Talk:The Twilight Saga (film series)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Message1

Woohoo! I've finally created a seperate article about the Twi film series =P. I've tried my best but still the article looks kinda mediocre. Any thoughts of improvements, etc?Mo HH92 ^Talk 20:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

We need development, exc. but should we copy everything from their seperate film pages?ChaosMaster16 (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

I'd vote no, because of the GFDL license, I'd wait until it evolves eventually, or completely re-write them. ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 01:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I say no as well. This article won't contain everything that is in each of the individual articles anyways. It serves as an overview, with links to the other pages if the reader wants more information. Andrea (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Box office table

I'm just curious to know why the Runtime has been included within the box office table? I thought the purpose of the table was to show the gross and budget of the films? I've also removed Eclipse from the table as it's redundant to include that with "NA". It would be best to wait until after it has been released and then add the correct data. --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 00:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Box Office table is there to help compare the films. Having the runtime, the director, the release date plus the box office information makes it easier to navagate and compare information.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 12:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Yeah to compare the grosses, budgets and ranks. Can you provide me with a GA/FA of a franchise/film series that has such? It looks way too messy. You know what, I'll create the darn table for the director/producer/writer, etc. --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 18:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

PS. What? Is it not on par with the Harry Potter table! You know how I know? Because I just edited that yesterday too, and to my surprise got praised for on the talk page. So what are you talking about on par with what? You know I don't mind anyone reverting a big and major edit of mine if they can have the decency to come on my talk page and discuss it with me and at least leave an edit summary. You know what -- I'm about to make a crew table and leave the runntime in the box office table (because it's not like of this is not discussed in the flippin infobox, so ALL of this is redundant. The box office table it to break down the films' box office performance, but you're so hell bent into destroying the whole logical concept), but if you keep this up I will report US to edit warring. I've had enough now. --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 18:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

To make one other table would be A) inconvienient, B) messy C) unnecessary. ChaosMaster16 (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Exactly! Because it's listed in the infobox already! --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 21:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I extremely agree with the removal of the runtime, this box is not meant to compare the films, it's meant to display the box office performance. It's not comparing anything ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 21:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mike as well. The table is obviously meant to be about box office performance, so let's keep it that way. Including runtime seems to imply that the length of each film affects its budget and/or box office performance, or vice versa, when in fact we have no reason to believe that they are related. Andrea (talk) 04:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

They are and can be related. I believe that, and I am sure many other people do also. But besides that, people, including me like to compare the directors and runtimes, and going to two different pages and/or tables to do this does not make sence.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Exactly, we shouldn't have the director etc. info at all then. The section is called "Box office performance" not "Film comparisons" Any info other than the box office performances is just blatantly irrelevant. The budget shouldn't even belong here outside of comparing it to the gross. And just because you say "I believe that, and I am sure many other people do also" doesn't mean they do ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 22:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you take a look at User:ChaosMaster16/NewMoon? I think im going to make another table for the director and runtime and see what other people think. Youre welcome to help. ChaosMaster16 (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Where are these "other people"? It looks like it's just you that thinks that. Wikipedia is run on consensus, not what one person feels how something should be. I think we've made our decision that it should be left alone. Am I right? --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 23:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we should remove anything irrelevant from the box office table and focus further on the improvement of the article instead of spamming it with tables. Why not soundtrack tables? Why not casting tables? Why not timeline tables?... ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 00:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. But it seems box office and critical reception tables are pretty much standard on all film series/franchise articles. That's what I do—go around and make sure tables are updated per WP:MOS and the data is up-to-date. Like I said, I have not watched any of the Twilight films, and am totally clueless when it comes to information about. I'm going to removed the irrelevant data from the tables, like we have agreed. ChamosMaster is welcomed to get a 3rd opinion, but have a feeling that they will tell him the exact same thing. Chamos, I do like how you have the Total colspan'ed out. I really do and I am going to keep that code. --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 00:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in The Twilight Saga (film series)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of The Twilight Saga (film series)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "first":

• From Peter Facinelli: Carroll, Larry (2008-02-19). "'Twilight' Film's First Family Revealed: Peter Facinelli, Elizabeth Reaser Lead Cullen Clan". MTV. Retrieved 2008-02-21.
• From List of Twilight characters: Larry Carroll (2008-02-19). "'Twilight' Character Film Portrayals". MTV. Retrieved 2008-02-21. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• From Twilight (2008 film): Larry Carroll (2008-02-19). "'Twilight' Film's First Family Revealed: Peter Facinelli, Elizabeth Reaser Lead Cullen Clan". MTV. Retrieved 2008-02-21. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 04:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Mention of Stars disliking the subject material?

I see no mention here of the stars distaste of the subject material for the movies and those who are fans of said films. They have been repeatedly showing utter disdain for the films. Especially Robert Pattinson who was quoted as saying "The more I read the script, the more I hated this guy [Edward]" I'd say that as this is a pretty rare phenomenon in film it should be mentioned. Links to most recent stories here: http://filmdrunk.uproxx.com/2008/11/twilight-queer-ftw and here: http://filmdrunk.uproxx.com/2008/11/another-twilight-star-disses-twilight 24.18.103.11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC).

Ebaums World Raids?

So anyway, ebaums hosted a raid of this, I'd like to know if anyone could investigate and stuff. Oh and eBaums are blaming 4chan. This was all eBaums. I would just like ebaum community to understand the disrespect they did wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.237.119.12 (talk) 13:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

What about you talking about? Anyone who follows such petty "raids" on the internet are doomed to nonsense. —Mike Allen 02:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Parody?

Does anyone know of any plans to parody the Twilight films? Maybe as part of the Scary Movie Series? Or a new genre of parody, "Vampire Movie"? Das Baz, aka Erudil 18:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No, theyd need to be licensed and Twilight is just too big right now to be mocked. They have however caused a load of parodys like sketches. E.g. Queen Latifah at the Peoples Choice Awards. And rip off movies and tv shows. But no actual films, or influences in films.--WhereTheLinesOverlapXX (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The only parodies I know of are in book form. New Moan: The Twishite Saga - A Parody by "Stefordy Mayo" is one such book and is a parody of the first two Twilight novels. Although it was enjoyed by people who dislike Twilight, some fans (like myself), found it pretty funny since it mostly mocks Meyer's writing style and (apparent) tendency to display some of her religious ideals in the plot and characters - things which annoy a surprising amount of fans, I've found. Not sure if its available in stores outside the UK though. You can check it out here if you want (and hey, don't knock it...): http://www.waterstones.com/waterstonesweb/products/stephfordy+mayo/new+moan/6912144/ -- Keys767 (talk) 02:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, parodies don't require permission from the creators of the thing they're parodying, and "Weird Al" Yankovic made his entire career from this fact. So did the the cast and creators of Saturday Night Live, which did parody Twilight with Firelight, where Taylor Swift played Bella. See video on Hulu. And also remember, this isn't a forum. ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 08:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Gross Revenue

It needs a source, till then I am removing it.98.82.106.51 (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It's sourced in the "Box office performance" section. There is a reference for the revenue of each of the films, and that number is just them added together. Andrea (talk) 20:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Salary dispute holding up 'Twilight 5' announcement

Via [1]: "EXCLUSIVE: Summit Entertainment is working furiously to close the talent deals required to split Stephenie Meyer's fourth "Twilight" novel into two films. But an unlikely roadblock is holding up an announcement -- and could even lead to cast changes for the series' final installment.
The studio is close to finalizing agreements with leads Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson and Taylor Lautner, all of whom will get big raises to return for a fifth installment of the vampire romance saga. And director Bill Condon is already signed to film two "Breaking Dawn" movies, which would be shot back-to-back starting in the fall and released in November 2011 and summer 2012, respectively."
Translation: Summit Entertainment will have two Breaking Dawn films. Stephenie Meyer has agreed to allow the slpit to happen. Summit has signed Condon to direct both parts. The second part will be released in summer 2012. BUT because of cast negotiations, Summit will NOT release a press release until they know for CERTAIN who will star in both movies.
Is that not enough information from a RELIABLE source (its NOT like this is some Twilight Fansite) to put in the production section "An official announcement by Summit has not been made because of contractual negotiations." Along with other information the source provides? Im not "predicting information" or acting as a "crystal ball"; thats exactly what the RELIABLE source says.
Also, what is wrong with: "Though Summit did not officially greenlight Breaking Dawn's production in February 2009, stars Robert Pattinson and Ashley Greene stated that there were plans for a Breaking Dawn film and that production was expected to begin after the completion of the series' third installment, The Twilight Saga: Eclipse." -- This provides the informtion that the film was in question for quite some time, but some key actors said that the film will happen. Im sure if the film did NOT happen, the information would be kept. But since it is happening, we can't keep it? Not to mention the fact that it flows well with the following: "Wyck Godfrey, producer of the previous films in the series, said that they had every intention to make the film, but Stephenie Meyer, author of the series, explained on her website's Breaking Dawn FAQ that if an adaptation were to be created, it would have to be split into two movies because "The book is just so long!", saying that she would have made the book shorter if it were possible." -- This provides the information that Even though there were doubts about the film, and even though actors "confirmed it", the producer himself said that there was every intention to make it, but the author herself stated her own concerns about the film being made.
"Stephenie Meyer, author of the series, explained on her website's Breaking Dawn FAQ that if an adaptation were to be created, it would have to be split into two movies because "The book is just so long!", saying that she would have made the book shorter if it were possible.[44] She also believed it to be impossible to make a film due to Renesmee, writing that an actress could not play her because she is a baby that has complete awareness, "The one thing that I've never seen is a CGI human being who truly looks real"; however, she did acknowledge the film might be possible due to the quickly-advancing technologies.[44] Moreover, because of the mature and explicit nature of the Breaking Dawn book, fans and critics questioned if the studio would be able to keep a PG-13 rating, noting that the movie should not be rated R for the ever-growing fan base.[45]" -- This only provides the author's view. Shouldn't there be mention that the actors and the producrer had concerns?
Instead of edit warring constantly, why don't we try to talk about it and possibly pull in other opinions? Also, the two sepearate paragraphs eplain that in February 2009, there was doubt of a film, and still so in March 2010, but in 2010, the film was farther along than the previous year. Should we not keep that?ChaosMaster16 (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

The provided source is still purely speculative. Being able to provide a source does not make things "official". It clearly states that nothing is confirmed yet concerning a second film, and thus this information should not be provided in the article as fact. If the studio is still working out deals with the cast, then they haven't even started pre-production yet—let alone production. The reason I cited WP:CRYSTAL is that any number of things could still hold back production or even prevent a second film from being made ("Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place.") If Summit hasn't greenlit the film, even if we have a source that explains why, we cannot assume that things will go as planned. It's just too soon. Why not wait until things are official? Otherwise we are crystal-balling, considering the studio has not even signed on its 3 stars yet.

Concerning the statements by Pattinson and Greene, I removed them because they are not notable anymore. It is not surprising that some time passed before the studio moved forward with Breaking Dawn; this happens with virtually every film franchise, and many many films in general. If there was some particular reason why they delayed for this movie, it might be worth noting. But the way it stands, including that info is pointless now because all says is: "We didn't know if the film would be made, but the actors were pretty sure it would be. Yep, now the film is officially being made." The only reason it was notable before was because it was the only info we had on the possibility of a fourth (or fifth) movie. Why does it matter now that the actors thought a few months ago that it would be made? Now we know for sure that it will be, and that is what's important. Andrea (talk) 03:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Q

Anyone know if child actor Margarita Alexandra Lovinska has been cast for Breaking Dawn?--75.45.143.44 (talk) 20:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Charlotte.sumner21, 3 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The second part of breaking dawn is to be released in theaters November 16th 2012. Directed by Bill Condon. ref <http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/twilight>

Charlotte.sumner21 (talk) 19:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Facebook is not considered a reliable source. Favonian (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment

This page is just a stupid fan love fest. These films have received countless negative reviews, the reception sections details barely any. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JackD523 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Now that's a lot better.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Twilight Saga (film series)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Guy546^(Talk) 22:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. (Note: This is my first GA review so please be patient with me.)

Disambiguations: I found 3 disambigs and 1 that redirects back to the page.

I fixed the disambiguations. Once filming begins on the last movie, that redirect will become its own article. Is it fine to leave it since it is temporary? Andrea (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine. Guy546^(Talk) 14:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Linkrot: I found 5 dead links in the article.[2]

Fixed. Andrea (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

1. a (prose): b (MoS):

   "In July 2008, Warner Brothers announced that, because of the success of The Dark Knight, they would move Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince from its original November 2008 release date to July 2009. Summit Entertainment jumped at an opportunity to move the Twilight release date from December to November 2008, which, coincidentally, added fuel to the debate between the two fandoms." Does the last part need to be in there? To fix this, you could phrase it like this: "Originally scheduled for release in December 2008, Twilight moved to a worldwide release of November 21, 2008, after a scheduling conflict of Warner Bros.' Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, which caused Half-Blood Prince to move from a November 2008 release to be released in July 2009."

   Could do a few more brushing up on prose, but is mostly satisfactory besides what is noted above.

Fixed. Andrea (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

Five dead links as noted above.

Fixed, as noted above. Andrea (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

There are several references that lead to MTV.com, and while this is understandable as the site does several Twilight related news stories, it is still not (to me, anyway) a reliable source. If you can clean a few of these up it would be good.

There are also several links that redirect, like all of the ones from Premiere.com.

I fixed the Premiere links, but I'm not sure why the MTV articles are not seen as reliable in this case. Are there particular ones that you have an issue with? Andrea (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hm. Maybe we should ask about it then? Guy546^(Talk) 14:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

In light of User:Erik's recent talk about MTV.com on the article's talk page and there are no objections, I have seen that MTV.com is a reliable source. I will change the sources in the article to passing now, thus cementing the article as a GA.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

Fair representation without bias:

Is satisfactory besides what I noted about the mention about the fandoms.

5. It is stable.

No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

Pass/Fail:

While it is a well structured article, I can't give it good article status until the things I mentioned are cleaned up. Guy546^(Talk) 23:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Good work. Guy546^(Talk) 21:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

MTV.com a reliable source?

Does anybody agree with me about MTV.com is not a reliable source? Concur? I don't think so, because it is more like a forum, but others can disagree with me. Guy546^(Talk) 16:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that MTV.com's articles about film are reliable. WP:RS says, "Reliable sources may therefore be published materials with a reliable publication process; they may be authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject in question; or they may be both." I think that at the very least, MTV as a company would reliably publish content. As for the author, I recall seeing other articles by him dating years ago, so he appears to be a valid career journalist. Are there any references from the article that you might find particularly questionable? I would encourage avoiding quoting any promotional-sounding language from such articles, like "I had a great time working on this film" and so forth. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with Erik. What are the questionable sources? Mike Allen 00:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Breaking Dawn having its own page

What's going on with Breaking Dawn? Does it have its own page, or is it supposed to be just part of the Saga page? There is a link to the main article in the Breaking Dawn section, but it just links to the same page!! 03jkeeley (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It will not have its own article until filming begins, per WP:NFF. Andrea (talk) 15:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: According to Nikki Reed (http://www.celebuzz.com/nikki-reed-says-breaking-dawn-s259471/), filming starts "about" two weeks from 10/7/10, which would be around 10/21. I would say creating a 'Breaking Dawn' page on 11/1 would be safe. (There has been an official poster released) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.237.19 (talk) 03:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Box Office Totals

The Section that lists the box office totals of "United States" should read "United States & Canada", unless, the Canadian totals were miraculously known, and removed from the US totals, although I think that is highly unlikely. We call it the "Domestic" box office, here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.132.211 (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

"Total" Budget is incorrect

The total budget is given as $155M USD here, but the budget for Breaking Dawn itself seems to be $255M USD.

Imdonatello (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Something Weird

isn't this based on Castlevania?

ECat200 (talk) 16:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Critics

Interessting, who would have though there to be only so few negative critics? No one stateting the obviously heavy christian "No sex untill marriage" ideology? To be honest I have no idea about English & US critics, but German, Austrian and Swiss critics were heavly stating this obvious fact. From my point of view the current Critical reception is highly POV.--173.245.84.100 (talk) 19:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Alas, there aren't many notable reviewers making those observations (I wish). But I do agree that what coverage we give to negative responses doesn't really sum up the criticisms of the film as it should. Millahnna (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The negative reception this series has received on the internet needs to be noted in this article.58.106.3.238 (talk) 09:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Category

This category should probably be added to this page: [[Category:Vampires in film and television]].

76.180.238.15 (talk) 02:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Twihards

Don't you think a page on twihards is notable?? There is lots to say and numerous sources... Should I start this? (idk if I should be the one to do it though, I don't even like Twilight.. I just noticed on the fandom page, it doesn't mention twihards!!) --TaylorLane^{bore me} 17:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

In popular culture

I am tagging this section with {{ref improve section}}, but in reality, it also needs work to conform to WP:NPOV. Phrases such as "infamously spoofed" "universally negatively received" and "overwhelmingly negative" are not neutral. "[O]bvious parody" suggests original research was done also. I will consider deleting this section soon if it cannot be improved. Elizium23 (talk) 06:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Home media sales

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, Part 2 Units Sold: 3,812,860 Sales Reveneu: $57,040,386

from: http://www.the-numbers.com/dvd/charts/annual/2013.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.106.173 (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2013 (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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. EdJohnston (talk) 13:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

---

The Twilight Saga (film series) → The Twilight Saga – Book series is just "Twilight", and the majority of the incoming links to "The Twilight Saga" (which at present redirects to the book series) appear to be inteneded for the film series, not the book series. Unreal7 (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: This complete collection of books is called The Twilight Saga. I'm not sure if this is worth the move to a more ambiguous article title. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Term seems to be most widely used to refer to the films and all the films after the first use this specific name.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Google Books results that address the books as the Twilight Saga: 1, 2, and 3. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Erik -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 04:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Early draft of Twilight

[3] Is the original version of Twilight involving swat teams martial arts and the FBI worth mentioning? Bullets and Bracelets (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Based on its sourcing from cracked.com (a website not noted for its scholarly attention to detail (i.e. not a WP:RS)), I'd say "no". WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The Twilight Saga (film series). 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/20110628213609/http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=11055873 to http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=11055873
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100702023904/http://www.freep.com:80/article/20100629/ENT01/6290373/Review-Eclipse-best-film-in-Twilight-Saga- to http://www.freep.com/article/20100629/ENT01/6290373/Review-Eclipse-best-film-in-Twilight-Saga-

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} 19:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)