somehow?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.176.9 (talk) 10:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greedy adam perfoming 

message: It say something, not flesh. Hafspajen (talk) 03:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent change 

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Jabberwocky.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on April 1, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-04-01. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Jabberwocky.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Jabberwocky. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161217075708/http://www.waxdog.com/jabberwocky/translate.html to http://www.waxdog.com/jabberwocky/translate.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130114221359/http://www.sainsburysentertainment.co.uk/en/Films-TV/Blu-ray/Anne-Hathaway/Alice-In-Wonderland-3D/product.html?product=E10365714 to http://www.sainsburysentertainment.co.uk/en/Films-TV/Blu-ray/Anne-Hathaway/Alice-In-Wonderland-3D/product.html?product=E10365714
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Shame on you for not linking to Mimsy Were the Borogoves which is the best inspiration of Jabberwocky I know of.
Tddpirate (talk) 05:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lewis Padgett 

message: In the section on "Linguistics and poetics", it says:
'Carroll wrote many poem parodies such as "Twinkle, twinkle little bat", "You Are Old, Father William" and "How Doth the Little Crocodile?" Some have become generally better known than the originals on which they are based, and this is certainly the case with "Jabberwocky".'
This suggests that "Jabberwocky" is a parody, for which there's no clear evidence.  GDBarry (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: References are given the reception section. Anna (talk) 13:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing in that section to suggest that "Jabberwocky" is a parody of another poem.  What's the original supposed to be?GDBarry (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Parody of a genre. "According to Chesterton and Green and others, the original purpose of "Jabberwocky" was to satirise both pretentious verse and ignorant literary critics." Anna (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article assumes it's a parody 

message: Jabberwocky is from 1855 but Gyroscope, was coined in 1856 by physicist Leon Foucault. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gyroscope 194.207.86.26 (talk) 08:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The refs are given. The term was coined in 1852. Anna (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, I've fixed the Wiktionary entry now. 194.207.86.26 (talk) 09:40, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation like gyroscope. Since this was how "gyroscope" was pronounced in Carroll's day. 

message: In the current article (July 2, 2019)
Borogove: Following the poem Humpty Dumpty says: " 'borogove' is a thin shabby-looking bird with its feathers sticking out all round, something like a live mop." In explanatory book notes Carroll describes it further as "an extinct kind of Parrot. They had no wings, beaks turned up, made their nests under sun-dials and lived on veal."[19]
The "explanatory book" is not cited in the article.
The text "an extinct kind of Parrot. They had no wings, beaks turned up, made their nests under sun-dials and lived on veal." actually comes from an earlier work.  See:
Lewis Carroll juvenilia: 'Stanza of Anglo-Saxon Poetry'
The origins of ‘The Jabberwocky’
Lewis Carroll composed the first stanza to his famous nonsense poem, ‘The Jabberwocky’, more than a decade before it was incorporated into Through the Looking-Glass; and What Alice Found There (1871). It first appeared under the title ‘A Stanza of Anglo-Saxon Poetry’ in Mischmasch, one of the many family magazines that, with his 10 siblings, Carroll wrote, illustrated and edited. Both versions are identical in wording, although Carroll provides different translations of the invented portmanteau words. 
Hence I'm going to delete this sentence from the article:
In explanatory book notes Carroll describes it further as "an extinct kind of Parrot. They had no wings, beaks turned up, made their nests under sun-dials and lived on veal.
Pmokeefe (talk) 13:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, A citation is given for the quote. Do you take issue with the reference?  I am not clear. Thanks. Anna (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Carroll gave two different explanations for some terms in Jabberwocky in Through the Looking Glass and Mischmasch, including borogove.  In other cases the article gave both versions, and indicated which was which, so I re-edited the section for borogove in that manner.
Pmokeefe (talk) 06:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do borogoves make their nests under sundials?  

message: The Jabberwock as one of the main enemies in American McGee's Alice was removed from the section Music, film and video games. The section has no mention of any video game, and the only one that, as far as I know, exists with the Jabberwock is American McGee's Alice. This information should be put back in the section. Leopea (talk) 06:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your comment. Your addition gave no details or references. We are trying to keep the article to a good standard. The Jabberwock poem has a major cultural influence on a great many art forms and we are not obliged to mentioned them all. If you can find a good reference that outlines the game's cultural impact, then please add it. Cheers. Anna (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: The Jabberwock in ''American McGee's Alice''

message: Why is there no mention (in films etc. probably) of the very faithful version of Jabberwocky produced in episode 506 of The Muppet Show?  --AlainV (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should there be? There have been thousands of works influenced the poem. Anna (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it wasn't just influenced by the poem, it is the poem, word for word.  It also looks like the poem, according to Tenniel.--AlainV (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  From looking at 5.06 description at List of The Muppet Show episodes the poem appears to be just a portion of the episode. My own opinion is minor and not noteworthy of mention in Jabberwocky. David notMD (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:   It's normal for the video production to be short (app. 2 minutes) since it takes only 100 seconds or so to read the poem.--AlainV (talk) 11:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

text: On the contrary.  Wikipedia works by establishing a consensus on the talk page before any major change is done. And this starts by a discussion that can begin with a question. --AlainV (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: And you have one opinion (mine) that it is not worthy. If disagree, could add with the episode Wikilink, to the Music, film and video games section. Even though I disagree, I will not revert. David notMD (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you change your mind if you had the bibliographical reference in front of you?  Here it is:  Jaques, Zoe and Eugene Giddens. Lewis Carroll's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking - Glass:  A publishing History.  Routledge:  May 6 2016, page 207.—Preceding unsigned comment added by AlainV (talk • contribs) 20:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

text: AlainV, I think that's a good idea. -- Toughpigs (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --AlainV (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is there no mention of the Muppet show version? 

message: Under 'Sample Translations' we have French, Spanish and Italian. Can someone add Portuguese to complete the Romance Languages? American In Brazil (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , my Portuguese edition of Through the Looking Glass was translated by Pepita de Leão and published by Martin Claret in 2007. It translated Jabberwocky as Algaravia and Jabberwock as Algaravião. I've also found the following source with some other translations: https://www.ufrgs.br/psicoeduc/variados/traduzir-lewis-carroll/ Isabelle 🔔 15:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Isabelle - Perhaps you can add it. I don't know how to make all those boxes. Also, my Portuguese is not so good that I could do a translation and my wife, who is Brazilian, gave up. It's challenging. One of the translations you cited would be appropriate. American In Brazil (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will read some more and see which translation might be more notable to add to the page, then. Thanks, Isabelle 🔔 18:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Isabelle - Thank you. I read the translations you referenced and I think the first, by Augusto de Campos, seems to best reflect the playfulness of the original. However, I add the caution that Portuguese is not my native language. American In Brazil (talk) 18:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Isabelle - Another thought. It might be preferable to use several translations - Portuguese 1, 2 and 3 - as has been done with Spanish (particularly since it's been done with Spanish!). Also, that would provide three boxes across (between Polish and Russian) to make a more visually complete table of translations. American In Brazil (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's probably a good idea. I will look for the editions those translations were first published in to add as sources. Thanks for the idea. Isabelle 🔔 18:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've added the three sample translations, using this source for Campos' translation, which might contain some more interesting information about the subject, if you feel like reading it. Best, Isabelle 🔔 19:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks very much. I think it's an appropriate addition. American In Brazil (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Isabelle - Many Wikipedians never get the thanks they deserve for building and improving this amazing resource. I want to thank you again for your excellent contribution. Muito obrigado.  American In Brazil (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Haha, thanks, but as with most things Wikipedia, it was a collaborative work. If you ever have any other questions or issues related to children's book and/or to Portuguese topics, feel free to drop a message at my talk page, I'd more than glad to help! Isabelle 🔔 19:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Isabelle: For Portuguese topics I will consult my Brazilian wife and her extended family. For children's books I will consult you. American In Brazil (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portuguese? 

message: I've been trying to provide a reference for the game Danganronpa under the "music, film, television, anime, art, and video games" section but it keeps getting removed without proper explanation. I'm pretty new to editing on Wikipedia so I'd appreciate some insight as to why this is happening. Blackatsu (talk) 10:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources would need to be added showing that the reference to Jabberwocky in the game is notable, I reverted the addition due to a lack of sources, and then a bot automatically reverted it due to the presence of a fandom wiki being used as a source, which isn't reliable as it's user-generated. I would recommend looking at WP:IPCEXAMPLES and WP:USERG. Even if reliable sources are found that show 'yes, there is a location in the game named after Jabberwocky', they would also need to establish that this reference is notable, and not just mention this in passing. Waxworker (talk) 12:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits being removed without explanation? 

message: —regarding the edit you recently reverted, I agree that this is subjective, but contrary to , I did consult the source document prior to making the edit, and I stand by my recommendation, so I wanted to elaborate a bit here. 
The form of the thorn evolved over the years, and you can find any number of scripts where it gets very like a ‘y’ (that is, of course, the whole basis for ye confusion). Carroll went to efforts to handwrite this passage on an otherwise typeset page in order to create the specific runic effect, and while the thorn in that passage is virtually identical to the ‘Y’ that appears there, it is sufficiently different from the roman ‘y’ readers will see in viewing this article that, in my eyes, typesetting such it belies the ambiguity that Carroll seemed intent on creating. Since he transcribes it as ‘the’ and does not dabble in ‘ye’, I think we’re being more true to the text by using the thorn. As I said, this is subjective, but I thought I’d make my case.
Maybe I’ve persuaded you, maybe not, but either way, I don’t see how we can justify italicizing words in a quotation when they do not appear italicized in the original, so I think that formatting should be removed regardless. —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄ 01:19, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thorn-y 

message: I feel like it could be improved by linking to a section or article more specific to the subtype of parallel world, though perhaps such a resource doesn't yet exist, or by changing the term from "back-to-front" (see MOS:LINKCLARITY). – spida-tarbell ❀ (talk) (contribs) 23:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the "back-to-front" wikilink to "parallel universes in fiction" helpful?