Talk:The Seven Minutes (film)

improving this article...

There are a number of decent critical reviews of this film film to be found in Google Archives.[2]. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Right. Probably each one of Russ Meyers' films could be worked up to FA quality-- there's that much info out there on them. I've often thought about working seriously on one of his film articles, but this particular one doesn't interest me all that much... I'll add what I can later on though, between work on Japanese sexploitation cinema... Dekkappai (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It would appear that the film exists in both R-rated and PG-rated versions, with the latter missing about 10 minutes of footage. Has anyone done a comparison of the two versions? Muzilon (talk) 14:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Actress' nude scene

Tabercil left a note that we should discuss whether the mention of the actress' nude scene should be in the article. I think it's pretty obviously a "Yes".

1. It's reliably sourced to an article whose main subject is the nude scene
2. Nudity is a significant part of Russ Meyer's work, since he was primarily known for sexploitation, and this was one of his few films in mainstream Hollywood.
3. The actress was not known for nude appearances, which fact alone makes this nude scene worth mentioning
4. The nude scene itself was the subject of at least one news story, almost qualifying it for stand-alone "notability", and far surpassing the "notability" of most individual facts in most articles.
5. The nude appearance is in this film, so of course it belongs both here and in the article on the actress, much more so than it would in a generic "nudity in film" article, in which this particular appearance would be borderline trivial.

I'm sure many more points could be made. The main point is, there's no real reason to exclude mention of it, and it is completely relevant to the film, the actress' career, and any non-censored article on either would incomplete without mention of it. Dekkappai (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Absent any reliable sources that the supposed nude scene is actually in this film, a point several editors conspicuously ignore, there's nothing to discuss here. And if "being the subject of at least one news story" demonstrates notability, then my neighbor's daughter's iguana deserves a Wikipedia article. And it was on TV, too. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

No. Whether the scene made the final cut is entirely irrelevant to whether it belongs in an article on the film. Scenes that wound up on the cutting room floor are constantly and appropriately mentioned in such articles. If your neighbor's daughter's iguana had a major role in a film produced by a major studio, directed by a major director, then sure s/he's notable. If not, this is a tired and absurd argument. Dekkappai (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Get real. The claim in the article is that the supposed scene in the film supposedly attracted media attention. The only supporting source for this is a wire service article about SAG's position on nudity in film, published well before the film was released, mentioning the film in passing. And the "tired and absurd" argument was yours; I simply pointed out the absurdity, and now you're running away from your own argument, tossing invective around rather than admitting error. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

HB, you're all worked up over something, but I can't see what it is. If you had an argument here, I could reply to it. Instead you make absurd statements. The claim is that the actress appeared nude for the film. This is backed up by a reliable source. The fact that the article is about that scene in that role is evidence that it attracted media attention. But that's not an important point anyway. Your claiming that I'm running away from my own argument is so blisteringly absurd, based on your own non-argument, that I see no reason-- indeed no way-- to reply to it. Based on your behavior both on the article's history, and here, I believe you have a hidden agenda you are not stating upfront, and therefore cannot be reasoned with. I'll help improve the article once consensus has been settled. Based on your own editing history I highly doubt you will attempt to do the same. Dekkappai (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The term "conspicuously ignore" is a sword that cuts both ways, as reliable sources are easily available to those who search. In order to serve our readers and give the article proper encyclopedic balance, and most specially as the nudity by this actress in this film was noted as significant by sources,[3][4][5] et al, I believe it merits more than a one-word mention in one short sentence. While the one New York Times review left in the article showed that that one reviewer may have felt the nudity was "minimal", even minimal was quite exceptional for an American mainstream feature film of that era (how times have changed). Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The first source you cite doesn't actually say the actress had a nude scene; the second is an unreliable SPS; the third is just another copy of the wire service article, predating the film by months, without any information about what was actually included in the film. And you/'re simply, utterly, unmistakeably wrong about your film history, film nudity by notable actresses was probably more common in the late 1960s/early 1970s than it is now; for example, both Glenda Jackson and Jane Fonda won Best Actress Oscars for 1970 and 1971 for roles involving nudity (a point not mentioned in any of the pertinent Wikipedia articles, making one wonder about the encyclopedic significance of detailing onscreen nudity in general). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, "conspicuously ignore" is a sword that cuts both ways. I will not speculate upon why an editor might not do a source search himself, nor speculate upon dismissiveness of a UPI article that was itself picked up because of its significance. And without WAXing or OSEing or speaking about your daughter's iguana, we're discussing THIS one film, by a porn director as a mainstream effort, the director's and the involved actor's attitudes toward nudity and in THIS film in particular, and nudity in it by an actress who had never done nudity before. I will not presume that readers have no need or wish to know that nudity exists in film, nor that as an aspect of this film it is for some unfathomable reason not worth inclusion. Expanding the reader's encyclopeic understanding of this subject as treated in context to this film, improves the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

All it takes is actually looking...

Resolved

For example.... hundreds of book results dealing with this film and/or its nudity, found in a simple and quite easy google search.[6] And in just the very first page of results is found such as

1. Russ Meyer--the life and films: a biography and a comprehensive, illustrated, and annotated filmography and bibliography offers a specific list of "who said what and where" critical reviews, which acts as an aid in tracking down some topic-specific reviews.
2. Tales from the cult film trenches: interviews with 36 actors from horror, science fiction and exploitation cinema offers an interview with Charles Napier and his involvement with Russ Meyer in this and other films.
3. The New York times film reviews includes the Times review aready cited in the article.
4. Big Bosoms and Square Jaws: The Biography of Russ Meyer, King of the Sex Film also offers a specific list of "who said what and where" critical reviews, which acts as an aid in tracking down some topic-specific reviews.
5. The Very Breast of Russ Meyer speaks toward Meyer's use of nudity in this film.
6. Drive-in dream girls: a galaxy of B-movie starlets of the sixties shares how Sharyn Hillyer was up for a role in this film, why she eventualy declined, and shares how the film did not help Marianne McAndrew's career.
7. Imitations of life: a reader on film & television melodrama deals with sex and love and nudity in Hollywood films and how the controversy within this film echoed the current moral controverseries in the industry itself.
8. Down and Dirty: Hollywood's Exploitation Filmmakers and Their Movies deals with Meyer and his use of exploitive nudity in films, and includes specific reference to this one.

And despite protestations to the contrary, THIS article, authored by UPI Hollywood correspondent Vernon Scott, specifically addresses McAndrew having had (past tense) nude scenes in THIS movie. And though the article may precede the film's eventual release, it follows upon the completion of principle filming.

Sarasota Herald-Tribune: "[Marianne McAndrew] will be remembered as the too sweet millinery propietress in Hello, Dolly! To lose that image, the brunette beauty shed (past tense) all her clothes in a new movie The Seven Minutes. Inasmuch as there is little call for vestal virgins, if indeed there ever was - Marianne concluded that if she wished to continue workking, what better way than divesting herself of clothes and inhibitions"... and concluding, "'There is no way an actress can become a star via the sex symbol', Marianne lamented. The best bet, then, is a good nude scene in a popular movie. That's what Miss McAndrew is attempting at any rate."

AND the dismissed Newsweek article, even lacking the hardcopy and complete text (WP:AGF), it takes no OR or Synthesis to see that it is contextually obvious as a review of The Seven Minutes (film)...

Newsweek, 1971, Volume 78, page 264: "...especially in the performances. Wayne Maunder at the priapic defense attorney, is as uninspired as his name, working his way compulsively through a king's wardrobe, but never changing his smirk. Lovely Marrianne McAndrew apears as a pink ornament whose only emotion seems to be embarrassment at having the shed her clothes. She seems little more than a pawn of Meyer's skin game— one played by the rules of the 1960s..."

To add to MQS' sources, here's a column, again, specifically on this role in this film:

Show Beat

By Dick Kleiner

HOLLYWOOD - (NEA)- Marrianne McAndrew, so beautiful in "Hello Dolly!" she even made some people stop watching Barbra Streisand, wanted to change her image.

"I wanted a chance to get away from the Mary Poppins image people have of me." she says. "I wanted a chance to be contemporary."

She got what she wanted, in a big way. She's now before the cameras in "The Seven Minutes" and it's so contemporary she even has a nude scene. At least, you'll think she's nude.

"I looked like a censored letter," she says, with bits of tape over me here and there. Russ Meyer (the director) was very considerate and gentlemanly about it. He even never referred to it as a nude scene. He kept saying, 'Now we'll do the sans chemis scene.'"

She says she doubts if she could have done it at all if she didn't like the man she acted opposite in it. But, fortunately, the actor was Wayne Maunder and they've known and liked each other for some time.

It's important, if you're sans chemise, to be avec un ami.

Why does this feel like an AfD? Do we now have to argue endlessly over each line in articles even if an editor who never contributes content decides to argue it? This role has been reliably sourced, its "notability" has practically been established as a stand-alone article, there's absolutely no reason to exclude it from this article, it is censorship to exclude it, and this argument over something so obviously sourced and appropriate only seems to be a way to waste the time of constructive editors. Dekkappai (talk) 02:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Easy there fella... I think you're starting to forget WP:AGF. Yes, Hullaballoo does seem to be somewhat of a deletionist but I will defend his right to be that. And I am inclined to agree that the nudity is notable, thanks to the sources found. So how do we fashion the statement for the article? Tabercil (talk) 03:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Between the original citation, the ones MQS has found, and the one I found, I think it's pretty firmly established that the nude scene, and the role are "notable" enough to mention in the article(s). But I'd just think a simple mention is necessary. Something along the lines of: "Known for her recent virginal performance in Hello Dolly, Marianne McAndrew attempted an image change with a nude scene in The Seven Minutes." ... AGF? I remember it. But it's not a suicide pact ;-)... Dekkappai (talk) 04:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

He's right Dekk... and though it may feel like an AFD, the article on the award-nominated film is not itself is danger of deletion. Let's simply keep it focused on the contextual significance of this scene in this film, as covered by multiple reliable sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It's weak - if anything I think it'd belong on Marianne's article than on the Seven Minutes one. Do you think you could fashion one that ties more directly to the film? Also, which sources do you feel should be used to back it up with?

Anybody is free to make a suggestion, I was just giving an example off the top of my head. Perhaps this is better: "The film attracted some attention for Marianne McAndrew's nude appearance. McAndrew was known at the time for her recent role as Irene Molloy in Hello, Dolly!." I'm up for better suggestions though. Dekkappai (talk) 13:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

One more, this about McAndrew's hiring for the role:

I told you Russ Meyer was serious about Marianne MacAndrew, of "Hello, Dolly!" for that female lead in his movie version of Irving Wallace's bestseller, "The Seven Minutes." Well, Russ has signed her for the movie which starts shooting today. He's also signed Wayne Maunder (TV's Lancer) to play the investigative defense attorney in the pornography trial. Producer Meyer co-wrote the script (with Richard Warren Lewis and Manny Diez) and will, of course, direct. This marks his 23rd directorial job and his 23rd film.

Dekkappai (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Two more relevant cites:

Meyer Casting Next Film

Nudie moviemaker Russ Meyer, who just completed "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" for Fox, has already started casting his next. It's from Irving Wallace's best-seller, "The Seven Minutes." This one's also for Fox and Russ has been making it clear to all aspirants for the female leads that they most definitely will have nude scenes. Both in and out of bed. Is anyone surprised?...

Fox, meanwhile, is going forward with the movie version of Irving Wallace's best-seller "The Seven Minutes-- or nude movie Tycoon Russ Meyer is... [several notes on casting decisions]... but meanwhile, Meyer's seriously considering Marianne McAndrew, of "Hello, Dolly!" for Maggie Russell, one of the leading roles.

Dekkappai (talk) 16:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• Here's my own thought on a contextual, encyclopedic, and well-cited inclusion of the information... about Meyers, his history, this film, and McAndrew in this film...

Known for use of nudity in his films, director Russ Meyer had planned for nude scenes to be in this film as well, and so informed aspirants for female lead roles of the requirement. After casting interviews he considered Marianne McAndrew to be suitable, and subsequently signed her for the lead role of Maggie Russell. McAndrew, previously known for her work as the prim and proper Irene Molloy in Hello, Dolly!, accepted the role based upon her wish to change her own image and in order to gain more work within the industry. She reported that during the filming itself, Meyers was "considerate and gentlemanly".

What say? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, but rather than "known for use of nudity", perhaps something more like, "known for his films in the sexploitation genre"? Dekkappai (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me offhand. If there are no objections from the peanut gallery, I'll drop that into the article in a day's time (the delay is to allow Dekk & Hulla a chance to respond). Tabercil (talk) 22:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• Modified, to incorporate Dekkappai and Tabercil suggestions:

  Known for his films in the sexploitation genre, director Russ Meyer, planning nude scenes to be in this film as well, informed female lead candidates that nudity would integral to their roles. After casting interviews he considered Marianne McAndrew to be suitable, and subsequently signed her for the lead role of Maggie Russell. McAndrew, previously known for her work as the prim and proper Irene Molloy in Hello, Dolly!, accepted the role based upon her wish to change her own image and in order to gain more work within the industry. She reported that during the filming itself, Meyers was "considerate and gentlemanly".

  --Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Looks fine. (Not to nit-pick, but maybe "...planned to include nude scenes in this film as well...") Would be nice if the rest of the article were this well-written and sourced... Meyer's films are ripe for good sourcing and work, so, maybe later... Dekkappai (talk) 02:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Love fine-tuning....

  Known for nudity in his sexploitation genre films, director Russ Meyer planned nude scenes in this film as well. He informed female lead candidates that nudity would integral to their roles, and after casting interviews, considered Marianne McAndrew to be suitable. He subsequently signed her for the lead role of Maggie Russell. McAndrew, previously known for her work as the prim and proper Irene Molloy in Hello, Dolly!, accepted the role based upon her wish to change her own image and in order to gain more work within the industry. She reported that during the filming itself, Meyers was "considerate and gentlemanly".

  Looking better? --Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

  Looks good to go! Dekkappai (talk) 04:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks. Glad you like the latest tune-up. We'll see what Tabercil advises. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

  That first sentence still doesn't sit quite right with me. How about, "Known as the "King of the Nudies" for his work in the sexploitation film genre, director Russ Meyer planned to include nude scenes in this film as well."? 'King of the Nudies' title should be fairly easily sourceable-- in fact it's even on his tombstone... Dekkappai (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Yes... it's easily citable.... Meyer as "King of the Nudies":

• Known as "King of the Nudies" for his work in the sexploitation film genre, director Russ Meyer planned nude scenes in this mainstream film. He informed female lead candidates that nudity would integral to their roles, and after casting interviews, considered Marianne McAndrew to be suitable. He subsequently signed her for the lead role of Maggie Russell. McAndrew, previously known for her work as the prim and proper Irene Molloy in Hello, Dolly!, accepted the role based upon her wish to change her own image and in order to gain more work within the industry. She reported that during the filming itself, Meyers was "considerate and gentlemanly".

  OK, that version gets my stamp of approval. (I think "Known for nudity" was bothering me because it looked like we were trying to shoe-horn in nudity-- of course Meyer was known for nudity in his films. I think the reference to his "King of the Nudies" title makes it more natural.) Anyway, no more nit-picking on that sentence, I swear ;-) Dekkappai (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

  I just added one important word to seperate this from the porn genre: "mainstream". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment. So, despite all the hugger-mugger and mutual congratulations, we still have no reliable source that the supposed nude scene was actually included in the film; we have an apparently reliable source (Kleiner) that says it wasn't really a nude scene but "At least, you'll think she's nude" (and quoting the actress as saying she looked "censored"}; we have other important details sourced to a gossip columnist not exactly renowned for her accuracy [7], whose cited column proves incorrect on other points; and an anachronistic "known-as" title that apparently wasn't applied to Meyer until a few years later, by Roger Ebert. But hey, given that you guys keep referring to the director as "Meyers," you seem to place a lower value on accuracy than I do. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, Michael, should a contributor with a reputation for accuracy in writing (rather than criticism of other contributions) have a question about whether the the "King of the Nudies" title was known before 1971, here are a couple back-ups:

• Albuquerque Tribune | Albuquerque, New Mexico, October 01, 1963, p. B-7 "Russ Meyer, king of the nudies and maker of "Europe in the Raw" and "The Immoral Mr. Teas"..."
• Mt Vernon Register News | Mt Vernon, Illinois | Friday, September 26, 1969; 9-A "King Of The Nudies to Film 'Dolls' Sequel"...

So far, I see no such question from such an editor though... Dekkappai (talk) 00:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Good job. Again, just goes to show what a little actual research can find. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment Big thanks to HW for pointing out an easily corrected typo. I just went back and removed a few errant "esses". Good job. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Also... pleased to see that through Dekappi's diligent research, it is verified that Meyer was referred to as "King of nudies" in sources pre-dating production of this film, and thus not an attribution invented later. The intent to and filming of nude scenes for this mainstream film by the "King of the nudies" Russ Meyer has been repeatedly confirmed in numerous sourses. It being the first nude scene ever of Marianne McAndrew, and McAndrew's worries about this scene in this movie, and her reasons for doing the scene, have also been repeatedly verified in multiple reliable sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I remember when Beyond the Valley of the Dolls (Meyer's film before this one) was in preparation, he was being called "King of the Nudies" all over the place. Some big mainstream publication-- Time? Newsweek?-- ran a story on him, and I'm pretty sure Playboy referred to him as the "King" (they did a pictorial on the film, of course)... Dekkappai (talk) 02:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The dismissive statement by HW, "...an anachronistic "known-as" title that apparently wasn't applied to Meyer until a few years later, by Roger Ebert" is incorrect in th eextreme, reflects a lack of research into proper WP:Verifiability]]... research that clearly shows the title "King of the nudies" was in referring to Meyer decades before Roger Ebert decided to borrow it... and research that was actually quite easy to do.[8] Some of the sources found in that search include:

Chicago Tribune, Febrary 16, 1969: "...reaped huge profits and Meyer soon be came known as king of the nudies..."

Eugene Register-Guard, Octobr 19, 1969: "...Russ Meyer has been called 'King of the nudies..."

Los Angeles Times, November 30, 1969: Headline: "King of the Nudies on Biggest Film Caper Yet", and in article: "Today, Meyer, long crowned the King of the Nudies..."

Toledo Blade, December 14, 1969: "[Russ] Meyer has been called 'King of the nudies'..."

As accuracy and verifiability are there for those who seek it, perhaps its time to get this extremely well-sourced, contextual, and encyclopedic entry about this filmmaker, this film, and this actress into the article to replace that one rather bland and forgettable sentence (no offense Dekk). Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Known as "King of the Nudies" for his work in the sexploitation film genre, director Russ Meyer planned nude scenes in this mainstream film. He informed female lead candidates that nudity would integral to their roles, and after casting interviews, considered Marianne McAndrew to be suitable. He subsequently signed her for the lead role of Maggie Russell. McAndrew, previously known for her work as the prim and proper Irene Molloy in Hello, Dolly!, accepted the role based upon her wish to change her own image and in order to gain more work within the industry. She reported that during the filming itself, Meyers was "considerate and gentlemanly".

  The question now... is just how much over-sourcing does any one assertion in any one article require? Tabercil? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

  Yeah, I knew he was known by that title at least 2 years before Seven Minutes came out. I was surprised that, as the Albuquerque Tribune citation above shows, he was known as "King of the Nudies" as early as 1963. But then the "Nudie-Cutie" genre to which this refers died out by about 1964-- it was supplanted by the "roughies" (which Meyer(s) also pioneered)... Both genres are in sore need of stand-alone articles, by the way. I'd start them if I didn't find the Japanese sexploitation films so damned fascinating :-) Dekkappai (talk) 03:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Here's a real hoot!! I found Roger Ebert himself stating in the Chicago Sun-Times in February of 1969, "...in an article crowning Meyer as "King of the Nudies," the Wall Street Journal reported last April that his first film..." and again repeating himself in September of 2004, "...after the box office success of his “Vixen” (1968) he [Meyer] was crowned “King of the Nudies” in a front-page profile in the Wall Street Journal." SO now we know at least one of the pre- Seven Minutes sources that declared "King of the nudies"... at least as early as April of 1968.... the Wall Street Journal. Go figure what a litle actual research toward verifiability and accuracy might find.

Alright, I think Mike's last suggested version of the text is sufficient to resolve the issue IMO. So I spent 20 seconds copying and pasting the text to the article, and another 5 minutes running down the full refs. <G> Tabercil (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Tabercil, but I think-- I may be wrong-- that the halfthree-quarters-of-a-dozen citations after "King of the Nudies" was intended as sarcasm towards our esteemed and accurate colleague, HB W... Dekkappai (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Y'know... this may be the first time I've ever felt the need to apply WP:TROUT, though whether it's for HBW for his no quarter defense of a position that might have been long-overrun, Dekk for WP:POINT or me for being too stupid to realize what Dekk did... <rolls eyes> Ah well... I'm gonna call this all closed. Tabercil (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah-- MQS did the actual sourcing. Feel free to trout me any time though... So make that three to go 'round... Dekkappai (talk) 00:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

References

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Seven Minutes (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/20080105152713/http://www.fmcinema.com:80/russmeyer/ebert.html to http://www.fmcinema.com/russmeyer/ebert.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) 12:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)