Talk:Through the Looking-Glass

message: 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)
thread_title: Moving/cleaning References to Pop Culture section

message: 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).
:I deny this; and I grew up with Martin Gardner's annotated edition. Most people who know the difference call the books Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass. The Red and White Kings do not reign over Wonderland. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. So we have two differing opinions. It would be good to have others too IMO. Andrewa (talk) 02:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I don't have a synopsis, I do notice that there's a Red Queen in the cast of Alice in Wonderland (1933 film), and that the movie is based on both books. So that's at least one Wonderland in which I'd guess the Red and White Kings do reign. I'm sure there are others, that just came to hand in quickly going down the links in the disambiguation page. Andrewa (talk) 03:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that in issues such as this the general reader is heavily influenced by what library catalogs and similar use, particularly since Disney's Alice in Wonderland (1951 film) combined plot elements from the two books under the one title (it was not the first significant film or other adaptation to do so, but was IMO highly influential in establishing this usage). Many who would instantly recognise an Alice and know the who an Alice band is named after now (unfortunately IMO) only even distinguish the two books in situations of extreme accuracy, or even pretentiousness. Andrewa (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: 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)
replies: text: I definitely support this. The a gold imprint of the Black Queen. What could be more boring? May I suggest the John Tenniel picture of the Chessboard landscape? --15lsoucy (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox image? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Plot Summary 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Psychedelia 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Publication Date 

message: 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:
:The discovery is generally accepted as genuine, though some doubting voices have been raised.
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)
thread_title:  Wasp in Wig status 

message: The web citation in the reference on
: a 1982 38-minute Soviet cutout-animated film made by Kievnauchfilm studio and directed by Yefrem Pruzhanskiy,
included characters that look weird and out of place
:... ╚ALICE IN THE LAND IN THE OTHER SIDE OF THE MIRROR╩ ...
because the page cited uses Cyrillic Windows-1251 encoding. I've replaced those with their Unicode equivalents:
:... «ALICE IN THE LAND IN THE OTHER SIDE OF THE MIRROR» ...
Thnidu (talk) 02:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cyrillic Windows encoded characters in citation 

message: 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)
replies: text: If you Google "alice crosses chessboard" then the answer should be clear. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help.. 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308045835/http://www.lookingglasstheatre.org/content/node/766 to http://www.lookingglasstheatre.org/content/node/766
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) 13:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Is someone willing to replace the word "it" with some other word which is a little more descriptive?