Talk:Dances with Smurfs

Governor Schwarzenegger reference

The taking of the first letters in the words on the blackboards, that add up to KILL SMURFS is a direct reference to an incident some weeks ago with governor Schwarzenegger where he sent a letter forming a different expression. (http://rawstory.com/2009/10/schwarzenegger-apparently-tells-legislator-fuck-you/) I added this reference yesterday, but it was tagged as grafitti.

...

Eric Cartman is a parody of Glenn Beck and his criticism of the Obama administration. Cartman's show has an intro and set similar to that of Glenn Becks.

Before the morning announcements are read, the three-tones played on a xylophone are the same tones when morning announcements are read at Rydell High School in the film version of Grease. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.158.68.41 (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Beck Parody

not like MSNBC, CNN, HLN, ABC News, etc did it before anyway, how he says that "wendy won't come out and defend herself" is a tounge-in-cheek refference to how Glenn had a phone setup on his set for Commnications Director Anitta Dunn to call and correct him, but she never did.

how the crowd, i'm half-way through the episode as it's being aired, but how they are organizing, is a parody of the 9/12 project. to be honest, at first i thought it was a Rush Limbaugh parody, havn't seen the media outright boulderdash rush since the early 90's-2000's

(Racerboy (talk) 03:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC))

We'll need to source this from tomorrow and later's reviews. Alatari (talk) 06:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Plot

I added what I had and did an initial copy edit. Ready to watch how it gets reshaped. Alatari (talk) 03:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Cultural references

• The smurf holocaust was done in a scene from Robot Chicken. Was it related? Alatari (talk) 05:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • as a fan of both shows, i remember that the first Smurf bit on Robot Chicken with mass deaths was the Snurfs getting killed by a flood (which was a spoof of the events of Hurricane Katrina) and the other bit was a war with the Snorks where Snurfs and Snorks were killing each other. and there's one more Snurfs bit on Robot Chicken and it was a spoof of the movie Se7en, and none of them was an Smurf holocaust bit.--Boutitbenza 69 9 (talk) 22:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The Big Lebowski

I noticed that the beginning of this episode was similar to the beginning of the movie The Big Lebowski, where two thugs get the protagonist, a bum, confused with a millionaire with the same name, despite having plenty of time to realize their mistake. MCTales (talk) 18:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Remember that Lebowski itself was a take on film noir by its writers, we might mistake an older film for TBL. Alastairward (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You could take one minute of any episode of SP and find it to be similar to some other minute of another show/movie, whether it's intentional or not. Not every case of mistaken identity in a reference to the same thing. Something like this would have to be verified. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 01:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

fallacies of leading the masses

There are several uses of fallacies to get others to draw desired but wrong conclusions. The one I'm stuck on is:

There are no Smurfs outside.

If you see no Smurfs they must be all dead.

If they are dead then Wendy must have killed them.

That's several rolled into one? It's funny because I see these opinion commentators use these kind of logics. Alatari (talk) 06:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• South Park - Dances With Smurfs
• TV Review: SOUTH PARK - SEASON 13 - 'Dancing With Smurfs'

Cirt (talk) 11:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, can't check right now myself but IGN usually have a review out the same day or so as the avclub. Alastairward (talk) 12:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Avatar

I'm happy after seeing this episode that Avatar was put in its place. All that hype for a film when it's just Dances with Wolves but with CGI. Thank you South Park. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.186.93 (talk) 13:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It may be the case, but IGN and the A.V. Club didn't mention that specifically, that fellow Delgado only mentioned the link between the title of both episode and the latter of those two films. Alastairward (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The A.V. Club did a little bit (And it even got in a nice preemptive dig at Avatar, which I’ve seen 30 minutes of and yeah, it pretty much is Dances With Smurfs.). But you're right, it's not really enough. I think the plot summary describing Wendy's book about the Smurf story being adapted for Avatar is explanation enough. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hang on, rereading the review I see that quote only now. I could have sworn I had only seen the mention in the reader entries below the review. It could be inserted somewhere, I was concerned that maybe someone was trying to string together cites to make a confusion. My bad (and now I'm also worried because a friend is arranging a night out at a 3-D viewing for this film!). Alastairward (talk) 22:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

That's probably my bad, as I bunched all three footnotes at the end of the sentence, instead of maybe spreading them throughout so they would correspond to which source said what. I'm on the fence as to whether or not to include just this one connection that one source (that's not a blog or forum) has made. The plot essentially states what happens: episode shows Smurf story, Wendy writes book about Smurf story, James Cameron uses book as inspiration for Avatar. But then again, I guess it wouldn't hurt to include the A.V./Avatar bit into "Cultural references" to better explain to readers who might not be familiar enough with The Smurfs and Dances with Wolves and Avatar to draw their own conclusion. So, eh...as of now, I'm neutral as to whether or not it's included in the "Cultural references" section. Then again, there will surely more about this jab at Avatar in the coming weeks. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

There, provided refs... Google is your friend! -Nick Catalano  _contrib ^talk 00:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Just thought I should run my two cents by before (and if) this becomes an issue...remember this article is about the South Park episode, and the talk page shouldn't become a forum for pointing out the similarities between DWW and Avatar. Article should remain the same way, and should only be limited to how the episode compared the two.- SoSaysChappy (talk) 01:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It isn't... but the focus of the episode has nothing to do with the freaking movie Dances with Wolves but instead is referring completely to Avatar. Linking Smurfs or Dancing With Wolves with Avatar is a very common criticism/joke of the movie on quite a few fan sites. Why the hell else would this South Park bring up Dances With Wolves with blue characters if it wasn't a direct dig at Avatar? There are a lot more common (and humorous) targets out there than just referring to Smurfs and a two decade old movie! Just because sites that follow South Park closely but not the 'movie fan' community didn't get the joke and somehow thought that Dances with Wolves by itself fit into this storyline doesn't mean that they somehow know the reason behind the reference. Obviously they do not and I provided references (which were removed!) to back up my point. -Nick Catalano  _contrib ^talk 06:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I tried to tidy up the section a bit. We can still describe the "three way connection" (Smurf story, Avatar, DWW) made in the episode without getting into too much detail about the premise of Avatar. I would also recommend we consider whether or not to use cinemablend.com, which relies on user submissions and is horribly unreliable at times. It might be appropriate to use in these circumstances ...it just depends on whether or not one thinks that this is a suitable source to use to state that the episode is discrediting Avatar as an unoriginal film. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Casey Miller

The character Casey Miller in this episode is a parody of Casey Kasem and his radio career. Just thought I'd point that out.PokeHomsar (talk) 23:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Clockwork Orange

"The ol' in 'n out" is a fairly old and common phrase, and its usage in recent times may certainly be attributed to A Clockwork Orange. But since it's so common now, I think some kind of verification is needed if the article is going to claim that it's usage in the episode is a direct reference to the film. I would definitely think that more people would associate the phrase with sex before they would with the movie. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 08:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Pretty sure the term was in usage to refer to coitus before Clockwork Orange... Alatari (talk) 06:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Plot

I added an incarnation of the plot like it was earlier. The newer version is inaccurate and drops details. Alatari (talk) 07:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

First off; when you asked why I didn't ask for "permission" when I made this this edit, I can only say that I was decreasing the plot summary to fewer than 500 words (per MOS:TV) by removing original research, and then condensing and consolidating what was already written. Doing this doesn't require "permission", and technically, no edit on Wikipedia requires "permission". When I suggested discussing your edit, I was in no way insinuating that such an edit required "permission", but felt that it was problematic compared to the previous version which adhered fairly well to plot guidelines. I've done a bunch of plot summaries and usually include an explanatory discussion about such an edit if I'm doing a major re-write, rather than just chipping away at material that's already in place. But I'll definitely try to always include a discussion from now. :)

So let's discuss this re-write, which was described as more "streamlined":

Gordon Stoltski is killed whiled performing his duties as school announcer. During the memorial service, Mr. Mackey asks for a replacement. Eric Cartman pulls a dirty trick on his best competitor, Casey Miller, and gets the job of announcer. As usual, Eric takes the job to the extreme and creates political commentary-themed talk show, dubbed EC Show, to televisions in every classroom.

• "school announcer" is vague, and introducing this character as the one who performs the morning announcements. This version also doesn't explain how he was killed. "During the memorial service, Mr. Mackey asks for a replacement. Eric Cartman pulls a dirty trick on his best competitor, Casey Miller, and gets the job of announcer" can easily be described as "Cartman is chosen as his replacement". It's not streamlined when it's pointed out where Cartman was when he learns about his new opportunity, and not including the "at the memorial service" isn't going to hinder the reader from learning that Cartman was chosen as the replacement. "As usual, Eric takes the job to the extreme" doesn't work either because a potential reader who is not familiar with the show does not have any frame of reference about Cartman's "usual" behavior.

Leave Gordon's name in because it's his last episode. 'Getting chosen' is inaccurate because Eric tricked Mr Mackey into the 'choice'. Leaving out the memorial service leaves out a scene marker. Adding that Eric takes it to the extreme gives knowledge to the untrained reader that Eric does this in other episodes. (replaced killed with murdered and changed school announcer to morning announcements reader).

He criticizes the school then focuses on the class president Wendy Testaburger. This grabs Butters attention and throughout the episode he gets drawn further into Cartman's machinations. Eric names Wendy a communist and continues the surge against her credibility. He describes him self as a normal kid that is just asking questions but his questions are loaded questions that would make Wendy look bad if she answered yeah or neah. He uses some chalkboard magic and concludes that Wendy wants to "KILL SMURFS"!

• A redundancy is made in describing the problems that arise from loaded questions. And "uses some chalkboard magic" is a bad and confusing way of describing this. It can be described as a fallacy and readers can refer to the image in the article for help; it would be too tedious to describe what he does with the chalkboard to come to the "KILL SMURFS" conclusion.

Not sure what you mean by redundancy. A loaded question or fallacy of many questions makes the answerer look bad if they answer 'YES' or 'NO' The image doesn't mention the talking points that are the loaded question. As in "Have you stopped beating your wife?". "They spoof all of the classic Beck-isms: the ridiculous chalkboard secret messages, the wildly irresponsible accusations, and of course, the casual mention of the word "socialist" at every opportunity. is the text from one of the reviews. It is 'chalkboard secret messages' or something like that or we have dropped an important plot point. Alatari (talk) 09:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Eric publishes a book of sexually explicit and other rumors about Wendy which especially angers Stan but draws Butters in further. The school officials admonish Eric who ironically threatens to call the ACLU to protect his EC show. Eric returns the next day, weaving a story of how he chose to live with the gentle smurfs. A blue face Eric in a Smurf costume learns the lifestyle of the Smurfs and the value of their berries. He describes a very fat Wendy (Cartman in drag) as the villain who comes to Smurfvile and destroys it all for the berries. Eric, always looking to profit, has the whole thing on his new DVD Dances with Smurfs.

• "ironically" doesn't maintain NPOV because it's an analysis taken from the primary source, and plot summaries should be reserved for describing the events as they happen on screen. Same thing with "always looking to profit": this is a speculative claim, as his motives for making the DVD are not explained in the episode. That Stan is angered also holds little bearing on the rising action of the narrative. And the prose here describing Cartman's Smurf story is simply confusing: it does not adequately inform the reader that this was portrayed in the episode as a visual representation of Cartman's story.

Ironically can be removed. It is not NPOV. There is no reason to exclude Stan's anger over the book. It's the key scene that Comedy Central used to advertise the episode all week. The retelling of the Smurf story can take some minor cleanups. Alatari (talk) 09:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The ads did not tell the story, the episode did. Does excluding the "angry Stan" scene render the reader unable to understand an overview of the episode's main events? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 09:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The plot includes one person who isn't taken in by Eric's media blitz and that is Stan. Not a good idea to leave that part of the plot out nor focus on how Butters motives start early; how he goes from being a listener to peeing on a door. Alatari (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Butters infatuation with Eric's views brings him to organize a group with the "I ask questions" T-shirts and leads them to Wendy's house where he pees on Wendy's front door. Butters convinces her this would stop if she faces Eric on the EC show. The next morning Wendy faces Eric who says he will take it easy on her yet begins with more loaded questions. Wendy turns the table spinning a story about her plan to get someone on the inside of the Smurf village. That someone was Eric. She details all the dirty secrets in her new book: "Going Rogue on the Smurfs". Wendy has already sold the movie rights to James Cameron who has adapted the story into his film Avatar. She steps down to give Eric the class presidency. As president, Eric is no longer eligible to continue performing the morning announcements, and is disappointed by the lack of actual power the position has. He is replaced by Casey Miller who immediately begins criticizing Cartman's performance as the new class president, causing Cartman to run out of class crying.

• "with the 'I ask questions' T-shirts" is more unnecessary detail. The reader now knows Butters has established a group in support of Cartman; explaining what kind of t-shirts they wear does not help in describing the advancement of the plot. And one final, but minor gripe: repeatedly calling him "Eric" instead of "Cartman".

No reason to leave out ALL details. The t-shirt slogan is repeated throughout the episode and in the reviews that are sourced. We can just ad the sourced reviews after the quotation. I interchanged Eric and Cartman. His show is called the E.C. show and even the reviewers use both his names. Not sure why this bothers you... Alatari (talk) 10:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

If you resolve these issues, and condense whatever material is left, you would have a version like the one prior to your re-write. I am curious as to what you see as inaccurate about this version, which I feel is a more fitting plot summary per the MOS. The details I left out were unimportant and not necessary in connecting major events that drove the narrative along, such as the establishment of the premise, a conflict, and the set-up which leads to the climax. Anyway, those are my thoughts. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 08:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The version I have put in is the version that had been worked on by several editors before you replaced the WHOLE plot summary with one of your own writing. The version you included is out of order and ... dull. This version by ifmagazine is much more enjoyable and still condenses the plot nicely:

"The episode opens with poor Gordon, the school announcement reader, being tragically murdered after an insane husband confuses him for the man his wife is having an affair with. But with Gordon dead, the school needs a new morning voice. Enter Eric Cartman. Eric, being the egomaniac that he is, soon turns the morning announcement into his own personal platform to attack student body president, Wendy Testaburger. His morning radio show soon evolves into televised broadcast as Eric starts resembling conservative commentator Glenn Beck.

Good stuff so far. Eric is perfect as the radio personality loud mouth who accuses those in power with outrageous and misleading claims of misconduct and ineffectiveness. Once again he is pitted against a far more intelligent Wendy, using only his lies to keep him afloat. This episode was unusual in that Kyle, Stan, and Kenny virtually had no dialog. The ever gullible Butters got more screen time rallying the other students in protest.

“Dances With Smurfs” got a little strange once Cartman introduced the Smurfs story. Cartman befriends, lives, and even falls in love with a Smurf. He then accuses Wendy of ruthlessly killing the Smurfs in order to steal their Smurf Berries to fuel the school. He then challenges Wendy to appear on his show to defend her position. It’s all made up, obviously, but the students buy every word Cartman has to say. In fact, they buy his book, shirts, and movies.

It a well done parody with just enough SOUTH PARK aloofness to keep the viewers on their toes. It wasn’t as consistently funny as episodes of past, but it wasn’t as crude either. There was a nice twist at the end with Wendy beating Cartman at his own game. She deflates his story by “confessing” to her crimes, removes herself from office and instates Cartman as the new class president. In one swift move, she gets Cartman off the air and makes him the new political target.

It was a clean end to the season. Not too crass, humorous yet smart, and delivering a pointed message. The only real complaint was the lack of in your face humor that has defined SOUTH PARK, but it’s a trade off I’m sure many fans are willing to make for a well thought episode. And remember, “Just because somebody has a microphone and a few books doesn’t mean they know what they’re talking about.” Touché SOUTH PARK.

That others contributed to the summary before I did is irrelevant and not a legitimate defense of the summary's content. And plot summaries aren't required to be in chronological order. And they aren't required to be "exciting". And, um...are you suggesting that we use the iF magazine article as the plot summary? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 09:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Just saying that if magazine did it better. It's confusing AND bad style to put the summary out of chronological order. That you believe that other editors work is 'irrelevant' gives me pause and concern. I hope you are willing to work with the rest of us. Alatari (talk) 10:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

We're writing an encyclopedia. That guy is writing a review. Gauging a Wiki contributor in this way is unnecessary and unwarranted. Anyway...order doesn't matter as long as the reader understands what has transpired with the plot. It's a summary, not a scene-by-scene breakdown. And in no way was I calling other contributors irrelevant. I interpreted one of your posts as an implication that I had no business contributing to the summary because other editors had already done so, but now I see that you were explaining that earlier edits from other contributors provided a lot of the material for what I called "your" re-write. I apologize for misreading what you wrote. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 10:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It's an encyclopedia but I try to take the tone of the summary from the episode and show itself. I combined sentences from both versions in the 3rd paragraph.

Here are the plot points I was trying to make sure got included:

• A character who dies get's his name mentioned (however minor)
• A recurring theme is mentioned. In this case "I ask questions", "Just asking questions", etc. which is drawn from the parody of Glenn Beck as per the reviews.
• One or two other aspects of the parodied subjects are mentioned. Like the chalkboard secret messages or the gray hair in the last scene. The blue skin and destruction of the civilization from the Avatar parody. This points out to our readers certain passages where the show did it's actual lampooning.
• Character actions that might seem minor but are illustrative of the shows flavor. Stan's fighting with Cartman over the contents of the book is the recurring recriminations Cartman gets by Kyle or Stan whenever Cartman get's out of hand.
• Some quote or scene that reviewers pick get included to put the flavor of the show into the summary.
• A few mentions of things that show a build up or outline of a main characters thought progression. Butters going to pee on the door makes no sense if we don't mention how he gets interested early in the EC Show comments and buys the book.

(Wendy refusing to go on the show early should probably be put back in)Alatari (talk) 11:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

My two cents

Hey guys. SoSaysChappy brought this edit-war-in-the-making to the attention of the Wikiproject South Park, and I just wanted to too my two cents in before it escalates. First of all, I'm all about consensus-building, but I don't think SoSaysChappy did anything wrong in making edits without seeking permission (something none of us has to do). That being said, I think Alatari is right that there is room in these plot summaries for some of the details that SoSaysChappy was excluding, like the name of Gordon Stoltski, for example. However, SoSaysChappy was also correct to make drastic changes to the original plot, which was way too long and did include too much unnecessary detail. Although the current plot summary is way better than the original incarnation, I still think there is too much unnecessary detail (like the "buying heroin" extended quote and the "I ask questions" T-Shirts). Clearing some of these out will make more room for those details that are actually notable and relevant. Plus, there are little housekeeping items, like the fact that Gordon Stoltski is now identified, but there is absolutely no context given as to who he is. SoSaysChappy's original "The young student who normally reads the morning announcements" is actually preferable to just using the name without identifying who they are...
So anyway, sorry if I'm going on too long. I guess I just wanted to say that I think both sides have good points and are working for the betterment of this article, so in the future perhaps we should all try not to get so offended when people edit our stuff. We don't have to ask permission, but we should try to work toward a consensus when issues are identified, and do so in a civilized manner. All that being said, I've written up my proposal for this episode's plot summary, which is under 500 words and I think incorporates elements from both of your comments. I didn't put it on the page yet because I wanted both of you to weigh in first, so please read it below and let me know what you think. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn _(c) 16:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Gordon Stotlski, the third grader who reads the South Park Elementary morning announcements, is murdered by a gunman who mistakes him for a truck driver who slept with his wife. During a memorial service at the gymnasium, guidance counselor Mr. Mackey announces the school will seek a replacement. Cartman gets the job after sabotaging the efforts of a talented student named Casey Miller. However, during his first announcement, Cartman is very critical of the school and makes politically charged accusations against class president Wendy. Principal Victoria asks Cartman to stick to the script during announcements, but he accuses her of trying to silence him, and brings in the American Civil Liberties Union to ensure his freedom of speech. Cartman starts projecting his announcements into television screens classroom, where his claims grow increasingly politically charged. He accuses Wendy of wanting to kill the Smurfs, which concerns Butters and some other students. When they confront Wendy, she simply refuses to acknowledge Cartman.

Cartman starts selling copies of his book, "What Happened to My School?", which includes sexually explicit rumors about Wendy. Principal Victoria and Mr. Mackey again confront Cartman, who accuses them of turning the school into a "socialist whoreland", and insists he is leaving the school. The next day, however, he appears on his show and tells the students he went to live with the Smurfs, fell in love with Smurfette and became integrated into the culture. Cartman claims Wendy bulldozes Smurfland and slaughtered the Smurfs to get their valuable Smurfberries, which he has chronicled in his DVD, "Dances with Smurfs" Butters and a furious mob of students go to Wendy's house to confront her. Butters pees on her front door and demands that she go on Cartman's morning announcements show to answer his questions.

Wendy reluctantly agrees to appear on the show, and Cartman promises her he will stick to school-related questions and go easy on her. However, as soon as filming begins, he immediately asks about promiscuous rumors and the killing of the Smurfs. To Cartman' surprise, Wendy claims she indeed bulldozed Smurfland to get the valuable Smurfberries, but alludes that Cartman was involved with the plot, and that the Smurfs would have left Smurfland if Cartman did not integrate himself with them. She agrees to secede her class president title to Cartman and announces she has written her own book about the Smurfs. Cartman is angry that she has turned the tables on him and stolen his Smurf idea, particularly when she announces she sold the movie rights to director James Cameron for his adaptation of the film Avatar. The next day, Cartman is no longer doing morning announcements because the class president cannot hold both jobs, but he is angry to learn the president is a meaningless position with no real power. The episode ends with Casey Miller reading the announcements, which include student letters extremely critical of Cartman's performance as president. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 16:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

A few things in response to some other comments...

• A plot summary is, at its roots, a description of what plays out in the narrative and is intended to complement the "real world" and "background" info that would be better suited for other sections; the allusions to Glenn Beck, more-detailed explanation of the Avatar reference, descriptions of character trademarks and of how the episode continues the theme of Stan and Kyle being at odds with Cartman ...all of this would be more appropriate for other such sections.
• I'm still a little fuzzy as to what is meant by the suggestion that the summary needs more "flavor".
• Still think that trying to describe the "KILL SMURFS" revelation as "chalkboard magic" or "chalkboard secret messages" is confusing, and the image in the article is a better way of helping the reader understand this.
• And, to address the "minor gripe": Most everyone calls him "Cartman". Only Butters and Liane and school staff call him "Eric". Cartman is the more common usage, and is how he's addressed in SP-related articles.

With that said, the suggested plot summary above addresses those issues. It avoids details not essential to describing the advancement of the narrative, observes plot section-related guidelines, and is a suitable compromise of all the suggestions that have been made so far, in addition to being well-written in its own right. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'm glad to hear you feel that way. I'd like to hear from Alatari before we move forward with any change... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 21:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't think anyone was not civil. I like building a consensus and there was a continuing build of the plot when I went to bed then I checked in and a single person substitution was made. It was a bit irritating and not consensus building. I haven't read the South Park project postings yet. Onto the points:

The version I put in was just the version that had been evolving and stripped it down to the right size. Didn't need a complete rewording; just some editing. It's nice that Gordon has his name in the list so it can be included in the summary. R.I.P. Gordon.

I didn't feel like reorganizing the responses so read on where I touched on some of these points a second time... sorry and thanks

• Calling him Cartman throughout makes sense.
• "Chalkboard magic" is what the reviewers (AV I think) call Glenn Becks' work on the chalkboard. So it's the perfect phrasing for the plot summary. As is saying "KILL SMURFS" in caps which is Cartmans' conclusion and what was written. The writing guide suggests we be careful of violating copywrite by not spelling out a plot summary straight as it happens but it also allows for notable quotes and plot points.
  • Actually, I think that makes it a bit more cumbersome to include in the plot summary, but perfect for the cultural references section. Since you have a source that identifies the use of "chalkboard magic" in the episode, you can include something in the cultural references section like "Cartman writes an anagram on a chalkboard that spells out a secret message 'KILL SMURFS". This is an example of 'chalkboard magic' used by..." etc etc, then source it. That way you can take more time and space to explain a detail in the Cultural References section that would have been too convoluted or trivial to include in the Plot Summary section. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 13:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I've tried but cannot see that either is more cumbersome: "He accuses Wendy of wanting to kill the Smurfs" or "His chalkboard anagram spells out Wendy's intent: KILL SMURFS." - The colon emphasizes the pause he made and the utter significance the conclusion holds. Alatari (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• As per the reviews, "I ask questions" is a Glenn Beckism and was stated in some form throughout the episode. A recurrent theme in an episode being ignored and unstated is a poor writing style.
  • No it's not. Just because a device is used repeatedly doesn't mean it's crucial to summarize the plot of an article. Ask yourself: Can I adequately summarize this plot without mentioning, for example, the death of Gordon? I'd argue not. But can I adequately summarize the plot without mentioning that Cartman says "I ask questions" a lot? Yes. Again, since you have reviews to cite, I think this is more appropriate for the Cultural References section. Something like "Cartman repeatedly uses the phrase 'I ask questions' thoughout the episode. This is a reference to Glenn Beck..." etc etc. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 13:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

TOTALLY DISAGREE! The 'questions' was a plot element and a recurrent theme. To leave it out of the plot summary is to fail to adequately describe the plot. i.e. "only discussing the important plot elements". If the jibes at the person being parodied aren't important elements then what is? Alatari (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• The quote about Wendy buying heroin is an example of a loaded question. Some example should be included so the reader of the summary can decide for themselves that "Yes, that's a loaded question..." Also, when writing and reading South Park summaries here on Wikipedia I get confronted with editors sanitizing South Park. It's an unapologetic, in-your-face show and you can find fuck in the encyclopedia so why completely sterilize South Park? (See below for an alternative)
  • Its not about sanitizing South Park, it's about utilizing encyclopedic language. But as far as the use of a quote, it's not necessary, and only takes up valuable space. A reader doesn't need an example of a loaded question. Plus WP:MOSTV says a plot summary should "only discussing the important plot elements", of which this isn't; that guideline also specifically advises against the use of quotes... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 13:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It' isn't that notable of a quote but I'd direct you to read the plot summary of Huck Finn. Huck explains this by saying I knowed he was white on the inside...so it was all right now. Jim and Tom are then captured and brought back by the doctor - it is an important thought of the character AND it puts some of the flavor of the novel into the plot summary. There are several direct quotes in that summary and others I read. The guideline allows for quotes so I suppose the guidelines have some contradictory suggestions. Alatari (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Flavor When summarizing a plot for South Park keep some of the tone and language 'South Parkish'. South Park is a visual cartoon and part of the flavor was very fat Eric in a no-shirt smurf costume painted in blue face. He looked as welcome a site in Smurfville as a hippo does on the streets of New York. Tis' why I included that short detail. It also ties to the parody of "Dances with Wolves" where Kevin Costner dresses as an Amerindian to fit in like Eric did in Dances with Smurfs. Detail links the plot summary to the parody of Avatar/Dances with Smurfs the episode is trying to accomplish. It seems to be confusing to a reader of the article that in the Reception they read about Dances with Wolves/Avatar/Glenn Beck parody but upon reading the plot summary they don't see any evidence of a parody.
  • Once again, what you're talking about is perfect for "Cultural references" and horribly inappropriate for the "Plot Summary". You can include some sourced sentence that points out how Cartman fitting in so poorly at Smurfville is a reference to Dances with Wolves. But to cram that into a plot synopsis gets really far away from the idea plot summary outlined in WP:MOSTV (which again, only wants a discussion of important plot elements) — Hunter Kahn _(c) 13:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Again Huck explains this by saying I knowed he was white on the inside...so it was all right now. Jim and Tom are then captured and brought back by the doctor - it is an important thought of the character AND it puts some of the flavor of the novel into the plot summary. There are several direct quotes in that summary and others I read. The guideline allows for quotes so I suppose the guidelines have some contradictory suggestions. Alatari (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• The above summary is well written and I would it had sprung from my fingertips. Only a few things.
  • I don't think Eric actually brings in the ACLU but just threatens... did I miss something? I was typing in the plot as I listened to the show.
    • Right after he threatens to bring in the ACLU, two men in suits from that organization can be seen standing in the background next to Mr. Mackey and Principal Victoria to ensure that Cartman gets to say waht he wants. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 13:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • It's an important plot point that Wendy wants to "KILL SMURFS"... it's the initialization of the Smurfland story arc.
    • My proposed plot summary does say that Cartman accuses Wendy of wanting to kill the smurfs, and that Butters gets upset about it. The image and the cultural references can further expand on the chalkboard thing... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 13:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Your summary fails to put the element of the plot into the context that it is taken straight from the parody of Glenn Beck. See the style manual direct quotes below. Alatari (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Add the detail that Cartman turns it into the EC Show with credits (a.k.a. the GB Show)
    • You can drop that in I guess, although it would be better to identify it simply as a patriotic-style show or some other description without mentioning Beck, and then bring that reference to the "Cultural references" section. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 13:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Are we trying to shield Mr. Beck somehow? It isn't against the style manual to use the comparison if drawn from a secondary source. Alatari (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Again per the reviewers, this episode is a parody of Glenn Beck and sanitizing the plot summary of Beckisms (especially the chalk board magic, the trademark "I'm just a normal guy asking questions", "I ask questions", "I'm brave enough to ask the questions" and his hair style worn by Eric later) does a disservice to the reader of the summary.
    • I'm sounding like a broken record here (lol) but references to things in culture (like Glenn Beck) should be mentioned in the "Cultural references" section and excluded largely from the Plot Summary. This is a positive thing, not a negative thing, because it allows you to go into more detail about those references without bogging down the plot summary... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 13:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I have never seen anywhere in the style manual that we are to solely relegate these elements to a cultural reference section. The Coon article doesn't abide by your suggestions and it's at Good status. Alatari (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The Like the way he uses the "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" style of interrogation. is the other thing brought to the attention by a reviewer. If you really don't wish to include one of Cartman's loaded questions we can just describe the interrogation as loaded question style and source it to AV.
    • A mention of his loaded questions style is fine, but a source isn't necessary. You can also mention (this time with a source) in the Cultural References section that this style of questioning is reminiscent of GB or other right-wing commentators... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 13:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • We're allowed to put in the most notable quote (a way of giving the plot summary the South Parkish flavor) and from the reviews it seems the "I ask questions"(mentioned in some permutation 7 or 8 times), "rapid decline toward some socialist regime where students no longer have a voice.", the IFMag reviewer liked the statement And remember, “Just because somebody has a microphone and a few books doesn’t mean they know what they’re talking about.” Touché SOUTH PARK. Alatari (talk) 08:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Where does WP:MOSTV or some other guideline say you're allowed to put in the most notable quote? I've always been under the impression that Wikipedia guidelines generally discourage against quotes being used in plot summaries or anywhere else without citations, for copyright reasons and succinctness... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 13:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
      • That is a wrong impression. See my direct quote from manual of style that I have been told to review that allows direct quotations. There is more on this in use of Primary Sources. Here it is and SoSaysChappy even told me to review it which I have (again) and it supports my view: Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources

        For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source.

        Alatari (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Alatari, I can see what you're trying to express, and I will try to reiterate what I believe Hunter is trying to say by also explaining why I feel what you're trying to express does not comply with how a plot summary should be written...

If this were a South Park-affiliated website or fansite or a review of the episode, etc., I would agree with you if we were all writers tasked with providing a summary of the episode in a manner reflecting that of a "South Park atmosphere" and consistent with the "South Park theme". But Wikipedia is here to promote information on an article's subject in a neutral, encyclopedic manner. To an extent, its articles should be absolute and not relative, and maintain a formal tone.

The South Park 'flavor' can be ignored if you wish but the elements of the parody can not. Alatari (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

For a plot summary, it's much more preferred to use our own prose about the plot (a primary source) than to rely on the words and quotes from what others outside Wikipedia have written or said. When you make synthetic and interpretive claims, and an evaluation of the primary source, you would indeed need reliable secondary sources to support these. But an editor should only do this when a plot is complicated and ambiguous enough to require such an analysis. The plot of this episode does not. The plot summary can be used here to complement such explanations in other sections. The goal of the plot summary is to explain the events of the narrative through descriptions of important plot elements, not to cover themes and styles of the show. All of what I've said here can be found in MOS:TV and the numerous guidelines pertaining to plot summaries, and some more specifics can be read in the policy on original research. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on most of what you say but as in previous plot summaries where there were secondary sources available (as in this case) it is alright to add secondary interpretations to the summary. That includes in this case the Beckisms described in the reviews and even the style manual you quote allows for notable quotations from the primary source. Please read these two style sections carefully. It states my opinion very clearly; especially the second entry.

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Real-world perspective
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Contextual presentation

Details of creation, development, etc. relating to a particular fictional element are more helpful if the reader understands the role of that element in the story. This often involves providing plot summaries, character descriptions or biographies, or direct quotations. By convention, these synopses should be written in the present tense, as this is the way that the story is experienced as it is read or viewed. At any particular point in the story there is a 'past' and a 'future', but whether something is 'past' or 'future' changes as the story progresses. It is simplest and conventional to recount the entire description as continuous 'present'. Presenting fictional material from the original work is fine, provided passages are short, are given the proper context, and do not constitute the main portion of the article. If such passages stray into the realm of interpretation, secondary sources must be provided to avoid original research.

And I have to say we are reading from the same guidelines and I can pick out supporting arguments and you seem to be able to pick out contradictory arguments from the same source. Something seems amiss. I can goto other examples of good rated articles with plot summaries and find quotes and flavor added and important elements pushed to the forefront. I'm not new to this... Alatari (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Man oh man. What a mess this discussion has become. I can't believe there's so much of a discussion over one episode recap. lol. I'm going to stop responding line-by-line because it's becoming such a mess I can barely read the points above (so if I've missed addressing anything here, please let me know). Ok, so first of all Alatari, you've cited the quotes in Huck Finn. Putting aside the fact that comparisons between two articles don't really matter, that article has a more than 1,500 word plot summary; much more than the 500 max we're bound to as per WP:MOSTV. As far as your comparison to The Coon, I know it's a GA because I'm the one who got it there, and the plot summary now is way different than the plot summary that was there when it passed GA. I daresay the current plot summary wouldn't have survived the GAN process. But in any event, I think we're getting way off topic here. You had indicated earlier that you were upset with SoSaysChappy because he didn't seek a consensus. Well, now there is a consensus discussion, and so far the consensus is leaning more heavily toward my plot summary (even if it is just 2-1). We can all respond back and forth to each other over and over, and cite Wikipedia guidelines until we turn blue, and we're still going to be here spinning our wheels. That's not productive. In the spirit of compromise, why don't you tell me out of the issues you cite above, which ones do you feel most strongly need to be added to my proposed plot summary? Would you be willing to drop the Wendy quote if we keep the "I ask questions", or vice versa? Would it make sense if we mentioned the parody of Glen Beck in "Cultural References" and the loaded-question-style in the plot summary, or vice versa? Let's all just try to end this back-and-forth, come to a compromise and be done with it... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 22:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • (Please note: I'm worried my tone here might seem adversarial. I didn't mean it that way, and please don't take it that way. I just think we should try to come to a compromise on adding/subtracting elements from the proposed plot summary, as opposed to getting into an unproductive war of citing Wikipedia guidelines, which I'm sure we can all continue indefinitely...) — Hunter Kahn _(c) 23:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Seemed pretty adversarial. Especially the part where you were the sole person to get the Coon to GA status... 97.85.185.160 (talk) 11:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

My two cents on the "My two cents" above

I'll try to keep this simple. In writing a plot summary about a television episode, we must do our best to observe WP:WAF, WP:PLOTSUM, WP:PSTS, etc., but I feel we are most bound to MOS:TV. WAF does state that it is okay to include background information such as character descriptions, but also recommends that this be reserved in conjunction with a broader real-world perspective for the larger body of work. Whether or not one feels that each individual episode of SP is a piece of one larger story can be left to interpretation... so in the interest of reaching a compromise, I'll leave it at that.

Some other things for consideration...
If we were to first refer to MOS:TV as part of the guideline "chain of command", it is suggested that we do our best to keep the summary under 500 words. If we were to include the details about how this is a parody of Glenn Beck's show, it would leave us little room to describe the main events of the episode. If we ignored the word limit guideline for the sake of pointing out the allusions to Beck, it would become seriously bloated, and leave less for the "Cultural references" section.

• MOSTV: The main purpose of plot summaries is to provide context for the rest of the information
• WAF: The length of a plot summary should be carefully balanced with the length of the other sections. Strictly avoid creating pages consisting only of a plot summary.

For this article, the plot summary can be used to explain what happened. The "Cultural references" section can be used to explain why it happened. A plot summary is most appropriate for complementing wider coverage of real-world aspects in the rest of the article.

• What happened? Plot: Cartman starts projecting his announcements into television screens in every classroom, where his claims grow increasingly politically charged. He accuses Wendy of wanting to kill the Smurfs, which concerns Butters and some other students. When they confront Wendy, she simply refuses to acknowledge Cartman.
• Why did it happen this way? Cultural references explains the parody: Glenn Beck has his own television show on Fox News where he discusses politics and is often criticized for his opinions.^[ref] He often uses a chalkboard to write down adjectives describing a certain subject,^[ref] similar to how Cartman does the same when he adjectives about Wendy to form a KILL SMURFS 'backronym' that alleges to spell out her hidden agenda. Butters forms a group in opposition of those of whom Cartman is critical, similar to the "Tea Party" groups critical of the Obama administration and endorsed by Beck.^[ref] Wendy simply ignores Cartman's challenges to respond to his loaded questions and appear on his show, echoing a similar response from White House staff member Anita Dunn when Beck challenged her to do the same.^[ref]

I will make just one more counterpoint: This is the impression of how I see the plot summary being played out if it were written with a "South Park flavor" as suggested, and with the secondary commentary included (please correct me if I'm wrong)...

With the "South Park flavor"

Cartman is given the duties of making the school's morning announcements. As usual, Cartman takes things to the extreme, because he has been known throughout the course of the show to be an obnoxious manipulator. He uses the opportunity to criticize class president Wendy Testaburger, just like Glenn Beck criticizes Barack Obama. Cartman describes himself as a normal kid that is just asking questions. But his questions are loaded questions, just like the ones Glenn Beck asks. One example is "Is Wendy using your lunch money to buy heroin? Probably not. But how can we know?". Cartman continues to say "I'm just asking questions" throughout the episode to further remind the viewer that he resembles Glenn Beck in the episode. A character says "Just because somebody has a microphone and a few books doesn’t mean they know what they’re talking about", because the show itself often has an opinionated view of people in politics. Joe X of Y Magazine agreed with the quote.

Cartman writes a book full of sexually explicit rumors about her, such as "Wendy's vagina is so large that an airplane can fly through it." Stan gets mad at Cartman for writing this, because Wendy is Stan's girlfriend and Stan is sick and tired of Cartman always doing stuff like this. Cartman then tells a story about how he lived with the Smurfs. In another instance of South Park goofiness, Cartman has no shirt on and has his face painted blue and he looks just like a big Smurf.

Of course, what's above is me generalizing for the sake of reiterating what I've tried to explain in this thread: that such a version of the plot summary would be horribly inappropriate. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 02:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and included the proposed summary from the subsection above. IMO there have been better explanations as to why this one is more suitable than the one it replaced. In no way am I saying this should be the final "end all" version, but the one we should be using when and if we do come to any further consensus regarding integrating other ideas. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The episode was a poke at Avatar and Glenn Beck but reading the cultural references and looking back at the summary it is impossible to pick out what plot elements were being used as parody. They are especially visual elements and need visually descriptive wording. I'll add those without increasing the length of the plot summary. Alatari (talk) 04:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The 'EC' show, single chalkboard mention, 'asks the tough questions' and his grey hair are the plot elements that elude to Glenn Beck. The wearing of the smurf uniform and painting the face blue allude to the main character in Avatar becoming a blue alien and Costner's scene where he finally removes his Army Unifomr and wears the Amerindian buckskins (a critical moment in the film). Since all these visuals are in the primary source there is no reason to source them or consider them unimportant given the reviewers remarks and the obvious connection with the parodied subjects. Alatari (talk) 05:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The new summary is 4 characters longer less the 33 added from Wikilinks. Alatari (talk) 05:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Infobox image

Two non-free television screenshot images from the same television article are seldom considered acceptable during a GAN review (which this will eventually go through if the WikiProject South Park Featured Topic drive has anything to say about it. :D). Since the current infobox image doesn't do much for a better understanding of the subject matter, I'd suggest dropping the current infobox image, subbing this image in there, and just using one episode screenshot. I think the chalkboard one is more appropriate as far as establishing an understanding of the episode, and it also illustrates the way in which Cartman rationalizes his "Wendy kills smurfs" theory that (as SoSaysChappy correctly points out) would be too cumbersome to explain in the plot summary. We could then further illustrate the body of the page with some other image, like of the Avatar film or of Glenn Beck or something. What do you guys think? — Hunter Kahn _(c) 21:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It's not too hard to imagine Cartman speaking into an announcer's mic ...the chalkboard image is more helpful. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dances with Smurfs/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Flash ^{talk} 00:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yello! I saw this episode when it aired and I was cracking up the whole way through, so I was excited to see it at GAN. Check out Talk:I Married Marge/GA1 for my structural set up. Let's get started, The Flash ^{talk} 00:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Lead

• Is there any source for its UK airdate?
  • I couldn't find one; that was there before i worked on the page. I've removed it. — Hunter Kahn 00:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• "[...]a platform for politically charges accusations against[...]" -> can you clean this up?
  • Done. Better? — Hunter Kahn 00:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Can you either expand the second paragraph or combine it with the third one?
  • I've expanded that second paragraph a bit, but if you think it's no good, feel free to drop that new sentence and combine the two paragraphs instead. — Hunter Kahn 00:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Plot summary

• "Cartman starts projecting his announcements into television screens classroom[...]" -> "television screens classroom"?
  • Fixed. — Hunter Kahn 00:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Shouldn't Cartman's book be italicized?
  • Done. — Hunter Kahn 00:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Please add a period after "Dances with Smurfs"
  • Ok. — Hunter Kahn 00:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Can you reword the whole Avatar part? It makes it seem like James Cameron adapted the film, not the book.
  • Is this better? — Hunter Kahn 00:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Theme

• Can you add an image of Beck?
  • You got it. — Hunter Kahn 00:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• "[...]writes on a blackboard to demonstrate to make a political point[...]" -> try and clean that up a bit
  • Is this better? — Hunter Kahn 00:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• "[...]and that he particularly enjoys Cartman's hair[...]" -> "particularly enjoyed"
  • Ok. — Hunter Kahn 00:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Cultural references

• Delink to Avatar and James Cameron (already linked in summary)
  • Done. — Hunter Kahn 00:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• "[...]expresses anger that they stole his idea, expressing the idea that[...]" -> can you reword that so it isn't back-to-back "expresses"
  • Done. — Hunter Kahn 00:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Delink Smurfs (same as above)
  • Ok. — Hunter Kahn 00:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Can you merge the second and first paragraphs? It seems a little abrupt as is.
  • No problem. — Hunter Kahn 00:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Reception

• Can you split it up into two or more paragraphs?
  • I split the ratings info and reviews info into two paragraphs. The ratings one is a bit short, but I think this is the most natural way to do it. — Hunter Kahn 00:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Remove the "the" before Nielsen Ratings
  • Ok. — Hunter Kahn 00:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Images

• File:Cartmanchalk.jpg has a fine FU rationale, but needs to be of lower resolution.
  • Better? — Hunter Kahn 00:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Final say

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

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:

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:

   Excellent work!! I'm going to pass this article. Cheers, The Flash ^{talk} 01:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dances with Smurfs. 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://www.webcitation.org/5u4naaIWL?url=http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/11/18/again-fxs-sons-of-anarchy-rides-to-the-top-of-cable-adults-18-49-heap/33965 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/11/18/again-fxs-sons-of-anarchy-rides-to-the-top-of-cable-adults-18-49-heap/33965

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 01:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)