Talk:The 10th Kingdom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

TV
Television Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Assessment comments
Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the priority scale.

Contents

[edit] Cleanup

This article is full of "work in progress" notices and the like, and needs more complete information and some serious updating. Szyslak (Image:Szyslak sig.png [ +t, +c, +m, +e ]) 23:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Can you help?

User:Mare-Silverus 16:36, 11, Aug 2006


[edit] Copyvio

I'm removing material from NBC's official site, as it's copyvio. I've done the same on the character pages, which are currently on AFD. If they survive, the should probably be pared down and merged into one big article. -- Vary | Talk 17:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Character list

I really don't think all the characters should be listed as it is right now. The main ones would be enough really. Tartan 17:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed most of the character list and left only the main characters.--NeilEvans 18:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Entire 10th Kingdom Catagory Cleanup

Yo. Because I've got the time on my hands, I'm looking through the 10th Kingdom pages, and find that A) People say they (the pages) need to be cleaned up, and B) Nobody has apparently been working on them. I say apparently because I'm stupid and just realized I havn't been checking the dates on more than a few pages... >.<

Specifically, I'm working on Windel's page at the moment... and I've noticed some things: Pretty much, a lot of the page is a rehash of the movie plot, from the viewpoint of the character. If I recall, the other character pages are following suit. Perhaps we could cut this down a bit?Bengaley 17:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think there's far too many "fan" sites listed in external links, and the current "status" of each only adds to the problem. Wikipedia is not DMOZ. "Official" links, IMDB, and perhaps one to the DMOZ category (using the correct template) should be more than adequate. -- "Trivia" can be removed. The link is simply a page within a previously referenced site (see previous note) and the bit about the similarity to a European map can be incorporated into the article text. vmz 12:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • In response to the comment about "working on Windel's page", with all due respect, Daniel Lapaine's role was Prince 'Wendell' not 'Windel' Suggestion: see the mini-series before editing to assure correct data. This wiki is not abandoned if you are wondering. (agree with removal of Trivia section; removed)

[edit] 9 Kingdoms section

This should be either renamed to Ten Kingdoms (As it includes the 10th Kingdom in the list), or a Horizontal Rule should be placed above the Tenth Kingdom to seperate it. I'm partial to the last one, myself...Bengaley 17:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ive done it.--NeilEvans 18:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I was hoping to get some discussion before going forth and doing it ^_^;Bengaley 20:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
It was only a minor edit so I just went ahead and did it.--NeilEvans 20:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Truth, but I wasn't quite certain if it should be one or the other yet. But it seems appropriate.Bengaley 18:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Synopsis

What tense should this be in, past, present, or future? I'm not certain yet, but it seems it switches tenses in a few places, and before I start making edits... Which one should stay?Bengaley 18:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

As a work of fiction it should be written in the present tense, unless a character is refering back to a time before the events of the film. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NeilEvans (talk • contribs) 21:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Merge proposal

As noted in the category cleanup topic above, most of the Trolls page is simply a rehashing of the plot of the movie. There are no independent sources and not likely to be. The articles should be merged. 24.4.253.249 19:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

No the two articles are very different, one deals with the Trolls as portrayed in the fil, while the other deals with the film as a whole.--NeilEvans 20:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Can you phrase that in terms of Wiki guidelines? Maybe find some reliable 3rd party sources to validate the Trolls article? 24.4.253.249 09:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the merge proposal. There is nothing really unique about it and all of the information there could easily be incorporated into the plot section for the main article (which is insanely short for a 7 hour movie).Collectonian 05:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Similar Movies

Is there any real need for this section? It would seem to be covered just as easily by appropriate category links. Collectonian 05:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major Clean Up and Character Articles

Since the original Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/10th_Kingdom_character_articles months ago, nothing has been done to clean up any of the Character articles at all. Taking the Be bold idea to heart, I tonight I went through and removed all information that violated the no original research and copyright policies. With that stuff gone, there nothing was left but a regurgitation of the plot from this article! Since that is very much pointless, I went back through ALL of the character articles and set them to redirect back here and removed the links to them.

I've also gone through this main article and done quite a bit of clean up. The 10 Kingdoms section is gone as it was all copy/pasted from the original site. Just because NBC no longer has the site live does not mean the content is no longer copyrighted. I also cleaned up some writing, fixed headers and formatting to try and get it more in line with the film style guides. There is still much left to be done. A reception section is needed, a background/production section (the making of would make a great source here!), the plot section needs a complete rewrite, and of course it needs sourcing.

I'll work on the needed stuff as much as I can, but of course I welcome help from other editors who want to improve this article. It has the potential to be a great article and with some hard work I think this article can at least make it to B class quality! Collectonian 08:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

So how the Hell do you get to the character articles now? --Illustrious One (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't. They aren't needed. The relevant character information is already here. Collectonian (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

So basically they've been deleted? --Illustrious One (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

They've been redirected. So if by some chance someone does search for them, it will bring them here. They articles did not meet WP:FICTION, and did nothing but retell the entire plot of the movie over and over again. As the movie, much as I love it, was not that popular, there is no out of universe information on any of those characters to establish notability, so they are unlikely to ever meet the notability requirements for inclusion. Collectonian (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

So what's the difference between deletion and redirection might I enquire? I'm quite new on Wikipedia? --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

With a redirect, if someone searches for the old character articles, they will be redirected here. With a deletion, the item is completely gone and the user would get a no page exists. Redirection can also be used for dealing with alternative names for stuff, such as movies with different names in US and international releases. If you go to Léon the Professional, you will find that it redirects to Léon (film) because it is an alternate name for the movie. For a much more detailed explanation of redirects, check out Wikipedia:Redirect. :) Collectonian (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I see. But why redirect something when you could just delete it? Is it a temporary measure while the articles are improved or is it to make sure they are never on public view again on the off chance that someone tries to re-create them? --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It makes it easier to monitor for recreation, and GFDL requires that if any info from one article is moved to another, we must redirect to maintain the history. It also helps that if someone thinks of creating it, they can see the redirect and will hopefully realize that such an article has no consensus and won't try creating it. Collectonian (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SPOILER REMOVED

I removed a major spoiler from the character section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.104.68 (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It has been put back. Wikipedia is NOT a spoiler free zone. Collectonian (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Virginia Lewis

Given the fact that Virginia's mother is Christine Slevil-Lewis-White and Virginia was born before Christine married into the House of White shouldn't her full name be Virginia Slevil-Lewis. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You've got me -- where did you find the source for Christine's maiden name? I don't remember it being in the script or the novelization. Also, should her last name be listed as White after all, since she committed bigamy by marrying Wendell's father? I thought she was listed as Evil Queen/Christine Lewis in the credits (though I could be wrong as it's a long time since I watched it.) Pneumaticat (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know but the article gives Christine's maiden name as Slevil-Lewis so technically that should be Virginia's sir-name as well. Presumably before marrying Tony her sir-name was Slevil. Odd name but then again with names like Blabberwort I suppose you can't complain.--Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but the article is not sourced. Obviously, whoever wrote it must have gotten the info from somewhere, but where? As I said, so far as I know, it's not in the film anywhere, so as far as we know, it could have been invented for someone's fanfiction story and whoever wrote it into the article thought it was canon. I'm wondering if it is. Pneumaticat (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
A thought: There used to be a lot of backstory about the characters on NBC's 10th Kingdom site, however that site has since been deleted. If this is the source, then how would that be referenced? There is no information about that anywhere else (and I remember hearing that the writer (Simon Moore) actually refuted most of NBC's backstory to boot). Pneumaticat (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I finally got off my behind and checked the disc. In the character introduction, Tony's section says that he "married socialite Christine Slevil after they met on a ski-trip." So my guess is that someone saw that and extrapolated to come up with the name. None of the main characters are listed in the end credits on the DVD (how weird), but she's Christine Lewis in the film, so I'd say that's what we should list her as. No one in the movie ever calls her Christine White to indicate she took her new husbands name that I can recall. Collectonian (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you - I just looked there myself and yes, her maiden name is listed under Tony's description. I'd say that's a permanently verifiable reference, so I will add it (as a reference) to her description in case anyone else wonders where it came from. I'll also delete the name "White" (if you haven't already). Incidentally, these character notes are the same ones that were previously on NBC's website, which I know Simon Moore disagrees with - however, as they are now a permanent part of the DVD, I guess it doesn't matter what he wanted, especially since I don't believe the interview where he expressed his opinion is available any longer. Incidentally, I know Jupiter Optimus Maximus was previously wondering why Virginia didn't use her mother's maiden name as part of her surname, but I think it would be strange if she did. No one I know does it (I live in the U.S., like Virginia). Pneumaticat (talk) 00:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Nor do they in England but once they got married I assumed Antony and Christine both changed their surnames to Slevil-Lewis like "Zeta-Jones" which would by effect make Virginia's name the same. I think it would make sense if her name was Christine Slevil-Lewis because that would make her first two initials C S which together with Lewis could be a reference to CS Lewis the author of The Chronicles of Narnia which features an evil queen similar to Christine. This would be one of a few references to famous writers in the series, for instance the character Virginia falling in love with a character called Wolf is an obvious reference to Virginia Woolf. When I said her "maiden name" I was referring to the name Christine employed before she married into the Royal House of White. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think they did, for the reason that they are introduced and credited in the show as just "Tony Lewis" and "Virginia Lewis," so Christine's name did not become a part of their surname. The only place Christine's maiden name appears is in the production notes on the DVD. I got the impression that her name before her marriage into the House of White was "Christine Lewis," and she was "Christine Slevil" before she married Tony. Pneumaticat (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: the possible reference to CS Lewis: While interesting, I don't think this is intentional. The information on the characters in the production notes is the same character backstory information that NBC had on its (now-deleted) website for the show. I remember reading an interview with Simon Moore (the writer) where he was emphatic that NBC had created character information without his input or consent; apparently a lot of the character backstory NBC made up conflicted with whatever he had in mind for a sequel. So, I don't think he included this as he did the reference to, for instance, Virginia Woolf. Pneumaticat (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
It also occurred to me (though it may be obvious to everyone else) that her last name was created because it ends in "evil." Pneumaticat (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes you're probably right. Of course the "evil" thing would explain how they came up with the name Slevil which would fit in with the CS Lewis thing. I hadn't actually noticed the "evil" reference. Still, how cheeky for want of a better word of NBC to make up backstories for the characters without Moore's consent. I mean, Tony and Christine meeting on a skiing trip? I really can't picture Christine skiing, can you? Sort of ruins the whole evil queen image. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Skiing, no. Apres-skiing, yes. And Tony could have been attracted to that if all he was looking for was a socialite to marry, which would have made Virginia's grandmother's dislike for him understandable. But so far as the evil queen image is concerned, I got the impression that she was possessed by the swamp witch; the only real personality of Christine we saw was the one in the flashback and at the end where she died. I couldn't see "Evil Queen Christine" addicted to pills, either, and the real Christine was (which was what made her vulnerable to the swamp witch in the first place, I guess). Pneumaticat (talk) 15:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I was just saying that it's funny to imagine an evil queen skiiing. Might I ask what apres-skiing means? I didn't know Christine's mother disliked him but I haven't actually seen the series. I want to which is one of the reasons I'm interested in this article. With regards to the pills, I'm not really surprised. Evil queens are humans after all, albeit insane, evil ones. I don't think she's possessed by the Swamp Witch, she was just tutored by her wasn't she? Then again I've not seen the programme so I suppose I can't comment. It's a pity they've redirected the article on Christine because it was very interesting. Was she narcissistic by the way? I seem to remember reading somewhere that she was. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Going by the DVD character guide, she was not possessed, she willingly became her student and learned under her. Collectonian (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Thought so. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, well, I was not going by the character guide, but by her death scene. She only subconsciously remembers Virginia before then and not even that for very long. Then, as she dies, she suddenly remembers everything. Apres-skiing is sitting around a ski lodge wearing ski apparel but not actually intending to go out to ski. I read the term in a novel once, I think. Pneumaticat (talk) 02:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh. Thank you. She might have forgotten all about Virginia while she was being evil then remembered in her dying moments. I've heard dying can put one's life in perspective somewhat. I myself wouldn't know, I've never died. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 11:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Good question. I'm do for a rewatch so I'll see how they listed her in the credits. Collectonian (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
This isn't actually relevant to the article but just out of curiosity is The 10th Kingdom available on DVD in England? If so, where can I get it? If I see it again it will no doubt assist me in contributing to this article so in a way my quest to procure the DVD is relevant to the article, lol. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it is. :) Amazon.co.uk has several VHS and DVD options listed as well as the book! Collectonian (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Collectonian. You know, I think this is the start of a beautiful friendship. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 19:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Standardization of Terms

There may be more terms I find later that need it, but right now I was wondering if it appropriate to refer to the evil queen as the Evil Queen or just the evil queen. Right now it is not standardized: Most of the references say Evil Queen but not all are capitalized. Also, sometimes she is referred to as just the Queen. I always thought it was correct to use lower case after the article "the." Certainly she isn't the only evil queen in fiction - and she isn't the only one in 10th Kingdom either (even though the other one is called the Swamp Witch - should that be capitalized after "the" also?) Either way, it should be all one way or all the other. Opinions? (mine goes with lower case; I just don't believe it's a proper noun, but I'll bow to consensus and edit appropriately. Pneumaticat (talk) 00:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to go with Evil Queen since that's the name she's listed as in the DVD character section, and no other name for her as Queen is given that I can recall. ~tries to remember~ What did they call her in the opening when they went to visit her in prison and it all got started? Collectonian (talk) 00:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I think they called her the evil queen (or the Evil Queen); I'm pretty sure it had a "the" in front of it. Hard to tell if it was capitalized or not, though.
I noticed you removed my IMDb references as invalid references. I copied their forms directly from the Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series) page which is held up as being one of the best style/referenced pages (which is why I used it as an example). See Wikipedia: Manual of Style (writing_about_fiction), the List of Exemplary Articles. Why, therefore, is such a reference acceptible for Buffy (where the sources are awarded by wikipedia) and not for 10th Kingdom? Pneumaticat (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
IMDB is not a valid reference. This has been agreed on, multiple times, at WP:RS. The MoS really needs to update its examples, considering Buffy was passed back in 2006 to FA and looks like it needs to go to FAR as it has some referencing issues. Collectonian (talk) 01:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
No actually, the trolls simply called her "the queen." I guess they were on the same side so they didn't think of her as evil. Even after she killed their father I think they still just called her "the queen." Pneumaticat (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)