Talk:Works based on Alice in Wonderland

POVness?

Isn't this inherently a biased list? Skinnyweed 21:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably, but even if the list if a bit subjective, you cannot deny that some works have been undoubtly influenced by Alice. Itomi Bhaa 08:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is absurd. Many of these things are very obviously not inspired by Alice. This list would be more accurately called "Works containing references to Alice in Wonderland". Furthermore, nothing is sourced! Examples of dubious entries:

• MirrorMask (2005) has obvious features borrowed from both of Carroll's books.
• The Star Trek: Deep Space Nine third season mirror universe episode "Through the Looking Glass" took its name from the book.
• In Rockstar's Manhunt, the director says to cash "You're my big ugly Alice! So go on, follow the white rabbit."

And, above all:

• The Super Mushroom powerup used to change size in the Super Mario Bros. games was inspired by Alice in Wonderland

I tend to agree. Lewis Carroll invented neither mirrors nor queens, consequently, not every story with a mirror and/or a queen has any connection to Alice. There are substantial works who openly acknowledge their connection to the Alice stories or from which a connection or allusion is obvious. However, the inevitable disagreement over what belongs to this category inclines me to believe it simply isn't worth the effort to try to police the content of this article. This article may be silly, but it isn't hurting anyone and its fairly easy to pick through the legitimate entries from the cruft even if I have no experience with the works in question. I would object to phrases like "obvious features". Maybe they aren't obvious to everyone. Just for fun, tell us what they are. Sadangel 08:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is in dire need of a complete overhaul. If anyone would like to assist me in this task, please mention so within the next week. Perhaps we should make a new list, of works with references to Alice? Jellocube27 00:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe this page should be in existence. Alice in Wonderland is a classic tale that in itself drew inspiration from many un-cited sources. While this page might be useful for listing direct references to Carol's work, such as the villain The Mad Hatter from Batman, it would make far more sense to simply include an explanation on that character's article, or in his description in whatever article he may be in. The various re imaginings of Carol's works, such as "Alice in Sexland" ought to give credit to Carol in their individual articles as well, if they are prestigious enough to have them. To include every "noteworthy" (term used loosely) piece of media that bears some obscure resemblance to Carol's work is not only ludicrous, it perpetuates the idea that Carol was some incredible literary genius, and that every author who includes rabbits, playing cards, or smiling cats must have drawn inspiration from him. While I may be two years late, I agree wholeheartedly with the first half of Sadangel's statement, but the latter half is incorrect. Including superfluous and incorrect information in an encyclopedia hurts everyone involved. It hurts Wikipedia by giving it a reputation for relaying false information, it hurts those who read and subsequently believe the false information, and it hurts the authors who have their ideas tacked on to those of a man of questionable literary talent. I vote for the obliteration of over 99% of this article, what is kept and what isn't cannot be my decision. Bishoppendragon (talk) 08:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The scope of this article is definitely too broad. Much of it is no better than the trivia sections labeled "In popular culture" in other articles. A passing reference or allusion to a Wonderland character in an episode of a TV series or in the lyrics of a song is not noteworthy. The fact that this list has grown so long underscores the problem. I suggest that the scope of the article be more focused: rather than anything merely "influenced by" Alice (which realistically includes almost any children's book with an exploration theme written since), how about works "based on" the Alice books? Obviously movie adaptations would count, so would sequels. Something like Jefferson Airplane's "White Rabbit" would count, since it draws substantially from the books, but not every song that name-checks Wonderland. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I concur that it's too broad as well; although i personally think this sort of listing (media work X mentions/cites/is-influenced-by media work Y) should never be in a wikipedia article, this sort of enumeration does seem to be generally accepted. A pruning and re-focusing the mandate to "based on" seems correct, but a non-trivial amount of work. Is there someone who will undertake the bulk of this work? Quaeler (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I've renamed the article and removed the most obviously trivial items. It still needs a lot of work. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The emphasizing

"In the RPG Megami Tensei series and it's subsequent spin-offs, Alice is a major boss and a summon that you can obtain." Please note that Alice is also a name and doesn't always have to relate to The Alice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danyukhin (talk • contribs) 22:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Opium Addict?

The wikipedia article on Lewis Carrol would dissagree with this one.

User 82.52.*

Keep an eye out for this anonymous contributor, who has edited various Alice in Wonderland-related articles several times to remove all references to The Looking-Glass Wars. Wish I knew why. - EurekaLott 22:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Adventure Quest, an online roleplaying game, contains a room where the player must drink a potion rested on a table to become smaller in order to walk through a mousehole.

Wonderland (TV series)

Kind of a brief series, but it had the name and I think Grace Slick's song was like the theme or something.--T. Anthony 04:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

readme File

Wasn't the name of the readme (or read.me) file that is included on software distribution disks taken from the "drink me" and "eat me" labels in Alice in Wonderland?

Sources

This page doesn't cite any sources. There are templates to call attention to the comics and television sections, but someone keeps removing the tag for animation. Why? 72.93.75.172 (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Like the edit note said, like that note from wikipedia that says you have new messages :: READ your talk page. Quaeler (talk) 17:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kindly reminder. This is what you left on my talk page: "When you say a section which is an enumeration of the actual sources of reference needs references, what are you expecting? By analogy, if i ask you for a list of books that discuss bulldogs, and you give me a list of books - do i expect you to tell me references concerning those references?"

So again I ask, why unsourced tags for comics and television, but not animation? 72.93.75.172 (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm an editor-type that spends most of my time preventing more broken windows in the ghetto, not restoring the buildings. Please feel free to yank those unsourced tags as well - the logic for their existence is just as specious. Quaeler (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Nobody else has expressed interest in being consistent with the citation templates. Should they all be cited or none of them? I'm confused. 72.93.75.172 (talk) 04:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

To be repetitive, i believe that none of them should exist. Quaeler (talk) 08:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Serial Experiments Lain

Shouldn't Serial Experiments Lain be under Animation or Television, and not Comics? Works_influenced_by_Alice_in_Wonderland#Comics Also, there is a Cheshire Cat reference [1] (er, incident?) during the series which is not mentioned. Should it be added, or is it too insignificant? --64.9.97.44 (talk) 06:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Ya, seems like it should be under Animation; please feel free to move it. As far as mentioning the reference, if it's not a continual part of the series then it seems like it would be better to keep it out -- readers interested in the more granular knowledge of the series can gain it via its article. Thanks. Quaeler (talk) 06:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I moved it. I also added the reference to the Cheshire Cat. If you think it is too much, please feel free to remove (or reword) it, thanks. --96.247.130.73 (talk) 03:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Stephen King: The Dark Tower Series

The Dark Tower Series of books by Stephen King Are quite loosly connected with the idea of falling into another world, possibly dream-like, on many levels and i think the series is a worthy note to this page. Anybody else who has read the series agree?--Vagrantdead (talk) 02:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't. While I believe King makes a few references to Alice in the seven book run, the idea that Carol invented "alternate, imaginary, worlds" is ridiculous. The main characters who are transported to other worlds, (Father Callahan, Eddie Dean, Susannah Dean, and Jake Chambers) do not enter said worlds in a fashion that even resembles what is seen in the Alice in Wonderland series. Their experiences do not match or correlate to Alice's in any noteworthy way. If King wanted The Dark Tower series to be mentioned on any silly "Works influenced by X" page on Wikipedia, I'm sure X would be The Wizard of OZ. Bishoppendragon (talk) 07:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Jung and Lewis Carroll

I had supplied the information about one of Jung's favourite quotes about Synchronicity being from Lewis Carroll's "Through the Looking Glass", Chapter 5, Wool and Water, wherein the White Queen says to Alice "It's a poor sort of memory which only works backwards".

I had my personal notes from a lecture given by a scholar of the Jung Foundation in New York City in the 1980s. So I wrote it into the article. I didn't record the scholar's name or the specific date. The scholar had said it had been from his notes or letters.

So it's now been flagged as needing a full citation. But that's all I have in my notes.

Should I delete it until or if I can find the citation information out?

I am certain that the scholar said it. She was very clear on it. I asked some of my other friends who were at the lecture in the 1980s with me and they remember her saying it and it was in their notes too. But no one has the name of the scholar or date.

I could put in a weak but tentative citation like "lecture notes, Jung Foundation, New York City, 1980s" but this is not up to snuff.

Any ideas would be appreciated. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I temporarily removed it because of the "mere reference" debate. It still exists on the synchronicity page. I received my book of Jung's letters, but didn't see anything in there or in the Archetypes book from his collected works. I really stumped on this citation. I would suggest you ask the people here who came to the "mere reference" consensus before putting it back, though. Let's keep it on the synchronicity page, though. Jok2000 (talk) 21:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Which is it; "based on" or "influenced by"?

Hi,

My addition of Jan Švankmajer's Alice was reverted by user Quaeler because "This, and its ilk, are featured in the Cinematic Adaptations section of the Alice article." That's all well and good, but the title of this article is "Works based on Alice in Wonderland", even though the introduction claims the article is about "works influenced by Carroll's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland." So which is it? Based on, or influenced by? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.220.117 (talk • contribs)

Hi, thanks for writing. Please sign your talk page additions in the future with 4 tildes. Historically, this article was originally titled ...influenced by... - but that got to such a slop/leniency point that anybody and everybody was adding the most superficially attached works. There was an editor discussion and the article was retitled as 'based on' with more strict criteria. The strictness was originally defined with the move but unfortunately Jok2000 took it bravely upon himself to undo that in epic fashion. I'll repair the opening paragraph and pose a question to the editor on their talk page. WRT your addition which i reverted, it was a film adaptation and there's already specific sections in each article for that. Quaeler (talk) 22:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that you guys deleted my additions from 3 or 4 years ago that included things that are completely based on AiW which indicated to me that the deletions were not researched. As I could not research your 100 or so changed lines, I went back to the last stable version a mere few weeks back, expecting discussion. Jok2000 (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay I restored the consensus sections that I personally did not have any problems with. I don't have the expertise to expurgate most of what remains, however. Jok2000 (talk)

Of what remains, before it is reverted or merged or expurgated, could we do it section by section? Wiping Japanese references and the Matrix are big no-nos in my book. That's what made me think the expurgation was hasty in the first place. The Japanese references usually have subtitles, the work is clearly English oriented or has some other useful quality. I nuked the Hentai. That's like saying the "SoPornos is related to the Sopranos" Jok2000 (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

RAGE

theres a characher in the video game rage of the dragons thats obviously based on alice of wonderland

bte i like influenced by —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.106.246.94 (talk) 06:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Spirited Away

Notice a revert on this one. I just did a google on "ghibli spirited away alice" and most reviewers call it "reminiscent" (roughly). Probably doesn't qualify as "based on", then. Jok2000 (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Transformers : Revenge of the Fallen

Anyone want to explain this one? APL (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Science and Medicine

I merged Medicine with Science and moved it and "New Media" down the page because I think they are less important that the literary retellings etc. -- Evertype·✆ 09:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

External links in list

An item was recently added which now reads (the two "weiner" words should be "girl" and "father"):

• The webcomic Seven Years in Dog-Land by "John Avatar" is partly inspired by Alice in Wonderland. Its protagonist is also a little weiner called Alice, and her weiner's name is Lewis Carroll (reference to the author of Alice in Wonderland). Dog-Land also centers around a child getting lost in a bizarre alternate world (of talking dogs).

I had a quick look at the webcomic and it did not seem to suit the "works based specifically and substantially" in the lead (so I removed it), although I am willing to be overruled on that (it has been restored). However, I do not think the external link should be retained. There are articles with lists of external links, but the MOS procedure is to use a red link (non-existing article) in a list. I favor just removing the item, but if it is kept it should link to an article. Johnuniq (talk) 04:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

MOS recommendations nothwithstanding, I tend to believe that external links are more useful than redlinking, if there is something to link to... A redlink is just a dead-end. So if this were redlinked, there'd still need to be a footnote with the actual URL. Six of one, half dozen o' t'other.

As to "based specifically and substantially"... well, little-girl-goes-into-otherworld-and-her-father-is-named-Lewis-Carroll seems deliberate enough, but actually I'm interested in talking about this. Carolyn Sigler talks about imitations and parodies (which are easiy enough to identify, but also about books inspired by Wonderland, like Davy and the Goblin and so on. Should we have a fork so that such works can be listed? -- Evertype·✆ 09:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

One problem with an external link in the body of an article is that it is a spam magnet. Everyone with a website that mentions anything related to Alice in Wonderland would like to add a link here, and once one such link appears, why not more?

I just read three issues of the webcomic and while it's quite a charming story I have not yet seen any "based on Alice" indication. Can anyone show a link here that demonstrates the claimed association between the comic and Alice? Johnuniq (talk) 10:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Little-girl-goes-into-otherworld-and-her-father-is-named-Lewis-Carroll? The title of the book itself? Delete it if you strongly disagree. I admit, it's not as obvious as most of the imitations and parodies. Re: spam, well, the MOS suggests that in a list an external link is OK, and this page is fairly "listy". -- Evertype·✆ 14:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Re your suggestion of another article listing works "inspired by Alice": I do not like articles with such a flimsy basis. I agree that it is interesting how many zillions of works celebrate Carroll's creation, but I would argue that such an article would be very likely to approach an indiscriminate list involving synthesis (an item is included if an editor thinks it refers to Alice, or other characters such as the Red Queen, or ideas in Alice, without any support from a secondary source). Johnuniq (talk) 10:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you read Sigler? Hers is the model I'm using. -- Evertype·✆ 14:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Is the comic that notable? It appears to be one of hundreds recently started webcomics. Wikipedia is not a laundry list. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's not, but at least we've talked about criteria. -- Evertype·✆ 09:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Films

Some of the films listed in the "Film" section have very few similarities with "Alice in Wonderland". It seems as if someone just went looking through a list of movies, slapping labels on any they could to match a quota of Alice in Wonderland films. For example, look at the ridiculous entry for "Freddy versus Jason". Wow, he turns into a caterpillar! The resemblance to this book is uncanny! (Huey45 (talk) 03:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC))

Merge "adaptations" from Alice in Wonderland

There is no qualitative distinction between an "adaptation" and works that are merely "based on" the characters/books. None of them are "direct and complete adaptations"; they all have changes and omissions, as that is the nature of adaptation. That fact that so many editors consider the 2010 Tim Burton film an "adaptation" demonstrates the lack of a consensus, and I feel that the arbitrary distinction that editors have tried to make is not only a violation of WP:OR and WP:NPOV, it's a waste of time to keep enforcing. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

This thread does not belong here; it belongs on the Alice in Wonderland Talk page. Please take it there. Thank you very much. -- Evertype·✆ 21:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

This is where the merge tag directed discussion, so it seemed an appropriate place. If you have not taken it upon your own authority to remove all merge tags from that article, there would not be a problem. Thank you very much for refraining from this mistake in the future. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 05:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The discussion belongs on the Alice in Wonderland Talk page. Why not go there and make some sort of case rather than getting all tied up because I reverted edits (by you) that cause confusion. I have invited you three times now to start a thread on that Talk page, and all you've done is ranted about authority. Please use the Alice in Wonderland Talk page to discuss your concerns, rather than worry about whether your tags were reverted. Sheesh. -- Evertype·✆ 08:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

For the record: The above is an inaccurate representation of what happened. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Recent deletions

I am astonished by Jason's recent swathe of deletions. There seems to be no rhyme or reason but his whim. Terry Gilliam's Jabberwocky deleted? The famous Star Trek episode "Shore Leave" deleted? I don't think this kind of deletion benefits the article. -- Evertype·✆ 17:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I fully support Jason's deletions, they are long overdue. I see clear reason in Jason's choices. Less is certainly more in a listing like this, I would say, including works that are clearly "based on" Alice, not "inspired by" or "vaguely mention" the work. I would not include individual songs on TV episodes in the list. I'd say the Matrix is 'inspired by' Alice, not based on. I see that this can get into grey areas, but I'd say works 'based on" Alice, use it as it's main source. I would want to cut more, add citations, make it a list of works clearly "based on" Alice and under no circs merge it with the main Wonderland article, which is enough of a mess, without adding a long uncited listing to it. Evertype, if you wish to discuss re-additions, this is the place to do it. Best wishes Span (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The reason I object is that I don't see that a lot of that material -- assembled by contributors in good faith (and I wasn't one of them) -- is entirely irrelevant. It isn't right for it to be summarily deleted according to vague criteria based on what Jason happens to think is "trivia". (You may see "clear reason" but I do not, particularly as he has deleted a number of notable items. And done so without discussion. Moreover, the question of what "based on" or "inspired by" is should be discussed here before such action is taken. Many of those references had links to other articles in the Wikipedia. To say that the Alice references in The Matrix, or Gilliam's Jabberwocky, or "Shore Leave" have no place in this article is simply wrong. Jason could and should have made a case here on this page for deletion of some items. Just deleting so many as he did puts the burden on their defence. I reject a deletionist Wikipedia. The people who added those references did so for reasons. They should be deleted for reasons. And deleting so many because "I think they are trivia" is not reason enough. By the way—and this is also relevant—this article has not always been called "based on". It has been called "influenced by". It seems that Jason wants to make this article only what he thinks it should be—and I think that focus is too narrow. Over on Alice's Adventures in Wonderland Jason has also been trying to change things: he wants to eliminate the category adaptations of and merge all of this material into one article. I object to this in principle, and, while I believe that some of the items on the "trivia" list might be less relevant than others, I think that this should all be discussed, out in the open. Right now I see a wholesale whittling down of content by stealth, and I don't agree with it. Please note that I have also asked Jason to discuss these meta-matters (what is an adaptation, what is based on, what is influenced by) but he has not responded to that. -- Evertype·✆ 19:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for not responding sooner in the other discussion, Evertype, but my frustration in dealing with your obstinacy required a break. Before addressing your substantive comments above, I have to address the unfair characterizations you've just made of me: I have engaged in no action by "stealth"; it's all right there in the open, and I even stated in advance my intention to do it. (I didn't ask for your permission first, but that's not "stealth".) Furthermore, I am not trying to impose my view unilaterally. I am not the first person to express the view that this article has been littered with cruft, I am not the only one currently supporting that assessment, and I will not be the last (unless it is cleaned up). I merely had the boldness to take action on it. So please cool it. Take a few days before you respond if necessary. I'll respond to your more relevant comments later, after I've cooled down. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I think in "boldly" deleting so much stuff, particularly stuff which had links to other articles, you've done a disservice to many editors. In particular you deleted notable things, not just "cruft" according to your criteria. I think that the whole question of what this article is supposed to be for has not been answered, and you DO seem to me to be whittling it all down so you can merge it as you suggested. You've continued doing it here, despite my suggestion that the meta-issues be discussed, and I think that's unreasonable, particularly given your apology for "not responding sooner". in terms of that discussion. As I said, many editors added to the list. Who are you to just delete whatever you disliked? Why couldn't you have come to the Talk page and said: here is what I'd like to weed from the list, and why? But no, you've just gone ahead with what you want and defended it by invoking WP:BOLD. Well Boldness is fine, where there is consensus, But here you have made things worse, less clear, you've deleted information people who come to the encyclopaedia for. And you have the gall to call me "obstinate" for not wanting to see other editor's work just quashed because it doesn't fit in with your POV about what these articles should look like. -- Evertype·✆ 15:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I have reviewed the deletions and although I agree that works with only a cursory reference to AiW could be deleted, the deletions taken as a whole exhibit a modicum of cultural bigotry. Jok2000 (talk) 01:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining what you mean by that without the insulting language? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind not taking every criticism personally? I'm annoyed by your recent edits. "Cultural bigotry" is a fair description of what amounts to "Jason deletes because he doesn't like it". That's what I've objected to. And I suggested a better course of action, but you've not taken up my suggestion. -- Evertype·✆ 18:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

That is not what is usually meant or implied by "cultural bigotry". It is also an unfair characterization of my actions. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest this is going to get out of hand and wind up in the land of personal affront if we don't back up a bit. I understand a lot of people have put a lot of work into the article and its easy to feel a bit defensive. There is no deadline in sorting this out, no rush. Please have a read of No angry mastodons. What's best for the article and personal affront are two very different kettles of fish. Best keep them separate. Let's not go down the predictably well worn road. Span (talk) 11:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Getting back to the topic: Yes, this article used to be called "influenced by". It was renamed because that's too subjective and vast.

That is your personal opinion. I do not necessarily share that opinion. -- Evertype·✆ 18:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

There are only seven articles on WP named with that phrase; four of them are simple category-style indexes to other articles, and three of them are already tagged for notability/citation problems. The one most analogous to this article is list of works influenced by Don Quixote, which indicates that the items included are "selected" for notability (and with no examples of movies in which a crazy person goes on a quixotic quest, etc). "Influenced by" requires subjective analysis and invites trivia. And sure enough, under that name this article became loaded with random examples, whether there was a documented connection or not. Yes, the people who added all of them had "reasons" for doing so: they saw that the article was already a collection of vague references and allusions (like indiscriminate "In Popular Culture" sections), so they assumed that more would be better. I disagree. I'm not a "deletionist", but I do believe that Wikipedia policies about notability and sourcing have a valid basis. One value of editors in an encyclopedia is that they not only add to it, but also remove things of little or no value from it.

While there is no deadline for addressing this, the first call for doing so was made over four years ago, and it's been more than a year since the article was renamed with the goal of refocusing it. Some forward movement is needed, so I am attempting to remove items that are not clearly (as the article name states) "works based on Alice in Wonderland". If I've removed things that should be retained, please point them out.

As a point of clarification: I am not seeking to merge this article with Alice's Adventures in Wonderland; the proposal was to go the other way. (I am adding the removed tags back to help clarify that.) I am seeking to remove the off-topic cruft from this article (as others have also requested), and to add the information about the other works based on Alice in Wonderland to the article with that title (because I think that will settle the recurring confusion about the subjective difference between "adaptation" and "based on"). -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree about the list of works influenced by Don Quixote. It's not a list of works "influenced by" Don Quixote. Most of the things on the list are adaptations or re-tellings. Things like The Female Quixote and The Spiritual Quixote are probably not best described as "adaptations"; they are separate works "based on" or "influenced by" the original. The are not '"adaptations" or "re-tellings" of the original. This is an important distinction, and no matter how much you try to say that "'influenced by' requires subjective analysis and invites trivia" that doesn't mean that your view that this stuff does not belong in the article must prevail. The fact is that Alice's influence on our culture is vast, far vaster than the influence of Quixote or Pan or Dorothy, I'd wager.

Look, we all want these articles to be better. Can we try to do this in an orderly fashion, rather than by duelling POVs? We can't avoid "adaptation/re-telling" and "based on/influenced by". And I disagree with your suggestion that we should try to. We should clarify the terms, either within an Alice Task-Force or within the Children's Literature Project. And we should use those criteria to help organize the articles. "Re-tellings" here, "homages" there. We are supposed to be subjective in terms of organizing the articles. We are supposed to exercise our judgement as editors in doing such organization.

I don't think that all of the "trivia" associated with Alice references and homages should be deleted, either. Part of Alice's notability is to be found in those references and homages, and that's encyclopaedic. We can improve the lists, sure. But all the weeding especially of links to other articles in the encyclopaedia is "dumbing down" in my view. My own interest is in texts, more so than in films or comics or other things, which is why I've worked a fair bit on the "Literary re-tellings and sequels" section of this article.

I'd like to propose that the recently deleted material be re-instated, and that we use the Talk page to discuss the entries, section by section, in relation to agreed criteria. -- Evertype·✆ 18:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, so you do agree that the list of influenced works would be "vast". But this is part of the reason why making that list is so impractical. It'd be like listing "tragedies influenced by the works of Shakespeare" or "fantasy works influenced by the novels of Tolkien". After a while it stops being interesting or informative and just becomes... data. This is why you don't see this kind of article on Wikipedia. It wouldn't satisfy Notability and it wouldn't satisfy Verifiability. How do you verify that such-and-such novelist was thinking of Alice when he set a story in a mirror universe? Most of the time you can't.

You're asking vague theoretical questions and then answering them yourself. "Vast" does not mean unmanageable. There is no upper limit to the number of references an article may have. -- Evertype·✆ 10:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't see the basis for your assertion that "we can't avoid" splitting the works into two lists. Of course we can avoid it. In fact, it's already been avoided for other works. Works based on Peter Pan includes everything from a contemporary picture book adaptation, to Disney's animated bowdlerizations, to unauthorized perverse corruptions, to various spin-offs and sequels. Of course that only works because the article isn't littered with trivia about this episode of that one TV show where the star dressed up as Peter Pan, and vaguely-maybe influenced stuff like that book where there was this young guy who was the leader of a gang, and pop-culture cruft like that song by the band from Florida where they mention Tinker Bell....

In the real world, Carrollians distinguish between different kinds of works which derive in some way from Carroll's. I've tried to explain this already. Sigler talks of "imitations, revisions, and parodies" (Alternative Alices: Visions and Revisions of Lewis Carroll's Alice Books). I happen to think that Carrollian scholarship should lead in Carroll-related scholarship. If you aren't familiar with Carrollian scholarship, please allow that there may be other people who are. -- Evertype·✆ 10:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Your proposal that we develop special Wikipedia-definitions for the terms you want to use, then expect editors to learn them and apply them the same way you would use them, is a pipe dream. It's already not-working for your definition of "adaptation". And if you need to rig up definitions, isn't that an admission there there isn't a bright line separating them? It's just asking for an argument. Like the one going on right now, that I tried to avoid by proposing a solution that would make it unnecessary.

If you tried and failed, perhaps that indicates that your solution was not the best, if it did not attract consensus. My proposal is to distinguish different types of works, as Carrollian scholarship does. -- Evertype·✆ 10:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Would you agree that the article about Movie A or Book Z is a good place to document the influences on that work? The information fits naturally there, and can be presented in paragraph form as a good encyclopedia should be written. This should be done for every work where those influences are verifiable and noteworthy. Then if someone really wants an exhaustive list that maps the relationship in the opposite direction, they can click What Links Here.

Influences on that work? I don't know what you are trying to say here; the scenario you describe is too vague and abstract. I am not sure which "direction" you are ascribing to what movie or book, and what "relationship" you are "mapping" in which "direction". So I can't agree or disagree. -- Evertype·✆ 10:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

If that doesn't satisfy you, if these policies against original research are getting in the way of creating the academic masterwork that you want to create, then maybe you should try doing it somewhere else, where you can have the level of control you apparently want. I'm not suggesting that you go away; I didn't when I was faced with that problem. Wikipedia policies put limits on what I could do in terms of building a complete Peter Pan encyclopedia here, so I set out to build one separately, where I can include fannish trivia and original analysis and everything else that doesn't belong in a general purpose neutral encyclopedia such as WP. I contribute to WP according to its rules, and contribute to Neverpedia according to... mine. So if you want to build an exhaustive list of every book that makes reference to Alice... go build it, and stop trying to turn a shared encyclopedia article into your personal checklist.

This is uncivil. Kindly do not put words into my mouth or ascribe motivations to me. I object to your un-discussed deletions because I think they are disrespectful of the work of previous editors, and they satisfy what you want to do, which is evidently to make this article look like the List of works based on Peter Pan (which isn't a list, it seems to me). -- Evertype·✆ 10:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Your proposal to put all the cruft back and make me convince you to delete each item is not the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. Statements are not presumed true until proven false; they are suspected false unless verified to be true. There has been plenty of time for interested editors to justify the cruft in this article, and no one has. If I were the rabid deletionist you keep characterizing me as, I'd zap this whole mess and start rebuilding it from scratch. But I'm not. I've been giving this undocumented list the benefit of the doubt, leaving anything that looks like it's probably substantially based on the Alice books even without evidence, which I think is pretty generous. The accusations of bad faith behind my efforts are totally unfair, and I take them personally because they are hurtful. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

My proposal to "put all the cruft back" is a means of conflict resolution, and a means of checking that your POV is not needlessly deleting the contributions of previous editors, which is what I think your deletions amount to. I have been editing the Wikipedia for six and a half years, Jason, and I really don't need you to keep beating me over the head with allegations that I don't understand OR and NPOV and other rules (i.e. guidelines) of the Wikipedia. I'm not a newbie, and I know how the Wikipedia works, thanks very much. I'd like to point out again that I have suggested that we discuss these matters with other editors, perhaps in the Children's Literature project. That's the fourth time I've mentioned this, and I daresay it would be more fruitful than you just deciding to push for a stand-off. You think you were right to delete a whole lot of text by other editors. I do not stipulate that you were right, and since (as User: Spanglej|Span]] mentions above) there is no rush in sorting this out, what's your hurry? If I think you've been rash, and have asked that the material be scrutinized, why can't you agree to re-instating and reviewing the material? -- Evertype·✆ 10:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Jason, by not recognizing my use of the word "modicum" you are doing your credibility a disservice. "cultural bigotry" is a popular movement in the United States today. People carry signs with "This is a Christian Nation". I said you exhibited a modicum of it, and I don't have to change any words to say that I used the word modicum. You can't beat a tautology. I was at an antiquarian book fair on Friday in Toronto, and mere catalogs of works derived from Alice in Wonderland were selling for hundreds of dollars. I am a connoisseur of cultural references to Alice in Wonderland. Jok2000 (talk) 02:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I recognize the adjectival phrase, but it seems a bit like calling someone "a little bit racist"; it is not constructive. Especially because I still don't understand what you mean by "cultural bigotry" as it applies to my edits. (Are you seriously accusing me of promoting some kind of "Christian Nation" agenda? If so, you really don't understand me. At all.) Please drop the loaded (and insulting) buzzwords and simply explain what you mean. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I read it as "a what-I-say-is-cruft-is-cruft" attitude, without regard to previous editors' views, or to the current request, which is to re-instate the items in question and review them on the Talk page. And to discuss either here or at a higher-level Project some of the difficulties we are having. I notice for example that while I have asserted that Carrollians distinguish different kinds of adaptations, and such distinctions ought to be part of the Wonderland pages, you've not said anything about this. Perhaps in Neverland and Oz they don't make such distinctions. But in the world of Carrollian scholarship, we do. -- Evertype·✆ 10:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Jabberwocky

I removed items from this list which were based specfically on Jabberwocky (the story within the story) rather than the storyline of the Alice books, because it seemed they were more properly "based on Jabberwocky". If others disagree with this approach, I don't object to them being added back. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Please add them back. -- Evertype·✆ 18:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

In popular culture tag

This may have some "in popular culture" items in it, but that does not make it "an in popular culture" article. -- Evertype·✆ 10:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

That's just your POV. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 10:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

That's dismissive. Do all articles listing works "influenced by" or "based on" another work belong to a category "in popular culture articles"? -- Evertype·✆ 11:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Bad reorganization

I notice that some time back someone rearranged the subject matter here in alphabetical order. That was a bad idea. The first works based on or influenced by Wonderland were literary, and that is likely the first sort of thing people will expect to see. Art and Comics are given too much weight by having been fronted as they currently are. I'm a fan of alphabetical order, but not in an article like this. -- Evertype·✆ 10:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I am normally all in faviour of alphabetical order, but not when it unbalanced the article. Let's move it back.--SabreBD (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done though I wouldn't mind discussion about fine-tuning it. -- Evertype·✆ 17:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Wonderful wonder world

Wonderful wonder world is a japanese comic based on the game Heart no kuni no Alice and that Game is listed on the article, so it shoul be listed in "Comics", too, doesn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.22.242.168 (talk) 14:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

More bad reorganization

OK, alphabetical order is NOT A GOOD IDEA for this article. The first and most important works based on Alice's Adventures in Wonderland are literary retellings, sequels, and parodies—NOT films and video games. A year ago we had consensus not to use alphabetical order. I will fix this again now. 09:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

This is virtually a repeat of my support two topics above, but yes, you are right, alphabetical order makes this article almost impossible to navigate. Thanks.--SabreBD (talk) 09:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- Evertype·✆ 10:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Little trivial additions

I cannot add them, because I don't know the Wikipedia-like writing but for instance, the "America's Best Dance Crew" 1st season Crew winners were the JabbaWockeeZ (based on the name of the Jabberwocky). And, in animations and/or comics, the DC comics series "Young Justice" character Cheshire is highly based upon the Lewis Carroll character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.114.248.15 (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria, a proposal

What are the inclusion criteria here? I don't see any above so I'd like to suggest this:

1. No entries for works that do not have articles of their own. This is to weed out non-notable entries (including those with only external links, some of which could be linkspam).
2. The linked article has to already include an explanation of the connection with Alice in Wonderland. This is to weed out entries where the connection is Original Research. If the connection is valid then it should be added to the linked article before it is added here.

What do we think? Can we adopt this? It seems to be in line with the way we treat other list articles and would mean that bad entries can be dealt with with all the summary efficiency of the Queen of Hearts. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

While I recognize this reply is several years too late, this was a good idea, and I have effected it. Gimubrc (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Irwin Allen's 'Alice in Wonderland' for US TV

Should not the Alice in Wonderland (1985 film) be here since it's a direct adaptation? Another was the one aired on NBC, the Alice in Wonderland (1999 film) by Dyson Lovell -- John Mauney 16:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.37.148 (talk)

Alice in Chains

This band seems to have been completely overlooked. I've no idea whether the band's name originally refers to the same Alice but they have certainly played with the association elsewhere. I think some of the inner sleeve artwork on the album "Dirt" is based on Tenniel's drawings - I may be misremembering this - but certainly some of the band merchandise did use this trope. If you have the time and patience this may be worth looking into.-213.205.241.112 (talk) 12:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)