Talk:2013 in film

Spring Breakers

I've seen multiple articles on other sites that say that the movie Spring Breakers will be released on March 5, 2013. Does it need to be added to the table, or has that date not actually been confirmed yet? Alphius (talk) 05:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Its article says that date as well. Alphius (talk) 05:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • It does seem strange that it would be coming out on a Tuesday, though. Alphius (talk) 15:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
    • This film does need to be added to the list for sure now. It's been officially announced that it's getting a wide release on March 29th, and I think it's premiering in certain cities on March 22nd. Alphius (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Removal of "Medium" section in 2013 films table

I removed the "Medium" section of the table earlier though it has since been reverted. As "animated" is a film genre, I think that that information should be put under the "Genre" section. This would reduce the size of the page which is an issue being discussed at the 2012 in film article. --2nyte (talk) 10:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree I don't see the point of having it all films are live action unless they are animated it just seems stupid to have. Redsky89 (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, though as I said if a film is animated we should but that under the "Genre" section of the table. Even in the source for animated films e.g. [1] for the film Escape From Planet Earth, "Animation" comes under the Genre section. I think this is an obvious change that should be made. Thoughts? --2nyte (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Although I have had discussions with people that were angry with seeing Animation as a genre (I believe the user's name was ProfessorKilroy), I've never agreed with having a medium table. It just isn't necessary 174.3.6.27 (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC) (TheMovieMan222)

I don't think that animation should be considered a film genre. Saying that a movie uses animation doesn't tell you anything about what it's about (just that it's animated). Saying that a movie is in the action genre, for example, would give you at least some idea about its content. Both animated movies and live-action movies could be in any genre, but "animation" and "live-action" shouldn't be considered to be genres themselves. Thus, I would support bringing the "Medium" section back. Besides, if "animation" was going to be listed as a genre on this article, then it seems like "live-action" should be as well. Alphius (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Animation should definitely be considered a film genre. Not only do all the sources in the article do, though Wikipedia does as well; In every opening line of every film article on Wikipedia the genres are written, and in every animation film "animated" (or its variation) is present with other genres.

Examples:
The Lion King is a 1994 American animated musical drama film
Toy Story 3 is a 2010 American 3D computer animated comedy film
The Incredibles is a 2004 American computer-animated action-comedy superhero film
Compared to:
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King is a 2003 epic fantasy-drama film
External source:
Monsters University source in article depiction "Animating" as a genre

I would like to know if there is any further protest regarding "Animation" to be put under genre. --2nyte (talk) 02:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Just because "animated" is present in the lines you mentioned doesn't mean it's a genre. You could just as easily say "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" is a 2003 live-action epic fantasy-drama film". I guess the main problem is that you seem to be saying that "animation" is a genre while implying that "live-action" isn't. If you think "animation" has to be considered to be a genre for the purposes of this table, then "live-action" should be as well. 129.93.5.131 (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to log in. I usually make sure to do so since I'm on a shared IP address. Anyway, the majority of the edits on that IP address aren't mine. Alphius (talk) 22:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess you could assume "live action" is a genre, as genres are merely categorisations, though it would be similar to also state a film was colour or black and white, sound or silent. All we are doing is differentiating the films. --2nyte (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

A genre is a type of story a film has. Science Fiction is a genre, Musical is a genre, Comedy is a genre, Horror is a genre. Animation is not a genre. Animation is a medium. Animation isn't a type of story. Beauty and the Beast is a musical, Shrek is a comedy, WALL-E is science fiction, The Incredibles is a super-hero film. As you can see animation isn't one type of story. Jon23812 (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. That's what I was trying to say! Alphius (talk) 04:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Studio column definition in table

Can I just clarify that the "Studio" column should contain the company/companies that produced the film and not the company/companies that distributes the film. The film distributor(s) vary in certain countries, i.e. different countries have different distributors. This should be considered as the page is not regional specific but world-wide. --2nyte (talk) 02:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

A Bottle in the gaza sea

Why is there "A Bottle in the Gaza Sea" in the box office list when it's a 2011 film? And even then it's not listed in the main table either.--Mjs1991 (talk) 09:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Wide and Limited Releases

Could someone please add this for the January-March section? Markunator (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

we arent adding that because the wide and limited releases are different in every country. Redsky89 (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, that didn't seem to be a problem last year. Markunator (talk) 13:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem with that is it opens up a United States/North America bias when you add wide/limited release columns, and we are attempting to make these pages more worldly 174.3.6.27 (talk) 12:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Seperate columns for North America, UK and Australia grosses

So are we only just stating the worldwide gross of the highest grossing films and not NA, UK and Australia? JoseCamachoJr (talk) 04:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

to give it a worldwide view like we did last year. Redsky89 (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Zero Dark Thirty

Should Zero Dark Thirty be added as its worldwide release was in 2013?--Mjs1991 (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

No it was first released in 2012 Redsky89 (talk) 23:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Bollywood

Should Bollywood movies really be listed on here? No one outside of India even gets to see most of those movies. Markunator (talk) 15:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they should. This article, as well as all the other years in film articles, are meant to cover all films in their specified year. It doesn't matter who sees them; films should be on here as long as they were released during the year. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Using Boxofficemojo or boxoffice.com

I'm really confused on what site we are getting our worldwide grosses from, are we still using boxofficemojo like we always have or using boxoffice.com now cause someone is sourcing that site JoseCamachoJr (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

use box office mojo its what we're familiar with and is usually reliable. Redsky89 (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Movie to Add to Table

I just saw a commercial for InAPPropriate Comedy, which looks like it already has an article here. It comes out on March 22nd, and needs to be added to the table. Alphius (talk) 04:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Reincarnated

Reincarnated (documentary) on snoop dogg, may not be high profile enough to add, and in any case, i usually mess up these grids when adding items. if others feel it belongs, they can add it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

"Byzantium" - UK release date

The UK release date for the Neil Jordan film Byzantium (which is a British film, by the way) is May 31, not May 28 — so please don't change it to the latter. I have linked filmdates.co.uk as a source for this information. Markunator (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

it says right on its page that it is being released June 28 Dman41689 (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

In the US, sure, but it's a British film! Besides, it's not listed on June 28 on this page, it's listed on May 28! Markunator (talk) 14:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Question about release dates

I noticed that in this list, people are putting in the films release dates by when they are first released period, and not when they are released in America. I thought the release dates in America is what we were going by. Is there something I missed? Defender miz (talk) 14:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course! Nobody around the world cares about anything happening in the USA. (Well, they do, just joking!) The English Wikipedia is a Wikipedia written in English language, but by people from all around the world and for people from all around the world. You may try providing several dates per entry, but only if you will manage to do that neatly. Otherwise, the earliest release date is the only relevant, no matter where the release takes place. YLSS (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

BTW, same for music albums. If a US band releases a new album in, say, Germany five days earlier than it does in the USA, it should be listed under the Germany date. YLSS (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

You say its by first release, but on the 2011 page, Thor has its US release, in 2012, Avengers and Hobbit have their US releases and in 2013, Thor: The Dark World has its US release listed. 174.233.129.164 (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

If US release dates are unimportant, then why do companies set US dates before international dates? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.54.167 (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The above commenter has a valid point. U.S. is the prime location for release of movies, that is undeniable. Hollywood pretty much defines movies, so I think this page should be focused on U.S. films/release only. For movies from other countries such as U.K. or Asia countries, they can have their own separate page, much like 2012 in Irish music, or 2012 in Asian music. Of course, this will mess up the whole system and it requires much time and effort to make separate pages, etc., so that's a downside. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hairolfitri (talk • contribs) 17:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but wasn't that how the film pages used to be before this one was supposed to become more global? Alphius (talk) 00:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The Zero Theorem

The Zero Theorem needs to be added to the table. It is going to be released on December 20th. Alphius (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Deaths

Hey what happened to Huell Howser? He's dead and it's not there anymore. Put it back on! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.124.240 (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

He only appeared in one film the page states that a person must have at least 2 film credits to be put on the list he belongs under Notable Deaths in Television 2013 not here. Redsky89 (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

New column suggestion: Country of origin

I think there should be a column that dictates the country of origin for each movie release, since now apparently we're including movies from Asia and UK as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.101.253.46 (talk) 06:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments regarding inclusion of non-U.S. movies, release date and wide/limited release removal

Trying to make this page more "universal", so to speak, by including movies from countries other than U.S., and listing down the earliest release instead of U.S. release, is a bad idea, in my opinion. It would look so much neater otherwise - unless, as mentioned above, we include a column for "Country of origin". Also, what happened to the "wide" and "limited" release column? Why can't we just generally accept that movies that were released in under 600 cinemas in the U.S. are considered limited release, as stated in the Wide release page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hairolfitri (talk • contribs) 17:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I would definitely support including the country of origin in some way. That would make everything less confusing, and would help to make the coverage more thorough. I'm not sure why the Wide/Limited release part was removed, but I assume it was because it was only specific to the United States. Although, if that was going to stay specific to the United States, wouldn't some of the movies on here now really have no release at all? Alphius (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh and while we're on the subject, Despicable Me 2 was released a week prior to July 3rd in certain countries. Shouldn't this be changed on the page? One problem with trying to make this page more "global-friendly" is that it is so much more complicated to find the initial release date of each movie. This new system is flawed; we should've stuck to only U.S. movies, and U.S. release dates, like the previous years in film page. Fine, it will not be as global-inclusive, but at least it's neater and more accurate, whereas on this page, some of the release dates are U.S., and some are some other place else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hairolfitri (talk • contribs) 03:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

why do you have such a problem with this page having a world wide view? we got in trouble last year because the page didnt have a worldview and we are not letting it happen again. this change happened last year and no one seemed to care I don't know why people are complaining about it now if you have any questions about it go to the Talk:2012 in film they went over it and made the decision to change it. by the way their is a page for American films its called List of American films of 2013. and the discussion to remove limited and wide release is listed in this talk page above. its because limited and wide releases are different in every country. Redsky89 (talk) 04:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

But the List of American films of 2013 article can't be sorted by release date. If you try, the release dates are just in alphabetical order rather than chronological order. Alphius (talk) 00:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

List of films - clarification

This "list of films" seems to be focused on English-spoken films only, and possibly even only part of that. Most, if not pretty much all, movies from non-English countries are not included, and it is doubtful if all movies from English-spoken countries are included. Hence, simply stating that this article covers the list of films is misleading. Can we reflect this in the title of the article, or at least in the opening sentence of the article? Riemerb (talk) 06:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

umm did you even look at the page or click on any of the movie titles? we have alot of films that aren't in English Redsky89 (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I did and i saw only perhaps 5% of non-English movies, hence my question. Riemerb (talk) 14:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

these films are on the list and are not in English, Table No. 21, The Grandmaster (film), Matru Ki Bijlee Ka Mandola, Race 2, Television (film), Special 26, Journey to the West: Conquering the Demons, Murder 3, Kai Po Che!, I, Me Aur Main, The Attacks of 26/11, I'm So Excited (film), Himmatwala (2013 film), Dragon Ball Z: Battle of Gods, Settai, Fists of Legend, Java Heat, So Young (film), Bombay Talkies (film), Shootout at Wadala, Go Goa Gone, Aurangzeb (film), Only God Forgives, Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani, Fukrey, ExtremeSpeed Genesect: Mewtwo Awakens, D-Day (2013 film) we're doing the best we can the year is not over yet more films will be added to the list. Redsky89 (talk) 17:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

What is the criteria for including a film in this article? Can any film first released in this year be included? And is that valid for articles on all other years?--Cattus ^talk 11:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

the film must be released in 2013 and must go by the films first release date in theaters (premiere dates dont count) and the film must be released in theaters. and it's suppose to be like that on other years but those pages are a mess and have American bias which we're not suppose to have.Redsky89 (talk) 15:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

+1

There's a movie called "+1" (also known as "Plus One") coming out on September 20th. It doesn't have its own article here right now, but one could probably be made. I've found a decent number of sources talking about it. Alphius (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for Sharing

Not in this or the 2012 list. How did this not make either? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.194.68.115 (talk) 06:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Missing About Time (2013 film)

About Time (2013 film) The film was released in the UK on 4 September 2013 and in the US on 1 November 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kid Bugs (talk • contribs) 13:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Table format

In my previous edit, I changed the article in a way I thought would make it easier to locate different types of information about a film when editing. The edit got reverted, but I thought it was a good idea to put the different columns on different lines to make it look cleaner. The edit didn't change how the article appeared; it only changed how the edit section looked. Can someone please take a look at what I did and give me some feedback? Thanks Eventhorizon51 (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Marvel Studios

Like what the user said on the 2012 in film talk page should Marvel Studios just be credited for Iron man 3 and Thor the dark world? Not Disney? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.153.156 (talk • contribs) 15:55, January 12, 2014

Length

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It's disappointing to see people repeatedly removing the "too long" tag from this article, without either fixing the problem, or raising the reasons on the talk page. At 332,397 bytes (without images) the page is too long to read, let alone edit, on some devices. The current sections allow plenty of scope for creating sub-pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I can barely even scroll the article myself. The obvious split points are by three month intervals, which are already separate sections that can be moved easily and links left to each in a similar manner as large filmographies or discographies. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree that this needs to be split. I run a brand new OS on a fast connection and I was darn near able to eat a bagel before the page loaded fully. Quarterly splits would work quite well. Or, how much would splitting off the notable deaths section give us? Also, just want to note that the 2014 list is already at 90kb, and we're less than three weeks into the new year...this is likely to be a recurring problem. Dana boomer (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose splitting list There is value in having a complete list on one page. An alternate proposal could be to have a list of every film's title outside of the current existing table and without lists of actors or other information, then segment that table in any clever way elsewhere. There can still be a way to have an article called "2013 in Film" and list all major releases in that year. Other aspects of the page could also be split. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I would support removing the excessive information in the tables. This information can be found in the actual articles and we don't need to list them here. Another potential splitting could be Notable Deaths, which could also be cleaned up by removing the entire filmographies of each person. BOVINEBOY2008 16:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I actually think that we should keep the article the way it is. As Bluerasberry has said, there is a value in keeping a complete list on one page. This article, along with all of the other "years in film" articles are lists that are meant to cover every film release (and film events) within the year covered. Therefore, these lists are intended to be long. Also, it would be inconsistent to split this page because it wouldn't correspond with all the other "years in film" pages, which all cover a single year in film within one page. I personally don't think there is a natural way to split this article. Please see WP:SPLITLIST. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Not only is this not yet resolved, but the article continues to grow. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

In the two weeks since I wrote that another ~3kb has been added. This is ridiculous: I'm calling an RfC. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC

This page is currently around 342Kb long, and still growing. Some editors find it virtually unusable. Is this acceptable? How should it be reduced in size, or split? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• One way to reduce the page in size would be to limit the number of cast members listed for each film, and limit the number of films listed for each of the people who died. If people want to see the full cast for a film or the full filmography for a person, they can go to the page for the film or person respectively. We could set a guideline like "usually only two cast members per film or two films per person, and never more than five for either", or something like that. (Also, shouldn't the page have stopped growing by now? No more films are going to be released in 2013, and no more people are going to die in that year.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  • This page can indeed continue to grow. The year is over, but there are still many films in the year that are not listed. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 03:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
• Agree with Metropolitan90's suggestions. I'd go further and suggest removing the actors appearing in each film entirely since they're listed on the film's main pages. As well, it might be difficult to determine which cast members to include in the list when the cast is composed of either all notable actors or no notable actors. I do think the director and screenplay writer should be kept, however, because that information isn't necessarily included in the film's main page.
  With respect to each person listed in the notable deaths section, I'd suggest something like the following guideline: "usually listing two films per person and not more than five, with preference given to major award-winning films and then to films that are most notable for their impact on culture or the film industry." I know that there could still be some argument as to what constitutes notability, but such a guideline could be used to exclude the least notable films (aka the low-hanging fruit) such as Conrad Bain's Who Killed Mary What's 'Er Name?.
  Finally, I'm curious as to the criteria for including films in the list. There aren't many international films listed and the number of independents is quite limited as well. It seems that any film of any length released anywhere in the world in 2013 can be included and if that's the case, this list could easily be ten times its current length once every film is included. Maybe it would be worth developing a guideline for deciding which films can be included in the list? Ca2james (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
• I would agree with limiting the number of cast members listed for films on lists such as these. In the "crew" column of the tables, I think it would be reasonable to have the director(s) and screenwriter(s) plus three of the main cast. In the notable deaths section, I would agree to list 3-5 of each person's most notable works.
  As for what films should be included in the list, I think we should include all pages in Category:2013 films that are not stubs. This criterion should be sufficient to hit all films most people would look for in these "years in film" lists. I would also support doing this for all future articles, as this is likely to be a recurring problem. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 04:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• There is currently this discussion about addressing the MOS for these sets of articles, and it should address the issue of the pagesize. Alot of extra, un-needed text can be trimed down. Happy for this RfC to close as the MOS discussion is now drawing to an end too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  • This article is now 4Kb bigger than when the RfC started. I see no reason to close it, unless it's with a decision to trim this article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

That's the point of the MOS discussion. It's nearly complete, and when dropped into the WP:MOSFILM page, it affects this page. I reckon it'll reduce this page by about a third. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Just by de-linking the genres in the first quarter section, made a reduction of -1,183. I see no value in linking to these here, esp. as most of them were to generic terms such as crime or comedy. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

"This page is currently around 342Kb long, and still growing. Some editors find it virtually unusable." The page is now at 261kb following the implementation of WP:FILMYEAR. Who are these users who "find it virtually unusable"? @Pigsonthewing: - as the page size has been decreased by a third (as predicted), are you happy to close the RfC? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2014

The death of Nagisa Oshima should be noted. 46.116.250.15 (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Did the edit request :) WhisperToMe (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC) Thanks again! 46.116.250.15 (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

People who edit this page may be intrested in this discussion about cutting down on excessive material. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Release Dates?

What is with the way these movies are listed? Just because a movie screened at a film festival in 2013 doesn't mean that it is officially a 2013 film. There at least 15 movies on this list that has had their "general release" in 2014, thus they should be in 2014.--209.240.48.138 (talk) 02:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Change the release dates list on it

I think we should make changes on the release dates, regardless of WP:FILMYEARS says. We should just change the years on it from the earliest release date to the dates of the films released from the country that produced those movies. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

MOS:LARGENUM

I am condensing the dollar values in the highest grossing table per MOS:LARGENUM. Film community consensus also exists for these changes. Note the instructions at Template:Infobox film as well as this discussion. We don't know what Box Office Mojo's margin of error is and there is no specific need for this much precision. The specific MOS language that covers this is: Where explicit uncertainty is unavailable (or is unimportant for the article's purposes) round to an appropriate number of significant digits; the precision presented should usually be conservative. Precise values (often given in sources for formal or matter-of-record reasons) should be used only where stable and appropriate to the context, or significant in themselves for some special reason. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2013 in film. 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/20130525011531/http://www.megatrailer.tv/?q=java_heat_trailer to http://www.megatrailer.tv/?q=java_heat_trailer
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121227102552/http://www.boxofficeindia.com/npages.php?page=shownews&articleid=5035&nCat= to http://boxofficeindia.com/npages.php?page=shownews&articleid=5035&nCat=
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://wikitop.alwaysdata.net/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2013 in film. 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/20151016043313/http://www.labiennale.org/en/cinema/70th-festival/screenings/sept2.html to http://www.labiennale.org/en/cinema/70th-festival/screenings/sept2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)