Talk:The Dukes of Hazzard (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Film (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

References to Super Troopers[edit]

I'm surprised this article doesn't mention the number of cast members from the Super Troopers film, including spoofs of several scenes from that movie aside from part in the cast listings. Not important, but a bit of trivia. Doric Nash 01:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Dog's name?[edit]

What is the name of the dog in this show?


Opinion of TV DOH cast member[edit]

LOL This thread is hilarious. You people are not only illiterate - you're stupid too!

It would be appropriate to mention that a former cast star from the original series has publicly come out against this movie and decried it as tasteless garbage. It has also faired poorly among critics

no, it wouldn't be appropriate to misquote cooter like that, if he's the one you're talking about. also, some of the criticism of the movie seems to be directed at the DOH franchise, not just the movie -- usually by people who really didn't get the show or some of the superior acting in it. by the way, you can sign comments by entering four tildes (~~~~); they'll be converted to a sig and timestamp when you save. SaltyPig 23:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
To add a comment regarding the opinion of Ben Jones, he seems to have a selective memory. I just happened to catch the original pilot episode the other day on the CMT, and there were several innuendos aboutrednecks and incest tossed around. Frankly I was a bit surprised as I didn't recall that, but then again I was only around 7 at the time. Perhaps the sexuality wasn't as frank and blunt in the original as it was in the movie, but it was present. Perhaps this point could be worked into that section on the main page as a rebuttal to Mr. Jones' contention. I can work on finding a transcript and get the exact quotes fro mthe pilot. Tarc 13:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
your "selective memory" claim is based on a false transmission of what cooter said. there is nothing in the DOH pilot approaching what cooter was discussing in his public message about the film. further, the pilot, a comparatively tame outing compared to today's TV and film, was notoriously the raciest of all the DOH episodes, in a series that clearly went child-friendly from the second third of the first season through the end of the seventh. it is that entire legacy (over 7 years, with add-ons) to which cooter referred. frankly, you're charging down a dead end, pretty much based on daisy's single-line response to a comment by bo in the pilot. pretty silly to act like you have a smoking gun based on that, compared to the character of uncle jesse telling dirty jokes in the film, smoking pot, and acting like a semi-retired woodstock dropout ass. are you disputing that the character of uncle jesse was entirely warped? if not, then what's your factual point other than inventing controversy where none exists? Wbfl 00:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
You really offered a whole lot of nothing in the reply there. As I said, sexuality was present in the series, not just in the pilot. ("Daisy Dukes" ? Enough said, and Jones' criticism is just revisionist fantasy. Tarc 19:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
the degree is the relevant and complex point. address it or drop it. (BTW, cooter was referring primarily to a script he read.) merely stating, as if it makes cooter a liar, that sexuality was present in the original is pointless. no, it's not enough to say "Daisy Dukes" and depart the field... unless you really are departing the field -- in which case i applaud you, sir. well done. bang the wife for me after you hang up your spurs. um, did you even notice that this entire article sucks balls, regardless of the cooter point? delete that section and you'll have done mankind a service. don't try to polish a turd, fer cryin out loud. oh, i know: i've just said a whole lot of nothin. poser. Wbfl 04:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Responding directly to this sort infantile behaviour isn't really worth anyone's time. Consider yourself dismissed. Tarc 20:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you two finished? Jesus. The fact of the matter is, the TV series DID have lewd content including sexuality, violence, and racism. Watch one episode, you will find it. On another note, the show aired years ago; for the movie to make any money, it had to take it up a notch to reach today's level of lewd content. The TV show stunned viewers in the past. The movie needed to stun people in the present, so it did that by making the lewd content a little more explicit. End of story: it made money - mission accomplished - you can't argue with that.


Just as network executives could not explain the ratings success of the Dukes of Hazzard television series, the film has been panned by most serious (stuffy? urban?) film critics...

Jones, in his interviews, conveniently overlooks the double entrendre of his character's name in the CBS series.

you're trashing the article with obvious POV fluff (e.g., "conveniently overlooks"). not going to revert war it though. do whatever you want. your additions are so obviously not encyclopedic that it's almost fun to watch you defending them. if you take a real look at the edit history, you will find that all i did was clean up the criticism that others put in. i've added no original content, nor do i even think most of it is worth including. however, i figure the article's going to be changing rapidly, so no big deal. your stuff though is pretty sloppy. "stuffy? urban?" ha! enjoy your mess. it's obvious where any bias is coming from. SaltyPig 02:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

saltypig = yankee
maybe you shouldn't assume so much.
[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] SaltyPig 03:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I added the criticism section, as a fan of the original show who found it on reruns on CMT back about five years ago - who is utterly dismayed that the movie version is so simperingly horrendous. FWIW, I live in northern California so I'm not sure what you can call me. FCYTravis 07:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
re the recent changes, User:WillC, you apparently don't understand NPOV, nor what "unbiased" means. "predictably"? "necessarily"? in the given context, those are POV. you also ended up with a jumbled sentence that makes no sense, and have added your POV to the cooter squabble. you just can't resist pointing out to everybody that "cooter" might mean something. and you do these things while claiming to remove bias. who is pointing this out to cooter? you and your pals? the article now reads as though it were written by you, a guy so insane with false perception that he calls me a yankee. ha! you can't even cop to what you did. quit screwing up the article. SaltyPig 17:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
I added a short, hopefully NPOV-sounding response to Ben Jones' assertions, as well as a quote from John Schneider. If we're gonna get the "Controversy" section right, it should present both opinions fairly, if there is evidence to support it, which I believe there is. Tarc 21:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Cryptic review[edit]

What in the world is meant by saying that the film is "karma-wise ... the second half of what "Smokey and the Bandit" was the first half of"? Thanks — Pekinensis 15:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

it's meant to sound audacious, not precise — a put down. that's about it. SaltyPig 01:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
I see. Thanks — Pekinensis 02:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Irrelevant POV comment[edit]

God it sucked. Really. Marskell 23:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


is a self-admitted vandal. argument closed. WillC 19:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

at least you didn't reach into your yankee bag for today's useless, inaccurate diversion. "self-admitted vandal" — that's an interesting one. great "argument". BTW, most of the issues with your pet edit have been addressed, either here or in edit summaries. there is no point in trying to work with you when any serious attempt to explain is met with ridiculous accusations totally irrelevant to the subject at hand. you're a troll, and that's the truth about you and all the problems with your edits. Wbfl 00:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
speaking of edits, here's a classic from somebody now slinging "self-admitted vandal" BS. Wbfl 02:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


I've protected this article - instead of blocking both Wbfl and WillC for repeated reversion. How about fewer snippy comments in edit summaries, and an attempt at working out a compromise? CDC (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

i'd be happy to, were there hope in discussing something with somebody who "begins" a discussion with "Wbfl is a self-admitted vandal. argument closed." well, the argument's closed then. if somebody serious truly believes the edit attempts are worthwhile, i'll be happy to demolish the proposed text in detail. it's pure POV, original research, uncited, untrue, and argumentative. BTW, WillC added a previous section "for balance" against the cooter bit; that was kept in modified form (once the POV was removed), and remains. weeks later he insists that more be piled on the same side "for balance". he's a troll, and i'm not going to go through admins to deal with him. Wbfl 18:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Wbfl, as an obvious anti-DOH editor, should recuse himself from editing this article because he cannot approach it from an unbiased perspective. WillC 19:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

now i'm anti-DOH (as i look across the room to four seasons of DOH DVDs). what about being a yankee? what about, "YOU ARE PREJUDICED AGAINST SOUTHERN CULTURE"? remember that one, WillC? remember this one? you claim lack of balance. well what was this edit for then? it was POV and unverifiable, so that got changed here with a cited fact, preserving your intent. then you slept. apparently you felt the article had balance. now, because somebody else inserted something you think is peachy, we get:

But it could be argued that there was sexual content in the original, as the pilot episode One-Armed Bandits contained several instances of sexual innuendo that played on the sterotypes of Southern culture, not to mention the infamous Daisy Dukes that remain an icon of the original series.
Other original cast members did not appear to have a problem with the movie's content. John Schneider, who played Bo Duke in the original, said, "I saw it. It was cute. The car stuff was great. The guys had a terrific, infectious kind of chemistry, albeit a different kind of chemistry than Tom and I had, but still it was there."[10]

so it "could be argued" huh? wikipedia is not for you to posit your inane arguments (or any other kind) in the weasel-worded form "it could be argued". sorry. absolute nut material. you are not to argue in wikipedia articles.

"there was sexual content in the original"? fine. that's not what cooter was talking about. the existence of sexual content in the series doesn't make cooter full of crap.

"the pilot episode One-Armed Bandits contained several instances of sexual innuendo that played on the sterotypes of Southern culture". really? as requested long ago, name them! name these "several instances of sexual innuendo that played on the sterotypes of Southern culture". of course, it's original research, and therefore not allowed, but just to show yourself how full of it the edit is, go find them. name them. it was one line from daisy, and it has nothing to do with what cooter said. like i said, it's irrelevant, because you're arguing. as an example of how to put in information, look to the cooter section you're supposedly "balancing". it's all cited fact. it's a news item, and there's no argument in it.

"not to mention the infamous Daisy Dukes that remain an icon of the original series." not to mention? you're arguing! stop it. and how are daisy's shorts "infamous"? that's POV. i don't think they're infamous. you do? too bad! you can't put it in just because you think it. why do you think i've been hammering WP:NOR, among other things? further, daisy dukes are not what cooter was talking about. daisy's shorts are offset by daisy's shorts in the film. that too complicated for you?

"Other original cast members did not appear to have a problem with the movie's content." really? name these "original cast members" who "did not appear to have a problem". name them! you're setting up a single citation and trying to make it speak for the mystical plural. bogus. again, you're arguing — untruthfully.

"John Schneider, who played Bo Duke in the original, said, 'I saw it. It was cute. The car stuff was great. The guys had a terrific, infectious kind of chemistry, albeit a different kind of chemistry than Tom and I had, but still it was there.'[11]" want that in there? set it up right, and it's encyclopedic. Wbfl 20:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

your argument is 100 percent semantics. WillC 20:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

A note from an administrator[edit]

This is going nowhere fast. PLEASE try to be civil to one another -- remember Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. If you can't be civil to one another then I'll consider blocking you both for disruption. I'm not a fan of Dukes of Hazzard particularly (in the "fanatic" sense), but it was a recognizable part of my childhood, just like pretty much every other kid who grew up in the South in that era. So maybe I can help y'all see the way through to a compromise. But first everybody has to calm down, please. What are the content disputes here? Start off with the main one, don't dump a bunch of points at once. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Wbfl refuses to allow any positive reactions to the movie. WillC 22:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Such as? Can you show an example of what you'd like to add, or retain? · Katefan0(scribble) 23:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
just what was needed in here, some admin throwing weight around and threatening while trying to play psych major 101. typical wikipedia admin nonsense. i just went through every phrase of the proposed edit (see above, since you obviously didn't, or are pretending to not have), and here you come from heaven, asking what the issues are. what value is that? seriously. "If you can't be civil to one another then I'll consider blocking you both for disruption." you sound like a cheesy cop. wake-up call: you're not a cop. you're a wikpedia admin, and the criteria for blocking have not been anywhere near reached, except for 3RR. you know it and i know it. stop bullying. read the talk page if you're so concerned. if you're not willing to do that, what of value do you have to offer? why are you here? the world will survive without you and your big threats. you can't recognize this POV (and more) from a mile away, or are you feigning objectivity? not fooled. fine. enjoy your wikipedia full of "editors" like WillC. do whatever you want. enjoy your weight throwing and threats, threatener. at least CDC did something constructive and used some class (as in not blocking when he could have); you're a typical (as in sucks) wikipedia admin. have to come in announcing how powerful you are and all you can do if people don't shape up pronto. ever stop to think of how insecure and pathetic that behavior is? blow. Wbfl 23:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
And what is the content problem exactly? I've stricken your personal remarks. Try to focus, please, on content. · Katefan0(scribble) 23:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
So, I gather the most recent dispute is over adding something rebutting Cooter's comments about the film being over-sexualized. My initial impression is that But it could be argued is just using weasel words to get at "I am arguing". Do you have a source of someone suggesting that the original series was also sexualized? I don't disagree with the statement on a personal level, but this suggestion needs to be sourced to someone else for it to comply with WP:NPOV. There may be another way to get at the thought that complies with NPOV -- like talking about the ubiquitousness of the phrase "daisy dukes" -- I'll think about it a bit. · Katefan0(scribble) 23:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, Ben Jones sort of acknowledges this himself in an interview with Matt Lauer. From the transcript -- today show, July 15, 2005:

LAUER: You--you say on your Web site, you weigh in on your Web site, you say, the movie, quote, "shows a disrespect for our show, for our cast, for America's families and for the sensibilities of the heartland of our country." Explain that?

Mr. JONES: Well, it's not a clean show. Our show was probably the most famous family show ever on television and probably had the biggest following of young people, of kids ever on prime-time television. And this film doesn't reflect those values.

LAUER: Didn't your show, though, back in the time it was airing, push the envelope a little? I mean, Daisy Duke walking around in those cut-off shorts.

Mr. JONES: Daisy Duke, sure. Well, shorts have been around. Nobody had worn them quite as well as Catherine Bach up to that point. But...

LAUER: Right. But for that time period, it raised a few eyebrows.

Mr. JONES: Well, it raised my eyebrows.

LAUER: Yeah, right.

Mr. JONES: Yeah. I--you know, she was a force of nature. My goodness gracious.

LAUER: So why is the movie not clean? Why is it not...

Mr. JONES: Well, the difference is, you know, ours was harmless and innocent, just a girl walking by in shorts was all we needed to make that statement. This is like a hoochie-coochie show with a lot of profanity, a lot of sexual situations. Our concern is, you know, I suppose there's a place for that kind of entertainment. We don't think it's in our show and we're just saying unless they clean it up, don't take your kids.

So, maybe we could do something like ... "In an interview on the Today show on July 15, Jones acknowledged that Catherine Bach's "short shorts" (popularized now as "Daisy Dukes") "raised eyebrows." But he said Bach's display was "harmless and innocent," compared to the film's "hoochie-coochie show."

Thoughts? · Katefan0(scribble) 00:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, another point from the New York Daily News: Though its PG-13 rating allows for much cruder sex humor, the movie version of "Dukes" is nearly identical to the TV series in its corniness, in its incessant car chases and in its ogling of the posterior of cousin Daisy Duke. (By Jack Mathews, Aug. 5, 2005) · Katefan0(scribble) 00:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Katefan0. WillC 01:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, as I was the above-mentioned "somebody else"...if there is still contention regarding the sexuality of original vs. movie, fine, I'm up for discussion on that. But I'd think that the factual quote from the other cast member who had no problem with the movie be restored, as it provided a counterpoint to Ben Jones' opinion on the matter. Tarc 04:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I think Ben provided his own counterpoint. Plus we can quote the NYDN article I referenced above. If you're referring to the quote from John Schneider, it doesn't really refer specifically to this debate. You could put it somewhere in the article, but it's not really a specific rebuttal to Jones' complaint. · Katefan0(scribble) 04:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Things seem a little more civil around here, and I'm seeing some good suggestions for content to add to the article - thanks Katefan0. Any objection to unprotection? CDC (talk) 04:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it's OK. Give it a go. · Katefan0(scribble) 15:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Looks good, glad that this was resolved amicably. Tarc 00:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


There's no need to remove these, particularly without any discussion. WillC, care to explain yourself? · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 00:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The Razzies are meant as tongue in cheek and do not belong as a section on this page's entry equal to real facts about the movie. A more acceptable way of noting the Razzie nominations would be the category links at the bottom. WillC 00:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

That may well be, but they're still factual and sourceable, and have just as much place as any other fact about the movie. BTW, I believe you've violated the WP:3RR with your reverts today, and will be reporting accordingly at WP:AN/3RR if you revert again. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 04:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

So I guess for George Bush I could post that he was presented with an award by the KKK for being the governor to execute the most black people while in office. It is factual and sourceable. No, the Razzies are not legitimate awards. Worst on screen duo...Jessica Simpson and shorts? Come on. I will report you for your vendetta of vandalism and negativity if this continues. WillC 11:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Raspberry awards do attract a lot of mainstream press attention around Oscar time, and they're notable enough to have a wiki entry, so there is a fair amount of notability there. Also, WillC, this is clearly a content dispute, not Vandalism, so treat it as such. Aim Here 15:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line:

  • Fact: Razzies are notable.
  • Fact: The film was nominated for several Razzies.
  • Therefore, they are valid for inclusion in the article. Simple as that. -- MisterHand 12:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not that simple. WillC 20:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

In the spirit of compromise, I consolidated all razzie info as a paragraph in the criticism section, and removed the "worst screen couple" nom -- MisterHand 20:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks you. I consider this matter closed. See how easy this was, Katefan0? Locking pages, whining to administrators, and blocking users is not the answer. Try some diplomacy once in a while. WillC 21:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
With the exception of removing the "worst screen couple" nomination, that was exactly the compromise I had proposed (which you continued to revert without discussion), so your comment is rather disingenuous. But at least I'm not telling you to stop "crapping on the talk page" [12] or vowing to continue a one-woman crusade [13]. That wouldn't be very diplomatic. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 21:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
You said no such thing and obviously want to continue this poo fest. Gee, who was the agressor here? And you know what, you reverting my reverts makes you a reverter too. I am a regular contributor to this DOH entry; you are the jane come lately swooping in with your agenda. Everybody is happy with the entry; now we can all drop it. WillC 21:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Daily Show[edit]

I've removed a Daily Show interview - there's really no way to know what is true or what isn't in those interviews, since it is a comedy show and not a news show. Michael Dorosh 20:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Controversy dispute[edit]

Basically, it's saying that Jones is wrong.Ohyeahmormons 06:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Links to original cast member pages?[edit]

It seems a little off to have the "Johnny Knoxville as Luke Duke" cast line link to the Luke Duke wiki page, which is 99% about Tom Wopat's characterization, and a one-liner blurb about Knoxville at the end. Should this be rectified in some manner...remove the wiki link, update the "Luke Duke" page to be more inclusive of Knoxville, make a page of his own...? Tarc 04:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Confederate flag?[edit]

The General Lee has not, in any incarnation, had the Confederate flag on its roof. A flag, yes, but not the Confederate flag.--Stu-Rat 20:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No real reason to be nitpicky, is there? The Navy Jack is colloquially known as the "Confederate" or "Rebel" flag nowadays. Tarc 21:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is a reason to be nitpicky. Because this is an encyclopedia. And no, it is not colloquially known. It is incorrectly known. There is a difference. --Stu-Rat 14:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

No, there isn't. Tarc 21:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is. One is the Flag of the Confederate States of America, the other is the Battle Flag of the Confederate States of America. The two are very different. The flag painted on top of the General Lee is the Battle Flag.--Stu-Rat 19:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I managed a little resurch (pardon my English) into these flags and the flag on the roof, is, indeed the battle flag.

Long summary[edit]

Does the summary really need to be so long? It seems like it provides more than enough information and it could use some trimming. Things like "the boys are being driven from jail to...somewhere else..." Presumably if they're being driven from the jail they're going somewhere else; does that need to be stated? — ShadowHalo 21:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Citation 4[edit]

Leads to a dead page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Fair use rationale for Image:Dukes of hazzard movie poster.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Dukes of hazzard movie poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Not only is that an outdated term, the correct spelling is "negroes". This is why I changed it to "African Americans" in the article. Change it to "black people" if you want, but seriously, there is such a thing as spell check.

Adaptation Rights[edit]

An Act One Screenwriting Conference in New York from April 2006 mentioned about how the studio failed to make sure the film rights were actually secured. In other words, the TV rights never included future adaptation, in order to leave the option for using the characters in a future novel. Does anybody know any more about this? MMetro (talk) 01:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Too Heavy on Simpson's Cover[edit]

It seemed to me that Jessica Simpson's cover of These Boots Are Made For Walkin' was too large a portion of the article. Turns out it was a direct copy of the section from the above article (it's out of place there as well, imo), so I removed most of the content and provided a link (plus an additional reference). ~ Amory (talk) 02:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

"Loosely based"[edit]

Can the intro be changed from "based on the TV show..." to "loosely based"? The movie had characters with the same names, and the car, but that's really about the only things the two have in common. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smart Mark Greene (talkcontribs) 05:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Dukes of Hazzard (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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)