Template talk:Alice

[edit] Resident Evil (film) issue

What? Why is Resident Evil in this? Just because a character is named Alice? --Hotdoglives 08:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Read the film plot more carefully! There are a number of references to the Carroll's Alice Universe, including Red Queen and her behaviour to behead people; white rabbit used for testing the T-Virus; the wall that opens to the train station appears as a mirror; etc. Also see Alice's Adventures in Wonderland#Cinematic adaptations.

My point is that the film fits perfectly in the section "Other related media", but if you insist we can move the literary films into the new "Media" (or "Media, based on the Lewis Carroll books") section of the template. If the name of the film is different from just plain "Alice" it's not the reason to exclude it. --Yuriy Lapitskiy 10:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize it had that many references to the Alice universe (I haven't seen the movie for a while). But it still seems strange to include in the template. I think it belongs best just on the Works influenced by Alice in Wonderland page. I think only works that are direct adaptations of something by Lewis Carroll belong on the template. --Hotdoglives 06:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that we need a separate template for, as you say, the "works influenced by Alice in Wonderland". A separate section within this template will be enough - I've just done that (moved R. Evil with some other films to a separate section). --Yuriy Lapitskiy 14:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Related Media

Right now, all the works listed under "other related media" are films. Should the label be changed to "film versions" or something to more closely reflect that? faithx5 16:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that this particular part of the template could be listed as "Film adaptations". Naturally, there are other films which draw influence from Alice, but they wouldn't necessarily be considered direct adaptations, unlike the films titled Alice in Wonderland. — ArkansasTraveler 18:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Universe" -> "books" substitution

I doubt it was correct - the template is not purely about books, but about the films etc. --Yuriy Lapitskiy 13:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes in template

I assumed that the double quotes " used in the template were supposed to be two single quotes ' ' to italicize some of the titles, so I changed them. You can revert my changes if I was mistaken. Mr.absurd 02:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

sure thing :) --Yuriy Lapitskiy 12:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles) says that the titles of short poems should be in quotes. I reverted the change. - EurekaLott 13:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Poem

I added a new poem ("They told me you had been to her...") to the template but it is not showing up in the articles. What could be the problem? ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

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

If I delete the template from the individual page, and then put it back, it's right. But you shouldn't have to do that, and I don't get it. Carlo (talk) 22:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

Unfortunately, I see some recent edit warring on this page; to encourage discussion, I've protected the page for a few days. Please take this time to talk things over and achieve consensus regarding the most appropriate page version to use. I see that two users at least have thrown around accusations of "vandalism," but don't yet see any reason why this is so. If it helps, consider making use of the dispute resolution process. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

My problem with the edits in question can be abstracted to the issue 'what belongs in this template'. (WRT 'vandalism' - i did not (and do not) see another warning template available to me which says "you've been asked to discuss large page edits prior to enacting them and you've ignored this request" -- for future reference, i'd be interested to know what the correct warning template for that sort of behaviour is).

For this situation, 'what belongs in this template' can be split into:

• 'movies that haven't been released yet'
• 'video games'

As far as movies that haven't been released yet, i personally don't believe that even Tim Burton's film should be listed here as we're enumerating things that are basically vapour in the public view. People can make the case that Tim Burton has historically had only a few pictures canceled and that it is likely that this film will be released: perhaps. But, MM has no such track record with film efforts, and even the movie in question has been continually labeled as (current year + 1) since 2005. I think it is basically nonsense to list this as an existing Alice work.

As far as video games, i don't see why this needs to be added to the template. If we do add this to the template, at what point do we say that items, for example, in the Work Influenced... article don't also belong in the template. It's one of those slippery slope items that i believe doesn't provide sufficient value to the template.

That concludes my ponderings and 2-cents. Quaeler (talk) 09:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Since we're more than half-way through the protection block and there has been no rebuttal, i will take silence to mean that i can continue to revert content add of the new video game section (and any whole new section not discussed here first). Also, i will revert content add of unreleased films (so that it is not a wishy-washy rule - this will include Burton's film). Additionally, unless similar rebuttal is voiced, i will leave comments in the article warning against making additions violating this precept without first commencing discussion here. Quaeler (talk) 07:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An ugly gap (?)

Could you alter the template though so there isn't an ugly gap in every article it's on? Alientraveller (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about the gap — i'm unable to see anything out of the ordinary. Could you help this bug report by providing screen shots both of the ugly gap, as you see it rendered in your browser, and of another article, with a different template association, which doesn't have an ugly gap rendered in your browser? Thanks. Quaeler (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

There is clearly a gap at the start of the template rendered by the warning. I tried using <noinclude> but that didn't work. Alientraveller (talk) 08:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if you're not used to filing bug reports, not accustomed to critically decomposing your reasons for something, or what, but answering what was a pretty pedantic request with a hand-waving 'no really, clearly it is there' is basically a religious retort, super-unhelpful towards collaborative resolution on a technical matter.

That complaint out of the way, to be super-explicit, i removed all non-comment white space prior to the start of the markup for the navbox; i see no change in the width of the gap on my rendering, but if you could simply report back with a 'Yes' or a 'No' as to whether you see still see the gap, that would be helpful. (and, to apparently totally push my luck, if you still see it, if you could do what i originally requested, it would be helpful towards a resolution.). Thanks. Quaeler (talk) 09:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Didn't understand that, but thanks for fixing it, I don't see a gap on articles anymore. Alientraveller (talk) 11:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)