Talk:The Twilight Saga: Eclipse

Twilight Saga

The title of the article should be The Twilight Saga: Eclipse. All over, the New Moon movie was promoted as the Twilight Saga Now Moon. It was even mentioned on the Today show when Lautner, Stewart, and Pattinson did their interviews.--HD12-21-12 (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

"The Twilight Saga" seems to be included in front of the titles when promoting/marketing the films. However, sources refer to this film as both The Twlight Saga: Eclipse and as simply Eclipse. I made the argument on the New Moon (2009 film) talk page that the name of the article should be New Moon per WP:COMMONNAME, as I think this name is used most often, and I will argue the same point here. I also used this quote as part of my argument: "And despite earlier reports that the movie would be known as The Twilight Saga's New Moon, the title will remain New Moon according to the movie's rep. They just have Twilight Saga in the artwork to identify it for anyone less devoted than your average fanggirl."Source Since both titles seem to be used and this was the only source I could find that commented on the name discrepancy, I think "New Moon (2009 film)" is a more appropriate title for that article and thus "Eclipse (2010 film)" is the more appropriate title for this one. Any other opinions would be greatly appreciated. Andrea (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You also have to make the distinction between the actual name and abbreviating the name. By your logic, we would be using WP:COMMONNAME and refer to all movies with the word "the" in it, and remove it, simply because it saves time to remove the word, it becomes the common name.

The examples shown in WP:COMMONNAME refer to different names, not abbreviated ones. The article title for the films should read "The Twilight Saga: New Moon," "The Twilight Saga: Eclipse," etc. Anonymous~Source (talk) 03:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

In this case, they are two different titles. It's not as though its title began as The Twilight Saga: Eclipse but is often shortened for the sake of brevity. The title was originally known as "Eclipse", but "The Twilight Saga" was then added to it for marketing purposes. A similar discussion is happening here about the New Moon (2009 film) article, and whatever is decided there should apply here as well. In that case, I recently noted that the title screen at the beginning of the New Moon film was simply "New Moon", even though it is advertised with the longer title. Andrea (talk) 04:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The longer title is the official name according to the studio that actually makes the movies (meaning their name is official) and the name used by all of the reliable movie sites like IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, Box Office Mojo, etc. TJ Spyke 22:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

The result of the move request was page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Eclipse (2010 film) → The Twilight Saga: Eclipse — Avoid unnecessary disambiguation. Also see Talk:New Moon (2009 film) for related move. This seems the official name and avoids the year disambiguation. Simply south (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Weak Support Per this ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 20:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support It appears that the sequels to Twilight will begin with "Th Twilight Saga:". TJ Spyke 22:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
• Don't Support It is marketed as The Twilight Saga. It is still called Eclipse. Did you see New Moon? The title sequence never had "the Twilight Saga". It was just called New Moon. ChaosMaster16 (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
• Support: A google search shows most sources calling it "The Twilight Saga: Eclipse". If most reliable sources name it that, then Wikipedia should too, per WP:NAME. --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 00:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • WP:COMMONNAME explains we should leave it as Eclipse.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
    • Actually, COMMONNAME supports moving it to "The Twilight Saga: Eclipse" as that is more common. TJ Spyke 03:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Actually no it doesn't because no one says "The Twilight Saga: Eclispe" as it is only marketed as it. Everyone says, oh, lets go see Eclipse, or oh, lets go see new moon.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
        • Maybe among your little circle of friends. When going by the criteria of COMMONNAME though, you are wrong. TJ Spyke 16:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
          • The common name is Elcipse. It is short and to the point. Could you please get other admins/people to weigh in on their opinions? This has already been discussed on the New Moon talk page two times, and both times it was agreed to be left as New Moon and Eclipse because that is the official names of the movies. To me this is pointless and I will be requesting admin patrol and closing of the requested moves on both pages. I, as well as other people, have presented enough information as to why this article should remain Eclipse. Now, if you want to remove the (2010 film) from the title, I will be happy to move the article to another page that does not ave that, but like I said, the two moves you requested will not be made because of evidence to proove that A) The official name is Eclipse per an offcial representative of Summit Entertainment (not just some wacky actor or homeless guy on the side of the street) B) WP:COMMONNAME says the title should be brief and to the point (ECLIPSE) C) Common Name again suggests that who sees the movie will refer to it as ECLIPSE rather than The Twilight Saga: Eclipse.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
    • You have any proof on your claim regarding Summit Entertainment? It's dubious, especially since they officially consider the second movie's title to be "The Twilight Saga: New Moon" and when I just checked their website I saw this movie listed as "The Twilight Saga: Eclipse". Please don't spread lies about New Moon either, the current consensus is to move it to the correct title (and that will happen in 2 days after the 7 day period is up). COMMONNAME supports using the full name as well as that is being used by most sources. TJ Spyke 22:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Please read my posts in the section below, and my posts in the New Moon talk page.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
• SupportAs per my comments in the New Moon discussion. --Labattblueboy (talk) 05:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral There is no need to rename the article because for example [google knows] that this is related to the film. On the other hand, [twilight] it is used to refer to this article, so I don't see any problem in renaming either. So you are both right and so far I don't see any outstanding reasons to either versions to be more outstanding then the other. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support, as with The Twilight Saga: New Moon, this film's official name is The Twilight Saga: Eclipse, not just Eclipse. This is its name per all actual reliable sources, not fan preferences. Attempts to argue against it using COMMONNAME are a misapplication of that guideline. Its "common name" per actual sources is its official name The Twilight Saga: Eclipse, and no valid reasons have been given for ignoring this. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Valid sources have it called The Twilight Saga: New Moon and Eclipse becuase they do not know between the offcial name and the proper name. We are an encyclopedia and give the proper name as the title followed by the marketing name in the first line of text.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
    • There is no "marketing name" and "title" the title IS The Twilight Saga: New Moon. YOU are not an official source, nor a reliable one and it is not your place to declare that it is only a marketing name because you seemingly dislike it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support - the film's official titles include The Twilight Saga: prefix, as evidenced by references on the film's prodcution company website and MANY media mentions. It's time to drop this, ChaosMaster16 - you are incorrect in your assumptions about the title. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support, although these films do not come closer to actually being a saga the name may as well be accurate, and I can't see them dropping the prefix after one film. I'm guessing that once they decide whether Breaking Dawn will be in one or two parts that those film(s) will be The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support as per AnmaFinotera said. Ricardoread (talk) 03:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

As per the last TWO times this discussion was brought up (on Talk:New Moon (2009 film), the general consensus wasto leave it as the common name per WP:COMMONNAME. To bring this up AGAIN would be rather pointless.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Except the commonname supports the full name. Besides, "New Moon" is not the correct name of that film, and neither is "Eclipse". "Terminator 2: Judgment Day" is usually called "T2: Judgement Day" or just "T2", but the article is not at either of those (as an example). TJ Spyke 03:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

QUOTE FROM WP:COMMONNAME: "Every Wikipedia article must have a unique title. Ideally, these titles should be:

Recognizable – Use names and terms most commonly used, and so most likely to be recognized, for the topic of the article. Easy to find – Use terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article (and to which editors will most naturally link from other articles). Precise – Be precise, but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously. Concise – A good article title is brief and to the point. (Even when disambiguation is necessary, keep that part brief.) Consistent – Prefer titles that follow the same pattern as those of other similar articles."

Also, "An article can only have one name; however significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph."

ChaosMaster16 (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

I quote also: ""The Twilight Saga" seems to be included in front of the titles when promoting/marketing the films. However, sources refer to this film as both The Twlight Saga: Eclipse and as simply Eclipse. I made the argument on the New Moon (2009 film) talk page that the name of the article should be New Moon per WP:COMMONNAME, as I think this name is used most often, and I will argue the same point here. I also used this quote as part of my argument: "And despite earlier reports that the movie would be known as The Twilight Saga's New Moon, the title will remain New Moon according to the movie's rep. They just have Twilight Saga in the artwork to identify it for anyone less devoted than your average fanggirl."Source Since both titles seem to be used and this was the only source I could find that commented on the name discrepancy, I think "New Moon (2009 film)" is a more appropriate title for that article and thus "Eclipse (2010 film)" is the more appropriate title for this one. Any other opinions would be greatly appreciated. Andrea (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)"

I am stressing that AGAIN ---> "And despite earlier reports that the movie would be known as The Twilight Saga's New Moon, the title will remain New Moon according to the movie's rep. They just have Twilight Saga in the artwork to identify it for anyone less devoted than your average fanggirl."Source.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 00:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)ChoasMaster16

Also see WP:PRECISION. I quote from there: "Articles' titles usually merely indicate the name of the topic. When additional precision is necessary to distinguish an article from other uses of the topic name, over-precision should be avoided. Be precise but only as precise as is needed. For example, it would be inappropriate to name an article "United States Apollo program (1961–1975)" over Apollo program or "Nirvana (Aberdeen, Washington rock band)" over Nirvana (band). Remember that concise titles are generally preferred."ChaosMaster16 (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

why

why ask to have a section cleaned up if the bo is just going to undo everything that was done? the cast section of this article states that only major cast members should be listed. i did that and the bot undid it... really? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.102.183.35 (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

How do you define a "major cast member" ? I would say Seth Clearwater is a major character in Eclipse, not least because of his role in Riley's second death. Yet, Seth and the actor who plays him (Boo Boo Stewart) are not mentioned in the cast list. Other less important characters such as Jane's twin brother Alec (Cameron Bright) are listed though. 161.24.19.112 (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Trailer

According to Clevver TV, the trailer for Eclipse will be premiered in "Remember Me", appropriately staring Robert Pattinson. "Remember Me" will be showing on March, 12, 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.166.215 (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

What are the actor salaries in this film?

I would like to see the break down on the actor salaries in this film, what the actor salaries are and the left over to make the film for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.140.176 (talk) 08:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

film is out where is the plot

We usually list full end to end plots for films. Where is this one? Truth And Relative Dissention In Space (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Chill it came out 12 hours ago.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Give it some time, I dont think anyone can watch it once and memorize the entire plot. It will appear soon enough, when someone has seen it enough times and can easily identify the stages of the plot. Its different to the book though, so it might be harder to distinguish than usual if mistaken for it.--Stripy Socks (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Currency

What's the currency for this article? I assume it is in American dollars. In the lead section, It set a new record for biggest midnight opening in domestic (United States and Canada) in box office history, grossing an estimated $30 million in over 4,000 theaters., meaning Canada's currency is already converted into American dollars? I'm going through the style guide for currencies.  Davtra  ^(talk) 07:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

'incredible' $162 million

Wow, that is a lot, but should we really use the word 'incredible' in an encyclopedia?--77.99.231.37 (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I think not. It appears to be removed.  Davtra  ^(talk) 23:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

VERA

Sabrina Frank plays vera sche won a cast in germany by till schweiger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.158.88.212 (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Release Dates (New Moon and Eclipse)

Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 7#Start date template this is why {{start date}} should not be used in the info box.

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Archive 10#Release dates release date discussion

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Archive 19#Release date problems This is stating what should and should not be included in the release date section (check here)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Archive 4#Release date good discussion about rlease dates alsoChaosMaster16 (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

The infobox is for the first public release of a film plus the first theatrical release in the country of production. An LA premiere is neither a Film festival nor public and should not be included. Also, the project currently supports the use of using {{Start date}}, see the documentation of Template:Infobox film. BOVINEBOY2008 00:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

No, actually, the infobox lists the notable releases. If it was made in the UK, but released in the US before the UK, both would be listed, along with the public premire, wich is notable and usually beofre the wide release. Did you check the links I provided?ChaosMaster16 (talk) 00:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

(ec) And the sources (for both). Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 00:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

EC? Well, the sources are stated in either the box office (as in New Moon) section or Release (as in Eclipse). Im not sure on Twilight yet....ChaosMaster16 (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

ec = (edit conflict). On New Moon, the source says only November 20, and both, the promotional and the official poster says November 11, I see nothing about L.A. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 01:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, its not that hard to google or bing it...ChaosMaster16 (talk) 01:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Google or bing are not reliable sources. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 01:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Search in the google search box "New Moon premiere date" and "Twilight premiere date". You'll get so many results it will blow ur mind.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 01:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Why only search it, why it is not added. Also, if the posters say that was released on November 11, IT was released on November 11. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 01:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

.... 11/20/09 is not November 11, its Nov. 20.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 01:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Beside IMDb I couldn't find something about L.A., so it is unsourced, and will be removed tommorow. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 02:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

http://team-twilight.com/20090904/los-angeles-moon-premiere-date-announced/ there ya goChaosMaster16 (talk) 02:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

As determined by WP:FILMRELEASE and by consensus, the notable releases to be listed in the infobox are only those public releases I described above. A premiere is not open to the public and thus isn't a release but a private showing. It can be mentioned in the prose, however. BOVINEBOY2008 02:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

What consensus?ChaosMaster16 (talk) 02:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

This is where the current WP:FILMRELEASE was developed and agreed upon. BOVINEBOY2008 02:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why the premiere, a public event, is not considered some sort of festivle. I opened a new discission: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films#Release Dates, feel free to contribute.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 02:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Should this be added? (UltraAVX auditoriums)

"The film is the first to play in two of Cineplex Entertainment's UltraAVX (Ultra Audio Visual Experience) auditoriums located in Canada. UltraAVX features screens that are considerably larger than Cineplex's traditional ones and a Dolby Digital surround sound system. Christie Solaria 2230 DLP Cinema projectors provide distinct digital and 3D presentations. Guests can reserve seats, which are extra wide, high back, and are rockers."

I have the sources on hand, but I didn't add them yet because I'm not sure about adding the whole paragraph, which would be in release. I don't want it to be too much of an advertisement, but since this film's the first one, I figure it's relevant.EclecticEnnui (talk) 00:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is not to include it because it is only tangentially related to the film; possibly in the Cineplex Entertainment article. Cresix (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Cast

Despite an abundance of source some editors do not think it is worth mentioning Peter Murphy as The Cold One] and deleted it . While I can understand not wanting to list every cast member I strongly feel the article is poorer for failing to mention a cameo role like this, if not in the Cast section then Casting section should mention how the director invited him to take part. Sure it is necessary to mention the continued appearance of most of the characters from the second film but it is not like there has been any news coverage about the appearance of Bella's mother or Elizabeth Reaser who have very minor roles in this installment. -- Horkana (talk) 03:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Formatting

On a more minor note it is unfortunate more editors do not appreciate the use of 'line breaks and indentation to make it wiki source clearer and more readable. It really does make it easier to identify which citations would benefit from additional details. More importantly which ones plainly had the wrong values filled in, and this article had quite a few glaring errors in the citations before I fixed them.

In a really good article the citations would not be left open and improved, even to the stage where the best links and sources are backed up in advance (using WebCitation.org or similar) to protect the article against link rot.

It is fine to collapse the references down later but when an article is still a work in progress and far from Featured Article status it is a bit premature to strip out all the line breaks and indentation when citations clearly need more clean up work and additional details. -- Horkana (talk) 03:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

... and even more line breaks stripped. It is a good idea to have a line break between different sources, like Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes, and also to have a line break between different film critics. (There is no point removing those breaks unless you are rewriting the critical response section so that instead of discussing it one review at at time you gather the reviews and use them to talk about the director, the cinematography, the acting, the writing, in a more coherent overview.)

I'm not going to fight against this if editors are determined to discourage others from editing and improving the citations, I'll move on to another article. Shame really. -- Horkana (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The Twilight Saga: Eclipse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100717135128/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com:80/hr/content_display/news/e3ic1df212a5f55796f8e1cd748b261e9b1?utm to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3ic1df212a5f55796f8e1cd748b261e9b1?utm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100706095650/http://wcfcourier.com:80/entertainment/movies/article_d2a8ab58-aaff-52f2-97b4-0f745770b8c0.html to http://wcfcourier.com/entertainment/movies/article_d2a8ab58-aaff-52f2-97b4-0f745770b8c0.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on The Twilight Saga: Eclipse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081217082845/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com:80/hr/content_display/film/news/e3ifc7bb2290700c27f4a0ada4363d9b59e to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3ifc7bb2290700c27f4a0ada4363d9b59e
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100629235628/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com:80/hr/film-reviews/the-twilight-saga-eclipse-film-review-1004101007.story to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/film-reviews/the-twilight-saga-eclipse-film-review-1004101007.story
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081204062709/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com:80/hr/content_display/film/news/e3ifc7bb2290700c27f4a0ada4363d9b59e to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3ifc7bb2290700c27f4a0ada4363d9b59e

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Twilight Saga: Eclipse. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20120119001820/http://music.yahoo.com/blogs/chart-watch/week-ending-june-13-2010-wheres-that-genie-when-you-need-her.html to http://music.yahoo.com/blogs/chart-watch/week-ending-june-13-2010-wheres-that-genie-when-you-need-her.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 08:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)