text:
Talk:Through the Looking-Glass

Original talk questions
Why does the link for the html version with illustrations point at Alice in Wonderland?

Shouldn't it point to [|http://www.cs.indiana.edu/metastuff/looking/lookingdir.html]?

 * Yes and no. Yes it was pointing at "Alice" and needed to be changed, but no, the suggested address doesn't have illustrations. I found an illustrated HTML edition at (the TOC there has both books, and background music, so I linked to Chapter 1). Mpolo 09:46, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

"While the game described (a list of moves is included)" - where is this list? I have not found it in any text I know of.

I HAVE A VERY OLD COPY OF 'THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS', THAT BELONGED TO MY MOTHER WHEN SHE WAS A CHILD. THE PUBLISHING COMPANY WAS 'THE SAALFEILD PUBLISHING COMPANY, OUT OF NEW YORK. THE BINDING IS COMPLETELY SHOT AND THE INSIDE ONLY TELLS ME WHO THE ILLUSTRATIONS ARE DONE BY AND OF COURSE THE AUTHOR LEWIS CARROLL. BUT I CAN'T FIND OUT WHAT YEAR THIS BOOK WAS PRINTED? I HOPE SOMEONE CAN HELP ME OUT? SINCERELY, LINDA SCHAEFER

 * Judging by your description and my research, it was probably 1938 or somewhere around that time, but I can't say for sure.

Title of article
Shouldn't this be renamed Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There for accuracy's sake? Rhindle The Red 12:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree. Even in my recent copy of the book, the title page says "Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There. The question is whether there should be a comma after looking-glass or not. 17:36, 01 April 2007

 * I disagree. Wouldn't "and What Alice Found There" qualify as a subtitle?  If so, Naming conventions (books) suggests that the main title should be used for the article name with a redirect for the full title (including the subtitle).  I believe that is what has been done here. --Rtrace 23:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree with Rtrace; searching the Library of Congress catalogs shows that none of the titles include "and What Alice Found There", save one record annotation which redirects to a search based on the title without that phrase. --Quaeler 23:37, 1.apr.07 (UTC)

Moving/cleaning References to Pop Culture section
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)

Sexuality
I thought that most everyone saw the sexual elements in the Alice books. Thus, linking them to the burgeoning Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction (girls) would simply act as another link, one of many to which the Alice books could be privy. James Nicol 13:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * perhaps you could enumerate those themes in Through the Looking-Glass for that apparent minority that isn't "most everyone"? Quaeler 14:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly, Quaeler. There is the sensuality of the opening scene between Alice & the black kitten (an obvious symbol for her own genitalia). There is the conflict between the Red Queen (menstruation, her incipient womanhood, the future) & the White Queen (virginity, childhood, purity, the past)--no wonder that the White Queen is forgetful, and the Red Queen exhorts Alice to run faster & faster. There is the disappointing nature of all the male figures (the childishness of Tweedledum & Tweedledee; the White King, asleep; the Red King, impotently making notes as the Lion & Unicorn [two highly sexed figures, esp. the Unicorn] fight for his crown; and the Knight, Carroll himself, who attempts to seduce Alice, but cannot quite, though it is the most romantic scene in the book, as she ends her childhood, becoming a Queen herself). And, of course, there is the last riddling rhyme of the book, spoken by the White Queen, as she tells Alice to bid farewell to childhood. The answer to the last rhyme is "an oyster", which, again represents the female genitalia.
 * That's just a start, Quaeler. There's much more. James Nicol 15:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait, is that a joke or a serious analysis of the books? That's amazing.  Who first came up with all that? --JayHenry 15:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to say i'm usually all for the alternative point of view and entertaining a certain amount of art-bell-ish-ness, but this is stunning. If there's some sort of peer-reviewed published analysis supporting your viewpoint, then it would merit further review; otherwise i'm pretty sure there's long wikipedia precedent that individual interpreted symbolism generally doesn't merit inclusion. Quaeler 15:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Quaeler, I made a small correction to my initial statement. We shouldn't call them sexual themes, but, rather, sexual elements. I'm not sure what you mean by "individual interpreted symbolism", but seeing the sexual elements in the Alice books is standard fare for a literature seminar. Yes, if I dig, I can find articles that mention some of these (see Grotjahn, "About the Symbolization of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland", American Imago, 1947; Nina Auerbach's "Alice in Wonderland: A Curious Child", in the Norton Critical Ed. of the Alice books, touches on a couple of these aspects as does Empson's article in the same book; Roger Henkle, in "Comedy from Inside" points out that T.T.L.-G. is about a rushing toward adulthood, though he says less about the sexual aspects, focusing more on fear of death; and you can find some of this in James Kincaid's book, Child-Loving). I'm not trying to add my list of observations to the articles on the Alice books. I simply wanted to add to the article a link to the category Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction (girls). Articles on literature should stick strictly to full summaries & other factual matters & not get into interpretation at all. However, if Wikipedia will have such categories as the several on pedophilia & child sexual abuse in literature, film, &c., then the Alice books should be listed. James Nicol 16:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'm mistaken. But my interpretation is that a page like Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction (girls) is intended to document books in which pedophilia or child sexual abuse occur.  So Lolita is an example of something that belongs on the list, as it's a book about a pedophile who sexually manipulates a 12-year-old.  But even the interpretation mentioned above, even if universally accepted (which it's not), is not about pedophilia or sexual abuse.  The only connection is that due to these interpretations and other biographical evidence some people believe that Carroll himself was unduly interested in the sexuality of young girls and therefore a pedophile.  But this is already adequately covered in the Lewis Carroll article.  I don't see sufficient evidence to justify this link in this article. --JayHenry 16:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Any sexual elements involving children are instances of child sexual abuse, are they not? Also, Lolita is NOT a book about a pedophile who sexually manipulates a 12-year-old. It's a story told by an pseudonymous man about his claimed lust & paranoia over a girl of early adolescence. He may be utterly crazy. He's not a reliable narrator. Further, please find the actual OCCURRENCE of child sexual abuse in Lolita. (Lolita, by the way, alludes to the Alice books often.)
 * You see the problem in creating such a category. James Nicol 17:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Umm... have you read Lolita? Regardless of whether or not you think Humbert is insane, he explicitly narrates having sex with a 12-year-old girl.  I'm confused. Are you seriously arguing that this is not pedophilia, but an outlandish metaphor about a Red Queen representing menstruation is? --JayHenry 17:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * From the definition of pedophilia linked from the proposed category page: "Pedophilia or pædophilia (see spelling differences) is the mental state of being sexually attracted preferentially or exclusively to prepubescent or early pubertal children." Lewis Carroll's hypothetical personal predilections aside, i don't see where this is applicably linked to the story in question. You, yourself, may see it, but this is individual interpretation, and doesn't have any critical relation to what may have been the aims of Carroll in writing the story. The story in question lacks any overt actions concerning, nor narrations describing contemplation of, sexual facets of Alice; the examples of sexuality that you see are subtle enough that they could be applied similarly freely to any work. Can you think of any piece of literature involving children in which you couldn't just as easily spin a yarn of sexual symbolism?
 * I think that perhaps this aspect of critical inspection is missing in your assessment here - no? For example, I can sit at my desk and see that the ratio between the height and the depth is amazingly close to the ratio of unemployment in france to unemployment in germany, but that doesn't mean that the desk was designed with that in mind (not even if the carpenter was keen on EU economic data). Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Quaeler 17:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Jay, I've read Lolita at least twice & discussed it with many people. You misunderstand my remark. Please read my remarks closely. I object to your glib sentence as to what Lolita is "about". Your statement summarizing Lolita is no closer to that book's richness & complexity than mine. If Lolita were as simple as you made it sound, then it would hardly have rewarded readers for fifty years. Such glibness would call Invisible Man a book about a troubled Black guy who lives underground; Ulysses, a book about a man who walks around Dublin; Walden, a book by a man living by a pond. Well-wrought literature cannot be summed up in a line.
 * Now, if such a Wiki category as Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction (girls) exists, then Lolita belongs there as do the Alice books. That's all I'm saying. (By the way, I'm still waiting for you to cite an actual OCCURRENCE of child sexual abuse in Lolita.)
 * The category, Quaeler, is "Pedophilia AND child sexual abuse in fiction (girls)". Thus, a text need not describe explicit pedophilia as long as it has sexuality concerning children. By that token, as you yourself admit, the category extends to almost any text. As to the Alice books, just because you & jay hadn't seen these elements hardly makes them subtle. I cited a handful of mentions of some of them w/out even delving into research. The issue is not whether the Alice books belong in this category (Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction (girls)). The issue is the usefulness, besides bland prurience, of creating such a category. A cigar may be a cigar, but THIS cigar may be more than a cigar. The important word in this over-quoted line is "sometimes". James Nicol 17:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Subtle' as opposed to 'overt', is what i intended; the symbolism you cite is definitely not overt — the 'sexuality concerning children' you see only exists in your derived symbolism (whereas, continuing with Lolita, it is overt in the text - one needn't employ mechanisms of waxing philosophic).
 * Additionally, if we're in agreement that the classification, when employing such subjective uses of symbolism, can be extended to most any text - then i fail to see the value of labeling an individual item as a member of that grouping. Quaeler 18:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Quaeler, let’s recap: To the articles on each of the Alice books, I added a mere link to a peculiar & questionable category that I had come across, Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction (girls). You removed it, saying that such a link was “a bit steep”. Instead of simply re-attaching it, I moved to the Discussion page to state that I thought that the sexuality of the Alice books was common knowledge. You asked for examples. I supplied them. You asked for scholars who had noted the sexuality. I supplied citations. NOW, you claim that merely pasting the link back into these articles requires that the symbolism be “overt”, which must mean, if you see it. You have now become the individual master of this article & are employing what you called “individual interpreted symbolism” only the individual refuses to see it. No place in the category, Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction (girls), does the requirement “overt” appear. I have answered your every objection, but you just don’t like this category as one of the categories into which the Alice books fall. The fault is not with me nor with the Alice books nor even with you, really. The fault is with this peculiar & questionable category. If it shall continue to exist, then the Alice books belong w/in it, as I have shown. My question—and yours, too, I imagine—is why need this category exist? Shouldn’t Wikipedia stick to factual categories: “Fiction published in 19th-century England.” “Fiction w/ girls as the hero(in)es.” “Fiction that includes ‘nonsense verse’.” (Possibly a small category.) “Fiction organized around or by a game.” “Fiction written by mathematicians.” “Etc.,” as Kurt Vonnegut wrote.James Nicol 04:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, let's step back and look at your suggestions more abstractly. We have an item, a, which is an element of B (all books), which you believe belongs in a subset of B (let's call it C); the discussion must then turn to what are the rules of membership for an element's admission to C. As seemingly agreed to above, you present a standard which when applied to any element of B admits that element to C. In this scenario, there is no new information gained by attaching membership to C since everything that is in B is also in C.
 * I don't think your goal is to really argue that everything belongs in C, so there must be something faulty about the standard - and what's faulty about that standard, imo, is that it is wildly subjective. As anyone who has sat through literature classes, or spent time in a room with people smoking pot, will note: in most any text, one can attach new symbolic meaning which is not literally mentioned in that text. To make this, then, the standard for admission to a group is equivalent to the proclamation of "because i said so"; this devolves quickly, for in most cases of symbolic representation in art, if there are 50 people saying "it's X", there are also 50 people saying "it's not X".
 * Therefore, the standard must be whether there is an overt instance of the theme or not — whether there is literal mention of the topic at hand — for if it isn't, the grouping of anything artistic then becomes only an exercise of "how many people can i get to agree with my interpretation". This standard isn't nearly perfect, for it would certainly give the shaft to a number of works of political satire, but the standard is much much better than letting people's personal visions cloud the pool with invention. Quaeler 08:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Quaeler, your last remark begins very mathematically but then has some soft spots in it before it concludes, excepting the one remark that we shouldn’t place any text into this category, Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction (girls), unless it literally mentions the topic. I can live with that, but that would certainly, as you point out, eliminate many works. ‘’Lolita’’, for example, never actually mentions the word “pedophilia”. Indeed, I would need to check to see how it uses the word “sex”. Perhaps we should change the name of the category: Texts that explicitly mention sexual inclination between adults & children or between children.
 * I disagree w/ your dismissive remarks about literature classes. You must have had a poor education in that field or felt that your own opinions weren’t heard. There are plenty of interpretations that do not survive. Indeed, the “because I said so” is a good criterion for an unsuccessful interpretation. Further, interpretations aren't either/or. To say that the Alice books hold a lot of sexuality is neither to deny them a place as texts containing literary & political satire nor to deny them a place as stories of fantastic childhood exploits.
 * You have misunderstood one part of my argument, which is that this category, Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction (girls), is, indeed, the kind of subjectivity that proffers no real benefit in the objectively factual world of Wikipedia & should be eliminated to be replaced w/ the more objective standard (Texts that explicitly mention sexual inclination between adults & children or between children) you propose. James Nicol 13:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break
Adding a section break just so we have an easier edit button to click on. First off, my comment about Lolita was not meant to be interpreted as "Lolita is a book that is only about pedophilia, and it has nothing else meaningful in it." It's one of my favorite books, and my feelings are completely the opposite. All I meant was, the book Lolita contains explicit description of an adult male having sex with a 12-year-old girl. The book contains written passages of pedophilia and child sexual abuse (and yes, adults having sex with 12-year-olds is sexual abuse). Alice does not. But you seem to be saying above not that you think Alice belongs in the category, but that the category should be deleted. What do you want? Do you want the Pedophilia in fiction page deleted? Or do you want Alice on the page? Obviously you can't have both. --JayHenry 15:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ((thanks for the section break)). I feel like i'm taking crazy pills here; let's say i write the following poem: "through vast outer space; my ship speeds past our planets; spread the human race". The objective classifier reads this can say, "this should be tagged as senryu about space travel". One has every right to potentially read this and go, "this is some metaphor for creation in the womb" - but that right ends there. Barring interviews with me, or further referential writings i publish, which state it as my intentions, one cannot say, "this should be tagged as senryu about conception and prenatal existence'.
 * Sticking with the Lolita v. Alice argument as a parallel: there are pedantic explicit ((overt)) passages in Lolita which qualify it for inclusion in a grouping concerning pedophilia in fiction; in opposition, there are no such passages, but rather only interpreted symbolism, in Alice.
 * I don't know how else i can attempt to point out that grouping based on someone's interpreted, subjective, view of something must be fervently discouraged for it opens the door to any and all future claims of grouping, whether whimsical or not. Quaeler 16:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Even supposing this interpretation of all the motifs in the book is true, I still don't see what it has to do with paedophilia. Girls grow up physically and sexually. An acknowledgement of that is not paedophilia.86.174.4.203 (talk) 14:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

 * I have another question: I don't see what a discussion of Lolita is doing in a discussion of Through the Looking Glass. JHobson3 (talk) 12:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

move to Through the Looking-Glass --Lox (t,c) 09:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This has been listed on WP:RM but seems to have been moved without waiting for discussion.

 * Oppose the move. Through the Looking Glass, with no mention of Alice, is an abbreviated title, and most English speakers would IMO see it as that. Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There is a far better article title. Andrewa (talk) 12:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Oppose the move. "Through the Looking Glass" has a number of contexts already requiring disambiguation, and a fair chunk of people have fallen into mistaken beliefs that the whole title has reference to Alice in it. (But let's not change reality - Through the Looking Glass is the title of the book - not an abbreviated title. See previous discussion on this page to dispel the wafting wisps of crack-rock smoke.) Quaeler (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC) Support I've been swayed. Quaeler (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong support This is the title of the book, and what it is usually called. Most, if not all, of the uses on the dab page are references to it, less known than the original. (and will need to be disambiguated whether it is moved or not). We should not astonish the reader with the subtitle, although we should duly mention it; as we use Gulliver's Travels, not Travels into Several Remote Nations of the World, in Four Parts. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. This is what it is normally called, few people know and fewer use the subtitle.  If disambiguation were needed, I'd support including the subtitle over various other options, but I see no big need for disambiguation here.  Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Short title already redirects here so there is some kind of acknowledgment that it is the primary topic. If disambiguation is truly needed, then use "(novel)" or something similar rather than a cumbersome title which is not commonly known. --Polaron | Talk 17:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong support. The article was at Through the Looking-Glass for years until it was moved last month without discussion. - EurekaLott (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
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)
 * Interesting. So we have two differing opinions. It would be good to have others too IMO. Andrewa (talk) 02:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

If this is true then the current redirect of Alice in Wonderland to Alices Adventures... is probably the most serious problem. This should instead be (or at least redirect to) the disambig currently at Alice in Wonderland (disambiguation), or better still a high-level article giving the information common to all the various books and adaptations, and linking to the more detailed articles on those that have them. Andrewa (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please supply citations for significant use of the subtitle (except in contexts of extreme accuracy, where Swift's original title would also be used.)Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I get the idea, but who decides what is significant and what is a context of extreme accuracy? Even Wikipedia (-> is sometimes extremely accurate. I'll have a look. Andrewa (talk) 02:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth my experiences mirror Pmanderson's.  I've most often seen and referred to the books as Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass. --JayHenry (talk) 03:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's exactly the sort of report I think we need... a shame it goes against me! I guess I've always felt it a bit pretentious to shorten it to Through the Looking Glass, knowing that many people wouldn't know what it meant, whereas if you add the ...Alice... to it there's a good chance the light will dawn. The other title I've often heard is Alice Through the Looking Glass, which I don't think has ever been an official title but I notice we already have a redirect, a year or so old. Hmmm. Andrewa (talk) 05:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

To Andrewa: Who decides? Consensus here once we have the data, I guess; but I would trust Andrewa not to twist data like one of our Fooish nationalists proving his national claim to Barland. ;>

By significant, I meant a significant proportion of English usage, in more or less the statistical sense. By "extreme accuracy", I meant to exclude such contexts as bibliographies, library catalogs, accounts of the publication history, and so on, in favor of writing for the general reader. Septentrionalis PMAnderson

 * 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)

Data
In all three pairs, the first is included in the second. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * http://etext.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/CarGlas.html uses the full title Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There, and I think it's significant but it may also be extreme accuracy. They also call the other work you mentioned Travels into Several Remote Nations of the World; By Lemuel Gulliver, First a Surgeon, and then a Captain of several Ships. Andrewa (talk) 03:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Scholar.google.com
 * Through the Looking Glass, and What Alice found there: 677 hits
 * Through the Looking Glass: 15,100
 * Through the Looking Glass, and What Alice found there + "Red King":19
 * Through the Looking Glass + "Red King":154
 * Through the Looking Glass, and What Alice found there + "Horsa":1 (not in English)
 * Through the Looking Glass + "Horsa":9. (some false positives)
 * That would seem to favor the shorter version. Although, I must say, as long as we all agree that Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There should be retained as a redirect to Through the Looking-Glass or vice-versa it makes no practical difference where we place the article.  The precision will be maintained in the lead either way.  Another point to consider is Special:Whatlinkshere/Through_the_Looking-Glass%2C_and_What_Alice_Found_There.  The vast majority of which point to the short version.  As there's no practical difference, we seem to have a lot of evidence that both on Wikipedia and in general Through the Looking-Glass is a somewhat more common usage.  If I may, I suggest we simply go with that and move along. --JayHenry (talk) 05:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No question it should be a redirect; if anyone searches for all that, they should get here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree. Andrewa (talk) 06:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

http://www.fromoldbooks.org/LewisCaroll-AliceThroughTheLookingGlass/ uses both titles but suggests that the long version is the proper title, no suggestion on the page that part is a subtitle (the page name does shorten it too). Andrewa (talk) 06:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would read that as suggesting that the bookseller thought Alice Through the Looking-Glass was the most common title; it is not impossible he's right, but I doubt it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In either case, this particular bookseller pointedly avoids the title that omits Alice. Andrewa (talk) 06:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm the owner of fromoldbooks.org; I'm not a bookseller. By "Proper title" I meant, actual title. The half-title page of the edition I have (Macmillan and Co., London, 1935) and the title page both have, THROUGH THE LOOKING-GLASS / And What Alice Found There, so Through The Looking Glass was used as the title for this edition, with And What Alice Found There in a subsidiary role, although, since it does not stand alone, it cannot, strictly speaking, I suppose, be a sub-title. I used Alice Through The Looking Glass for the URL partly because that's a popular (however incorrect) title people might use in searches, and partly just because I wanted to get "Alice" in the URL. Barefootliam (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

http://www.antelope-ebooks.com/childrens/CHILD/ALG/ is another interesting page... it does render the second half in slightly smaller letters. Does that make it a subtitle? I don't think so, but there's something going on obviously. Andrewa (talk) 06:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

WP:SUBTITLES
I'm trying to get some comments for a proposed guideline about titles with subtitles. I would especially appreciate any comments from editors of Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There, since it's had a vigorous discussion about subtitles in the past (and I see you just moved it). You can direct any comments over to WP:Village pump (policy)/Archive 16. Thanks! superlusertc 2007 December 23, 08:36 (UTC)

Infobox image?
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)
 * 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)

Plot Summary
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)

Psychedelia
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)

Publication Date
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) Amended quoting Oxford Companion to English Literature 5th Ed as authority. DickyP (talk) 09:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Wasp in Wig status
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)

Cyrillic Windows encoded characters in citation
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)

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

External links modified
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)

I found a reference
Hello, I found useful exhibition of University of Maryland Libraries, because it was 150 years Alice in 2015 https://exhibitions.lib.umd.edu/alice150/alice-in-wonderland/early-editions/macmillan-looking-glass I appreciate this reference is useful. Thanks! 80.72.73.95 (talk) 13:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

 * No, sorry! It will be semi-protected! It HAS strict rules of Vandalism of Wikipedia!
 * 80.72.73.95 (talk) 01:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Through the Looking-Glass


text:
Tony Hawk's Underground 2

Tony Hawk's Underground 2 is a 2004 skateboarding video game, the sixth entry in the Tony Hawk's series after Tony Hawk's Underground. It was developed by Neversoft and published by Activision on October 4, 2004 in the U.S. for the PlayStation 2, Xbox, GameCube, Microsoft Windows, and Game Boy Advance platforms. The PlayStation Portable version was released in March 15 the following year, renamed Tony Hawk's Underground 2: Remix, which includes extra levels and characters.

Tony Hawk's Underground 2 received generally positive reviews, with praise for its gameplay, aesthetics and classic mode, but criticism for its story and lack of innovation.

Gameplay
The gameplay in Underground 2 is similar to that of previous Tony Hawk games: the player skates around in a 3D environment modeled after various cities and attempts to complete various goals. Most goals involve skating on or over various objects or performing combos. Scores are calculated by adding the sum of the point value of each trick strung together in a combo and then multiplying by the number of tricks in the combo. New gameplay features include the Focus ability, which the player may trigger with a full Special gauge to cause time to slow down in order to help keep up their combo (by allowing greater control of their grind balance, for example); the Natas Spin, which can be performed on small surfaces like pillars or fire hydrants; and the Freak Out, which serves as another combo starter by having the player fill a gauge after certain bails, which will result in them angrily disposing of their board before continuing their session. In addition, the Wallplant maneuver was repurposed as the Sticker Slap.

Many levels return from previous games, including an expanded Warehouse (which also serves as the Story Mode's training area), School and Downhill Jam from Tony Hawk's Pro Skater, Canada, Los Angeles and Airport from Pro Skater 3, and Philadelphia from Pro Skater 2.

A classic mode was added to Underground 2, which allows players to skate through both new and remade classic levels in the traditional 10-goal, two-minute time limit mode that was present in Pro Skater, Pro Skater 2 and Pro Skater 3, complete with the stat points scattered all around the levels. In classic mode, the player chooses from one or two levels in which to attempt to complete enough goals to advance. All of the "remade" levels are accessible only through "Classic Mode" although once unlocked, it is possible to play them in any mode except Story.

Plot
The protagonist of the first Underground is skating in their neighborhood hometown of New Jersey when Tony Hawk and Bam Margera kidnap them and take them to a dark room with pro skaters Bob Burnquist, Eric Koston, Rodney Mullen, Mike Vallely, Chad Muska, Wee-Man, Paulie "Wheels of Fury" Ryan (a foul-mouthed kid who wears a body cast and drives a high-powered wheelchair) and Eric Sparrow (the protagonist's former friend-turned-rival). Tony and Bam explain their plans for their debut "World Destruction Tour", a worldwide, publicity-free skateboarding tour where two teams (Team Hawk and Team Bam) compete for points; the losing team has to pay for all the expenses. The player joins Team Hawk—Tony, Burnquist, Mullen, Vallely, and Muska—against Team Bam—Bam, Koston, Wee-Man, Ryan, Sparrow, and Phil Margera (team captain and Bam's father).

In Boston, the first leg of the tour, Team Bam manages to win at the last minute, thanks to one of Paulie's stunts. As a result, Burnquist is eliminated via having a tennis ball shot at his genitals. Later on, in Barcelona, Team Hawk manages to take the lead again, but the punishment for Team Bam is to have the player swap teams (in this case, Sparrow moves from Team Bam to Team Hawk and the player doing the opposite), much to Bam's relief and Tony's annoyance. At that time though, word has spread out about the World Destruction Tour, which was supposed to be a low-profile event but now is appearing on TV news because of a video of Bam and Koston letting a bull trash Phil's room.

The player and Sparrow swap back after Berlin. At that moment, an underground film "writer, producer, director" by the name of Nigel Beaverhausen wishes to bring the tour to the public but instead winds up being humiliated by Tony and Bam. After causing chaos in Bangkok (the skaters were en route to Australia, though Muska suggested stopping in Thailand), the tour lands in Australia. At the end of the leg, the player is supposed to be eliminated by being stripped down to their underwear and hit by mousetraps launched at them, but due to Mullen spotting a mathematical error in Team Hawk's points, the player has to compete with Sparrow—the loser will be eliminated from the tour.

The group ponders what to do when a skater kid arrives and shows them a video of the tour, created by Beaverhausen. Tony decides that whoever humiliates Beaverhausen will stay on the tour. Sparrow manages to steal his clothes but the player, with Nigel's clothes, goes off causing a rampage on Australian citizens, framing Beaverhausen; Sparrow is eliminated as a result.

At the end of the New Orleans leg, Nigel reveals that he filmed the whole tour, even before he met Tony and Bam in Berlin. Nigel proposes that if he is allowed to film the whole tour, he will pay for all the damages of the tour, which Tony and Bam accept after seeing the long damage bill (which stands at $21,117,551.84). Team Hawk performs a death-defying stunt called the "Equalizer" to tie up with Team Bam and is successful, but team members Vallely, Muska, and Mullen are arrested by the cops for stealing the helicopter used for the stunt, leaving the player and Tony for the final leg of the Tour: Skatopia, defined by Tony as "the skateboarding Mecca".

Team Hawk, though reduced to two members, performs well enough to win. Confident on his victory, Bam decides to blow up Skatopia. In order to save people from the imminent damage, Tony evacuates the skaters. Bam dares the player, who is still stuck in the back end of Skatopia, to exit the flaming park in a combo, which he considers impossible. The player takes the dare and secures the World Destruction Tour win for Team Hawk. Nigel wants Bam to give him the tape of the tour, which shows Phil in the toilet, shouting to his wife for more toilet paper. The tour ends with Bam and Tony humiliating Nigel once more, as Bam pulls down his pants on international TV.

During the credits, it is revealed that Tony and Bam have been officially banned from returning to all locations on the tour (even Thailand). Upon hearing the news, they reply, "Hey, good call".

Development
A sequel to Underground was announced in January 2004. During development, developer Neversoft sent its members to locations featured in-game in order to get more acquainted with the areas.

Reception
The game received generally positive reviews from critics, with GameRankings scores ranging from 70% to 86% and Metacritic scores from 70% to 85%. It was nominated to be part of the Smithsonian's "The Art of Video Games" display for the PlayStation 2 section under the Action genre, but lost to Shadow of the Colossus. It received runner-up positions in GameSpot's 2004 "Best Alternative Sports Game" and "Best Licensed Music" award categories across all platforms.

The plot received mixed comments. Douglass C. Perry of IGN found the plot to be less "endearing" than Underground's, and while he enjoyed the story mode's gameplay, other staff at IGN did not, opting instead for the Classic mode. A reviewer from GameSpot enjoyed the story mode, but felt it was too short. In contrast, Tom Bramwell from Eurogamer felt there were plenty of levels, and saw the plot as enjoyable and unintrusive, if unintelligent. Ben Silverman of Game Revolution also thought the campaign was noticeably short, but also that "that's actually a blessing, though, because the plot and cut-scenes are pretty lame". Perry enjoyed the level design, but noted some slowdown in the levels due to their size.

Some critics noted that the gameplay had not been significantly upgraded from Underground. Silverman and Perry were unimpressed with the short selection of moves introduced in Underground 2. GameSpot agreed, but concluded that "while not all of these changes are all that great, the core gameplay in THUG2 is still very strong". In contrast, Bramwell felt that the Sticker Slap and additional flip and grab tricks were meaningful, enjoyable additions. The addition of Classic mode was praised by 1UP.com, who considered it superior to the story mode in terms of levels, while adding "the gamers weaned on PS1 Hawks will shed a tear, while newer fans will get a lesson on how things started".

The aesthetics were generally well-received. Perry praised the aesthetics, which he described as more cartoony, especially in the pro skater models, than those of previous Tony Hawk's games. Regarding the sound, he praised both the sound effects and the music. Silverman particularly commended the soundtrack's variety for including songs outside the traditional skating genres of punk, rock, and hip hop (namely Frank Sinatra's "That's Life" and Johnny Cash's "Ring of Fire"). Conversely, Bramwell greatly disliked the soundtrack, although he admitted it suited its purpose of accompanying skateboarding and also found the graphical upgrades to be minor and noted frequent issues with slowdown.

During the 8th Annual Interactive Achievement Awards, the Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences awarded Tony Hawk's Underground 2 with "Console Action Sports Game of the Year", along with a nomination for "Outstanding Achievement in Soundtrack".

THUG Pro
THUG Pro (Tony Hawk's Underground: Pro) is a community-made mod of Underground 2. The mod's concept is to use Underground 2's game mechanics in every level from every Neversoft game in the Tony Hawk's series for use in single-player and online multiplayer gameplay. The mod is in beta status, under current development, and has been continuously updated since its initial beta release in 2013.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Tony Hawk's Underground 2


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christa Behmenburg

Christa Behmenburg
Article about a librarian. Name gets 499 hits on Google, many of which seem to be merely Wikipedia mirrors. blankfaze | (беседа!)  07:37, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Librarians can't be notable? Gamaliel 07:44, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Well OF COURSE they can, if they do some highfalutin' thing like invent the Dewey Decimal System. But this gal doesn't seem to have done anything spectacular other than have a fetish for mice.  blankfaze |  (беседа!)  08:42, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Delete. Non-notable. jni 07:43, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Reshelf under delete - TB 10:30, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's an article about a rodent memorabilia collector. Which is more novel than her being a librarian, but I don't feel notability has been established (a Google search doesn't suggest wide notability either), and I am also suspicious about some of the recent entries on the article Mail Art. Average Earthman 11:54, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. In this context, being a librarian is not a problem, being notable is. --Ianb 12:22, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable.   — Gwalla | Talk 22:05, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Leyden cheese

Comment: De name Leyden is spelled wrong, it should be Leiden.

Cloves?
As far as i know, Leidse kaas (whatever spelling you use here) never contains cloves. Cloves are only added to "Frisian Clove Cheese" (Friese nagelkaas), which also contains cumin seeds. Also note that Leidse kaas and Komijnekaas are not the same, as Gouda cheese with cumin also exists. The difference between Leiden and Gouda cheese lies mostly in the fat percentage (Gouda is much fatter). Xyboi 01:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This shit is delicious.--71.205.219.29 (talk) 15:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here. Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories, but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns, please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 00:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Fat percentage
One paragraph says it the cheese has 30-40% fat, which matches a lot of other web sites, but a later paragraph says 13.5%, which is presumably wrong. GCL (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leyden cheese. 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/20091023211458/http://www.boerenleidsekaas.nl/index-e.html to http://www.boerenleidsekaas.nl/index-e.html

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) 09:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Leyden cheese


text:
User:Revolutionary

I am currently a 14-year old student at School number 11 in Bucharest. Although I was born in 1991, gathering images and facts about the Revolution is a small obsession. I love history and music.

Articles created:
 * Mobutu Sese Seko in Romanian
 * Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in Romanian
 * Romanian Riots (now Romanian Revolution)
 * Yasunori Matsushige (currently a stub)

I give anybody full permission to edit my articles, because nobody is that accurate, and you can correct any mistakes you find.

You shouldn't be here.

title: User:Revolutionary


text:
Talk:Megamouth shark

Capitalization discussion
Why the capitalization in the article's title? I wouldn't go in and move it myself, as I'm not much aware of biology, so I just thought I should comment in order to attract the attention of someone who knows better than I. - Vague Rant 07:53, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

 * Because it is policy to capitalize the names of species. This has been controversial for several years, but I think the correct conclusion was reached. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Tree of Life and its archive. Pcb21| Pete 09:27, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Ahem, no such consensus reached, although some have tried to represent it that way. In particular, capitalization of fish species continues to be argued among specialists in the field, and it's not Wikipedia's place to make the decision for them. I haven't reverted all the fish articles because I don't want to misrepresent the situation, which is undecided. Stan 15:19, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I apologize. You are right that the pro-capitalisation birding lobby, whose own specialists are generally in agreement, didn't so much build a consensus as cared so long and hard on the mailing list that their preferred grammar won the day, and spread to most of the rest of the animal kingdom. Today the status quo seems to be that there is a tendency for old-timers to convert to capitals for most species (fish often excepted), and for newcomers to be bewildered by it :). The specialists in my own area of interest, cetaceans, are also split down the middle and couldn't be used to make a definite judgement one way or the other. Pcb21| Pete 15:50, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This discussion is a little confusing. Vague Rant asks, "Why the capitalization in the article's title?" to which the answer would seem to be that this is customary. But then Pcb21 answers, "Because it is policy to capitalize the names of species." No, it is NOT "policy to capitalize the names of species," but it IS customary to capitalize ALL BUT the species, as shown by the the first line of text of the ARTICLE not title: "The megamouth shark, Megachasma pelagios...", Megachasma being the GENUS and pelagios being the SPECIES. And what on Earth does any "birding lobby" have to do with this at all...? As for "old-timers" v. "newcomers", SOMEONE has to set the original standards so the rest of us can communicate intelligently and effectively; otherwise it is the Tower of Babble all over again. Some professor once remarked sarcastically that the wonderful thing about standards is that there are so many of them, meaning that if every "newcomer" who comes along sets, declares or uses his own standard, soon there are none at all, everyone doing his own thing and nobody knows which end is up, nothing fits anything, nobody knows what anybody else is talking about, and there is total confusion and disarray; much better that we all speak the same English, and not just make it up as we go along. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.8.90 (talk) 12:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Bioluminescence
I, of course, may be mistaken, but I could have sworn from my Biology classes having learned that the megamouth's distinctive fleshy lips were (at least faintly) bioluminescent. It is not mentioned in this article. --Ngorongoro 28/3/06

"The mouth is surrounded by luminous photophores, which may act as a lure for plankton or small fish, and disco fanatics."...? Whose idea of scientific description is this? (Ngorongoro, here's your bioluminescence, BTW, with assinine silliness thrown in.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.8.90 (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

pointless hoax story
The "hoax" section should be removed as it really conveys no useful information about the shark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.152.115.239 (talk) 09:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

filter feeder
J. Fish Biol.73 17-34 (2008), claims that feeding method is NOT like whale shark or basking shark. Instead it uses "engulfment" like humpback whales. I don't have time to edit right now, but if someone else is able, that would be great. 99of9 (talk) 23:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The pages as of now is not wrong, it IS a filter feeder, but it does not feed as the basking shark or the whale shark, see more details in the filter feeder page and whale shark and basking shark, agree this pages needs more info, will edit at some time but I also does not have time now. --Stefan talk 23:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Photo
The current photo is about as useless as a photo can get without actually being unencyclopedic. Most of the picture is taken up by Plexiglas dividers and what appears to be a gift shop, and the backward angle makes it almost impossible to see the head, let alone the mouth. I'd take a better one if I could, but short of that I'm tagging this page so someone else can. Kafziel Complaint Department 23:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

== What Megamouth Sharks Eat They eat plankton.

Access stats
Can anyone explain the spike in visits to this article on 12 August this year, please? Was the article featured on, say the shark portal? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Answered my own question; news of specimen caught off Mexico, from 11 August. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

small hooked teeth60 parirs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.131.58 (talk) 10:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Megamouth shark. 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/20120330130404/http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/4609/elusive-megamouth-shark-snared-mexico to http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/4609/elusive-megamouth-shark-snared-mexico

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) 17:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Expansion
Looking over the article, and considering how much published information exists out there on the species and their history as well as biology, and legacy that exists cause of theor discovery, this article needs SERIOUS attention and expansion. There is so much info here that is undersourced or not given at all, and it all needs a pretty significant expansion. I am not really one to do so myself as its not my area of expertise but if anyone is able to give this article the attention it needs it would be much appreciated. Paleface Jack (talk) 04:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Composition II
— Assignment last updated by LL03251944 (talk) 02:08, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Megamouth shark


text:
User talk:Zhixiongkang~enwiki

hello the world! Welcome to my wiki. 网页制作教程虚拟主机 石雕佛像印章工艺品

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Zhixiongkang. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Zhixiongkang~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 04:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Zhixiongkang~enwiki

A tag has been placed on User:Zhixiongkang~enwiki, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Mys_721tx (talk) 05:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

title: User talk:Zhixiongkang~enwiki


text:
Wikipedia talk:Literature collaboration of the fortnight

'''To add this table to your user page for regular updates, just add the template.

Might also be of interest:
 * WikiProject poetry

A little narrow?
I fear "literature" is a little thin, in that only a very narrow section of Wikipedians will visit and add to the Literature COTW. I was considering creating a COTW for arts music (so-called "classical" and jazz), and believe we also need one for visual arts... Perhaps it would be wisest, and of greatest benefit at-this-time to Wikipedia to have an "Arts Collaboration of the Week" - encompassing literature, visual and audial arts... If, in the future, too many items are being nominated - or it is felt they could survive independently, we could work on seperating them... --213.105.224.18 11:43, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Hmm, while I agree that COTWs have to try to remain broad and open I feel Literature is broad enough - encompassing authors, books, poetry and so on. Also, people into literature wouldn't necessarily be interested in music. I think an arts COTW would be a good idea. PS - if you think this is specific, check out The Telly show COTW. J OHN C OLLISON | (Ludraman) 16:22, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * My point was not that literature itself is narrow - it is certainly not, walk into any bookstore - my point was that the number of Wikipedians interested in actively assisting this project may be few. This project could be more effective if those interested in other arts (and hence disposed to liking literature) would also help...

Disappointment
I feel Week 1 has been a complete failure - look at the article A Tale of Two Cities - its still quite frankly too short and un-informative. Next week we must pick a topic more people are capable of writing about. --CGorman 18:12, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Ya. We really have two options - try and get more people by advertising it and looking for more contributors or broaden the scope by, say, broadening the scope to arts as the anon suggested above. J OHN C OLLISON | (Ludraman) 21:30, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * It's something that I've noticed with this - it really requires one or two people to be prepared to get the meat of the article there, and then you'll find a bunch of other people chipping in to add corrections and little bits and pieces. For the Australian collaboration of the week, two of us wrote the bulk of Cyclone Tracy, and it was featured. Then, the second time, both of us were too busy and didn't have the necessary resources for the one that was picked, and no one else had a chance to write it up in detail, so although it's improved the article, it's still nowhere near featured status. So, I think there's two solutions to this - one, pick topics that a lot of people are going to know about (I'm a bit surprised A Tale of Two Cities was a failure on this count, but I suppose you could get more common), and secondly, be prepared to do a fair bit of the work yourself if you want it to succeed. Ambi 23:10, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, sorry for not doing much on this this week but I've been much engaged on a bunch of articles (all literary, by the way: H.D., Djuna Barnes, George Moore (novelist) and Lady Gregory) that I had already started work on. I think we need to learn a bit from other COTW projects if this is to be a success. A few points (reflecting mistakes I personally have made in the past) I'd propose for discussion are:

 * People should be encouraged to consider a vote as a committment to work on the article if it is selected.
 * One week is probably not enough.
 * Advertising is good.
 * A definite interest area works well; that is, I think 'literature' is more likely to work than 'the arts' is.
 * Really really consider 'Am I nominating a hobby horse or a topic of potential broad interest?'

Back to the drawing board, maybe? Filiocht 12:22, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I think it's okay for the main COTW, but for us, a vote should IMnsHO, mean a contribution (though it doesn't have to be any sort of major one, or that would discourage voting. J OHN C OLLISON [ Ludraman] 16:10, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

George Moore (novelist)
Hi: this article is posted on WP:FAC and so far has attracted only one vote, an object now changed to a support. Please consider voting for or against. Thanks. Filiocht 08:20, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

A Template
On the French Wikipedia, they have a great literature template, which you can see here. what do you think about creating a similar template from English, or even copying the French template? Danny 19:06, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Now I am angry

 * I logged on today and ws told that I had new messages, which turned out to be a template that was an offer to come help with this. The article in question is Oscar Wilde, which I did not vote for and know very little about. I was against the template idea on the general CotW page, but now I am genuinely angry. If I post support for an article, and I get the template, then I admit that it is my obligatation to come help if I can. But if I express interest in anything on this page, and something else entirely becomes the LCotW, you cannot expect me to pitch in. To put it bluntly: People operate where they feel useful. Not everyone can help with everything. I am taking this template off, and unless a reasonable justification for this is offered, I am not going to participate in the LCotW anymore. -Litefantastic 13:51, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Chill man, that template will update when the selection is changed. Just wait until an article appears which does interest you and dive in. HTH HAND --Phil | Talk 15:56, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Litefantastic and I have come to an amicable understanding on this via out talk pages, I'm happy to say. Thanks to him for making the resolution so easy. Filiocht 16:08, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

I would also strongly prefer that people not place templates on my user talk page. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:25, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

 * Not sure what the anger is about. I've only just found out about the LCOW, and I'm interested but do not feel obligated.  If I know something about the subject and have time to contribute, I'll chip in.  If not, then I'll help next time.  Anyone have a problem with that as a philosophy?  Quill 23:15, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * No. That's what I was saying. You see, there was a big template discussion on the main CotW talk page, where they wanted to do something like this, and I said I didn't like the idea. Here, it just happened, and I made the somewhat unreasonable annoyed conclusion that the people running this page, who had apparantly gotten the template idea from the main CotW crew, had ignored the controversy behind it. But we (Filiocht and myself) did settle this amicably, and the template has been modified. And I did help out a little with the Oscar Wilde page, although it was mostly detail stuff. -Litefantastic 01:25, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * [Q heaves sigh of relief] Oh, goody! Quill 00:54, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Literature project guidelines
hi,

I am curious as to whether or not there is wikiproject literature, or some such thing? I can't find one. If there is, where is it? If not, has anyone discussed protocol for categorizing novels? They seem very poorly done right now. Shall we sort by nationality, period, style, or all of the above? Just wondering before I go blundering about making a mess of things. Peregrine981 14:15, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Hi You might look at WikiProject Novels. There's also WikiProject Books, WikiProject Poetry and WikiProject Irish literature, and probably more. Plus, blundering about seems to be one of the primary ways in which people improve Wikipedia, in my experience. Filiocht 14:42, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Pruning?
This page isn't being properly pruned - do we have an archive? Shall I set one up? I can hardly make heads or tails of what's up here right now. --Woggly 08:56, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Go for it. Filiocht 09:05, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Save the LCOTW

 * I worry for this place. I just updated the COTW list template, and this and the Gaming COTW are the only 'subject' ones left. I'm not sure how a COTW dies, but since they're participation driven, you need something like fifteen people to keep it from bottoming out. This place has been on the verge of abandonment and although it's done better than most (Just look at Science and Music, which went straight from cradle to grave), I'm not sure if the wiki-age of specialty COTWs isn't drawing to a close. -Litefantastic 15:45, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Current article "in use"
What is the point of advertising an article for collaboration when it has an "in use" tag on it? Especially since it's been there for nearly a week with no change? --Phil | Talk 15:53, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)'

 * D-oh! I apologise, Phil. That was my fault. I placed the tag in it, started editing, copied the text to a file on my flash drive, and completely forgot to remove the inuse tag from the original article. I apologise. I've been working on the article on my spare time (real life caught up with me and stuff). I should have a finished article by the end of this week. Again, I apologise. I'll remove the tag ASAP. Project2501a 16:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is that if I make any changes, they're likely to be over-written with your offline version. Once again, what's the point of advertising it "for collaboration"? --Phil | Talk 09:59, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Strikes me as a very inappropriate use of the in use tag. Filiocht 10:13, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

LCOTF
Should this page be moved to Literature collaboration of the fortnight? Filiocht 16:28, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Why bother? If it's the same 2 (or more) weeks in a row, so it goes. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:34, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)


text:
User:MetalMilitia

Matt - Armageddon Online Webmaster

Main Page : http://www.armageddononline.org/ Message Boards : http://forums.armageddononline.org

ICQ : 43606642 AOL: metalmilitia7555 Yahoo : blackened711

title: User:MetalMilitia


text:
Tekle Haymanot

Abune Tekle Haymanot (Ge'ez: አቡነ ተክለ ሃይማኖት; known in the Coptic Church as Saint Takla Haymanot of Ethiopia; 1215 – 1313) was an Ethiopian saint and monk mostly venerated as a hermit. He was the Abuna of Ethiopia who founded a major monastery in his native province of Shewa. He is significant for being the only Ethiopian saint popular both amongst Ethiopians and outside that country. Tekle Haymanot "is the only Ethiopian saint celebrated officially in foreign churches such as Rome and Egypt." His feast day is 30 August (Nehasə 24 in Ethiopian calendar), and the 24th day of every month in the Ethiopian calendar is dedicated to Tekle Haymanot.

Early life
Tekle Haymanot was born in Zorare, a district in Selale which lies on the eastern edge of Shewa. He was the son of the priest Tsega Zeab (ጸጋ ዘአብ) ("Grace of God") and his wife Egzi'e Haraya ("Choice of God"), who is also known as Sarah; Tekle Haymanot was born after his parents, who had failed to have children, pledged their firstborn to God. Tekle Haymanot was ethnically Amhara, and his 13th-14th century hagiography traces Bete Amhara as far back as the mid 9th century AD as a location.

During his youth, Shewa was subject to a number of devastating raids by Matolomi, the pagan king of Damot, which lay beyond the Jamma River. One of Matolomi's most notorious predations was the raid which led to the abduction of Egzi'e Haraya; she is said to have been reunited with Tsega Zeab through the intercession of the Archangel Michael; when Matolomi found out that they were escaping he threw a spear who turned from them to his direction and killed him. There are several traditions like that one, some of less historical value than others, which describe Tekle Haymanot's interactions with King Matolomi.

His father gave Tekle Haymanot their earliest religious instruction; later he was ordained a priest by the Egyptian Bishop Cyril (known as Kirollos in Coptic).

Later career
The first significant event in his life was when Tekle Haymanot, at the age of 30, travelled north to seek further religious education. His journey took him from Selale to Grarya, then Katata, Damot, Amhara, to end at the monastery of Iyasus Mo'a, who had only a few years before founded a monastery on an island in the middle of Lake Hayq in the district of Amba Sel (the present-day Amhara Region). There Tekle Haymanot studied under the abbot for nine years before travelling to Tigray, where he visited Axum, then stayed for a while at the monastery of Debre Damo, where he studied under Abbot Yohannes, Iyasus Mo'a's spiritual teacher. By this point he had developed a small group of followers, attracted by his reputation.

Eventually, Tekle Haymanot left Debre Damo with his followers to return to Shewa. En route, he stopped at the monastery of Iyasus Mo'a, where tradition states he received the full investiture of an Ethiopian monk's habit. The historian Taddesse Tamrat sees in the existing accounts of this act an attempt by later writers to justify the seniority of the monastery in Lake Hayq over the followers of Tekle Haymanot.

Once in Shewa, he introduced the spirit of renewal that Christianity was experiencing in the northern provinces. He settled in the central area between Selale and Grarya, where he founded in 1284 the monastery of Debre Atsbo (renamed in the 15th century Debre Libanos). This monastery became one of the most important religious institutions of Ethiopia, not only founding a number of daughter houses, but its abbot became one of the principal leaders of the Ethiopian Church, called the Echege, second only to the Abuna.

Tekle Haymanot lived for 29 years after the foundation of this monastery, dying in the year before Emperor Wedem Arad did; this would date Tekle Haymanot's death to 1313. He was first buried in the cave where he had originally lived as a hermit; almost 60 years later he was reinterred at Debre Libanos. In the 1950s, Emperor Haile Selassie constructed a new church at Debre Libanos Monastery over the site of the Saint's tomb. It remains a place of pilgrimage and a favored site for burial for many people across Ethiopia.

Later traditions
Tekle Haymanot is frequently represented as an old man with wings on his back and only one leg visible. There are a number of explanations for this popular image. C.F. Beckingham and G.W.B. Huntingford recount one story, that the saint "having stood too long for about 34 years, one of his legs broke or cut while Satan was attempting to stop his prayers, whereupon he stood on one foot for 7 years." Paul B. Henze describes his missing leg as appearing as a "severed leg ... in the lower left corner discreetly wrapped in a cloth." The traveller Thomas Pakenham learned from the Prior of Debre Damo how Tekle Haymanot received his wings:

 * One day he said he would go to Jerusalem to see the Garden of Gethsemane and the hill of the skull that is called Golgotha. But Shaitan (Satan) planned to stop Tekla Haymanot going on his journey to the Holy Land, and he cut the rope which led from the rock to the ground just as Tekla Haymanot started to climb down. Then God gave Tekla Haymanot six wings and he flew down to the valley below ... and from that day onwards Teklahaimanot would fly back and forth to Jerusalem above the clouds like an aeroplane.

Many traditions hold that Tekle Haymanot played a significant role in Yekuno Amlak's ascension as the restored monarchy of the Solomonic dynasty, following two centuries of rule by the Zagwe dynasty, although historians like Taddesse Tamrat believe these are later inventions. (A few older traditions credit Iyasus Mo'a with this honour.)

Another tradition credits Tekle Haymanot as the only Lek'e P'ap'as of Ethiopia who was born in Ethiopia and who was Ethiopian. The Christian population and Bishops of Ethiopia wanted Tekle Haimanot to become the Lek'e P'ap'as of Ethiopia. After the new Lek'e P'ap'as Abuna Yohannes from Egypt sent by the Patriarch of Alexandria arrived at Ethiopia he decided to separate: One part of Ethiopia to Tekle Haimanot and one part to himself, but Tekle Haimanot didn't want the high rank as Lek'e P'ap'as anymore and retired from his position to become a monk again.

A number of hagiographies of this saint have been written. G.W.B. Huntingford mentions two different gadlat: "one written by Abba Samuel of Waldiba in the first quarter of the 15th century and the other by one Gibra Maskel of Debre Libanos early in the 16th century". E.A. Wallis Budge has translated a third one, entitled The Life of Täklä Haymanot, which is attributed to one Täklä Sion. Tesfaye Gebre Mariam adds to these another version, popular at the monastery of Debre Libanos and containing far more details of the saint's life than any other version of the gadla, and which Tesfaye confirmed was written by Ichege Yohannis Kema.

title: Tekle Haymanot