Talk:Aguirre, the Wrath of God

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleAguirre, the Wrath of God was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 14, 2007Good article nomineeListed
May 30, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Fictional[edit]

Herzog made the acknowledgement that the story is fictional on his audio commentary for the Region 1 DVD. 209.149.235.241 23:32, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 10:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

Aguirre, der Zorn Gottes → Aguirre, the Wrath of God : This is the English Wikipedia.—jiy (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as nominator.—jiy (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The English title is used on the DVD cover, and credited as the US title on IMDB. No reason to use the German title. Kusma (討論) 22:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support WP:NC(UE) (unfortunately) --Lox (t,c) 08:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. I remember the German being used on the DVD title page, but the standard for films and literature is to use English as possible. --Mgreenbe 01:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --HasNoClue 08:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:UE seems straight forward, i would just move. - Spaceriqui 05:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:UE. Jonathunder 11:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Francisco/Gonzalo Pizarro[edit]

The Pizarro in the film is Gonzalo not Francisco. I have amended accordingly. SCRA5071 00:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gaspar de Carvajal's account[edit]

Regarding this entry:

"Additionally, there are a number of persons and situations which may have been inspired by Gaspar de Carvajal's account of an earlier Amazonian expedition"

I am intrigued to know more about the above article edit, sources, speculations, trivia, etc. The subject fascinates me.--Rule 303 16:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ebert Top 10 Ranking[edit]

I didn't explain my change in the summary, so I'll explain it here. The cited list seems to be in alphabetical order, not in terms of 'the best', 'the second best', etc. I felt this merited the change "number one" to "in the top ten".

Ok, I'll accept that. I kept reverting until someone gave an explanation, heh. James 21:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing Text[edit]

In first section:

"Although based loosely on what is known of the historical figure of Aguirre, the film's story line is, as Herzog acknowledged years after the film's release, a work of imagination, notwithstanding the fact that several of the film's lead characters."

Not sure what this actually means - the part after the last comment seems incomplete.

Removed it. Muad 08:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heart of Darkness[edit]

I've been unable to locate a reliable source indicating the film's similarities to Conrad's novella. All I've found are forum and blog references, nothing from a notable critic or reference work. The wikipedia article on the novella makes the same claim, but w/out a sourced reference. While I can see the similarities, without a citation, the claim reads like Original Research. If anybody can provide a good source it would be appreciated.-Hal Raglan 16:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Film poster[edit]

We should use the German poster at the top (since it is the original) and the U.S. one down below, no? gren グレン 02:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. Done!-Hal Raglan 05:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dubbed[edit]

I also think we need a better explanation of the dubbing of German (over English?). 1) the source has no page number given. 2) has this been checked by someone? It seems rather odd to me, but it could be the case. gren グレン 02:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will provide more detailed info taken from David Overbey's article in the referenced Movies of the Seventies, but I'm not sure if the end result will satisfy your need for a "better explanation". 1) The page number from the referenced book is 162. 2) Not sure what you mean by "has this been checked by anyone". If you watch both the English and German language versions of the film on the Anchor Bay DVD, its quite clear that the actor's lip movements are in sync with the English language track, while they are most definitely not so with the German language version. However, quite a few other sources do mention that the film was shot in English, and if you think more citations should be included in the article to substantiate the information, let me know and I'll see what I can come up with.-Hal Raglan 04:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, so far, I've been unable to come up with an additional reliable source that indicates the film was indeed shot in English. Some review websites do mention the fact but I'd rather find something from a more notable source. I'll take another listen to the Aguirre DVD audio commentary and see if Herzog talks about it or not. If I can't find anything, I may remove the paragraph from the article until I can locate something more substantial than a brief mention in a 20 year old book.-Hal Raglan 05:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A citation is always good... the main reason I brought it up was that I wasn't sure if an anon had added it as a joke or something... since it seemed a little outlandish to me. I've never been good at judging lip movements, but some of the English ones seemed off to me. Is it possible that some actors spoke in English while others didn't? I just watched part in English and it feels unnatural. I suppose maybe that's because I became used to the German. So, no hurry besides what you'd give to any fact needing referencing. I've added the page number, so it is referenced. I also changed the style and put a small explanation in the reference so as not to mislead people that it is more well known in English. Feel free to fix it up if you don't like how I did it. gren グレン 09:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which river?[edit]

Aguirre was a real historical person but I am sure that the river he sailed was the Orinico not the Amazon so I have changed this.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 14:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you had done a simple review of the history of Lope de Aguirre's expeditions, you would know that the river was the Amazon River. If you had SEEN the movie, you would also know that this river is supposed to be the Amazon. What made you think that the river in question was the Orinoco?

GA held[edit]

I couldn't resist reviewing this. I have a hard time picking a favourite Herzog but this one's right up there. Anyway, I've held it. I'm going to list the trivial things I could fix myself not out of laziness but, y'know, it's good get minutia down too.

  • The images need sources, that being the copyright holder and/or the URL of the site they came from.
  • The latter two, especially the 2nd poster, need stronger rationales. We just need to know the specifics of the significance, per this guy's help thing (not the first one but the last two.)
    • I have added details as to where/how the images were obtained, plus copyright info that I am aware of. I've also added more fair use rationale to all three images.-Hal Raglan 01:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd lose the infobox flag, per WP:FLAGCRUFT
  • The lead should cover everything in the article, for example, Kinski's temperament, shooting on location, possibly the Sight & Sound list.
    • With a little bit of rewriting and reshuffling of material, I should be able to easily address this issue. I'll try to get to this tonite (Aug 13).-Hal Raglan 13:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The budget should be preceded by US$, infobox and text, and the first instance wikilinked, per WP:DATE.
    • Fixed, I think. Sorry, I'm a little confused by your wording.- Hal Raglan 01:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really tiny thing, Gaspar de Carvajal's name in the lead should be piped so the apostrophe-s is included in the wikilink, per somewhere in WP:MOS.
  • I know they say it's fine to use the IMDb to confirm cast but I don't think you need it at all. If it can be confirmed by the film credits, that's your source. If they absolutely need to check the IMDb, the link's right there in the infobox and external links.
    • Not sure what you mean here. I believe I used the cast list provided in David Overbey's Movies of the Seventies. There is no ref/link back to imdb for the cast section.-Hal Raglan 01:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is purely optional, but if the country's West German, the release date can be assumed to be the same, you don't need the bracketed assertion.
  • If the main language in the infobox is English, the language category should be the same.
    • I understand what you are saying, but the film was filmed in English, but predominantly released in a German-dubbed version. This confuses things a little as to the proper cat to utilize. Should we have two cats, English language films and German language films?-Hal Raglan 01:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ISBN doesn't work, I don't think you need them for DVDs. I'm not sure if the formatting is right for the DVD items either but I won't call you on that. If there's a problem they'll get it in FAC.
  • There should be a little more on Kinski, he's such a huge part of the lore of this film.
    • It's Herzog and Kinski's first film together. They're as famous a paring as Kurosawa and Mifune and Scorsese and De Niro. Possibly this might be the place to mention that story of how they first met from My Best Fiend. Maybe not but it's something to consider.
    • To accompany the shooting incident, I believe it was in the commentary that it was mentioned Kinski hit a cast member in the head with his sword full force. It dented the helmet, left a permanent scar and could have killed him without the helmet--maybe not even in that much detail but a mention would do.
      • This is mentioned in "My Best Fiend", Werner Herzog's documentary about his relationship with Kinski. There is an interview with the man who was hit on the head, straight from the horse's mouth, and what looks like footage of the event (including the poor, dented helmet!). -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, Kinski had some colourful things to say about the experience, didn't he?
      • I've never read Kinski's autobiography but if he ever did comment on the film's production I'm sure it would be there. I think a line or two should be indeed be added about how/why Herzog's first choice for the role was Kinski, with some detail about their earlier experiences together, but I'm not too sure if too much detail should be expended on their subsequent filmic relationship in this article.-Hal Raglan 01:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've added another paragraph briefly explaining their early relationship and Herzog's reasons for thinking only Kinski could play the part.-Hal Raglan 04:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know the Loch Ness parody is obvious but a reference should be easy to find.
  • The IMDb isn't reliable for awards, those should be re-referenced.
    • A quick search of the various establishments' websites does not confirm Aguirre actually received these particular awards. That doesn't mean it definitively did not, but at this moment I cannot confirm the awards. I have removed the reference and will re-add them only when I can find a reliable source.-Hal Raglan 02:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think you need Rotten Tomatoes in with the reviews, it takes too much space to explain what it is and it's difficult to say if they're all reliable reviews, I don't think they are. An excellent job of summing up reactions has been done without it. I'd put it in External links.
    • Thanks. I put a great deal of work into this article, particularly the Response/Reception section. I know many other editors seem to think Rotten Tomatoes is one of the greatest film reference sites but I don't necessarily agree. I will probably take your advice and yank this out.-Hal Raglan 02:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category Films based on actual events is a little sketchy... the article pretty much says it's fantasy as soon as Herzog opened the book.
    • I'm iffy on this suggestion. The film was based on actual events, albeit loosely. I think the cat should remain.-Hal Raglan 02:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the cast box, I can't remember where I saw this but somewhere in the MOS I read tables were not meant for two item widths. Lose that and maybe split it into two rows to minimize dead space.
    • This will take some work on my part as I have no clue as to how to fix this problem. I did initially try with two rows for the very reason you mention but to me it looked even worse, with a lot more dead space, than the way it looks now. I'll try to figure something out, but this will have to be at the bottom of my "to-do" list.-Hal Raglan 13:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, almost missed it, the Coppola thing in the lead, per WP:LEAD, needs to be in the main text somewhere as well. It seems redundant sometimes but you've got to sum pretty much everything up in the lead and then detail it out throughout the rest of the article. Maybe just spell out that it influenced Apocalypse Now along with some other response stuff in the lead and move the details down below. Aren't there any other people influenced? I can't think of anything off the top of my head but it seems like there must be more.
    • I definitely agree w/you here. I'll try to get to this at the same time I am rewriting the lead. I'll probably add a "Legacy" section, which I've wanted to do for some time. Aguirre was the major influenced work, but some critics have mentioned other movies, too. I'll see what I can dig up.-Hal Raglan 13:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Rewrote/expanded lead and added "Legacy" section.

It's a great article. I commend you for choosing this film and the work done. It seems like there should be more sections but I can't think of what would be missing. Maybe Home video but certainly few FAs have that. Anyway, it's enjoyable and informative. Doctor Sunshine talk 16:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate the kind words. Its a great film and deserves a thorough wikipedia entry. Another editor nominated this for Good Article status, and I think with some of the changes you recommend it should definitely get there with no problem.-Hal Raglan 13:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Regarding the IMDb comment, I should have clarified further. I meant in the infobox, I assumed that last reference after the budget was meant to cover the entire infobox. I see it's just meant for the budget. There's a better reference (currently 9a) in the 2nd paragraph of the Production section. In regards to the language category, no, you're right. Thinking about it again, it should go by the original country. So, of the things I haven't crossed out, the lead, Kinski additions and legacy are the only key issues. The others aren't pass-fail considerations in my mind. Keep up the good work. Doctor Sunshine talk 14:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found some citations for the awards.

Thanks! I did a search myself but was able to locate only the German Films website. You obviously are a much greater search engine master than I am. W/the addition of the references you provided I think it can be safely said that the film indeed received the noted awards.-Hal Raglan 19:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

This may be useful: FilmReference.com. Also, if you haven't already, I would seek out academic studies of the film at Google Scholar. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you need help retrieving these academic studies, I can either explain to you how to access the full content or provide it myself. I've done so for Schindler's List, Memento, Fight Club, etc. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA passed[edit]

That was fast. Great work. Erik brings up a good point though. A themes section is entirely appropriate for this film. However, I'm passing it as it's most definitely a good article. And it's well on it's way to FA status. I'd recommend adding the themes section, then taking it to a peer review just to be we've not missed anything else. Kudos. Doctor Sunshine talk 20:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erik provided me with six very useful scholarly articles that will assist in the development of "Historical Accuracy" and "Themes" sections. These will take some time/work and I'll get to it eventually. I'll definitely hold off on a peer review request until the sections have been added. Thanks for your terrific suggestions/assistance.-Hal Raglan 22:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits[edit]

Hal Raglan:

I also assume your edits were made in good faith. However, let us be practical and compare the edits:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aguirre%2C_the_Wrath_of_God&diff=258472614&oldid=258470456

1) I worked the lead's sections into their appropriate sections below. This info is not in those sections and better belongs there.

2) Plot not synopsis is the preferred style guide term for film layouts

3) I condensed small paragraphs into larger one by using simple grammar rules that a paragraph break denotes a change of tone or subject. The breaks in your version do not.

4) Herzog and Kinski section: note the para from the lead works better here in denoting more of the relationship between the artists.

5) I see no need for a two column cast list as the list is small

6) Response section: again, the lead para works as a better intro here

7) Legacy section: again, no change in tone to denote a new paragraph needed; I see many articles where paragraphs are a mere sentence long, and short, badly written sentences, too.

8) Historical accuracy section: again, why a paragraph break?

9) Links: the review noted is not a b(l)og, as you state, but an online music and film journal, and seems to meet Wikipedia's external WP:EL standard

Given all this, I do not see how you can state the structure is freakishly bizarre or weird, since it meets Wiki style guidelines, good grammar, and link criteria. I'm not trying to pick a fight, just defend what I see are better edits.

I assume we have the same goal for the page, and I am not trying to vandalize. Can we reach a compromise? Perhaps we can start by a point by point reply.

Thanks, and no hard feelings. Puppette (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you've decided to discuss the decisions behind your recent edits. As you suggested, a point by point response is provided below. For more information, you might want to check out the comments made in the "GA Held" section above.
1) First, and most importantly, please see Wikipedia:Lead section for information on what should be in introductory lead sections of Wikipedia articles. All the information you cut from the lead and pasted into other sections is already detailed in the article. The lead is meant to act as an overall summary of the article that follows and the lead paragraphs of the Aguirre article do just that.
2) I have no problem with renaming this section "Plot", as that does seem to be the norm for most film articles.
3) Don't agree with you here at all. There is a clear change of subject in the paragraph breaks. The first of the two paragraphs you combined describes the film's first major river sequence, which culminates in the trapping of the men in the eddy and their deaths. The following paragraph details the next day's flooding and subsequent raft rebuilding/continuation of the expedition. The second two paragraphs you combined also should remain separate: one details the oppressive nature of Aguirre's leadership and the next paragraph discusses the continuation of the expedition.
4) This section already discusses the relationship between the director and actor. The lead needs to summarize this information. Removing the actor/director summary from the lead and slapping it into this section results in repetition of detail.
5) Per comments made in "GA Held" section above two column cast list was added because one column listing seemed to result in a waste of space on the page.
6) Response section: No, should remain in the lead as this concisely summarizes the critical response/cult appeal of the film.
7) Yes, there is a change of subject here. The first paragraph details Aguirre's influence on a specific film (Apocalypse Now), while the second paragraph goes on to discuss Aguirre's broader cinematic influence. I admit that both paragraphs are pretty short but instead of combining the two I would love to see the paragraphs expanded with more info and quotes, properly sourced.
8) I can see your point here and I do agree that these two paragraphs can be combined.
9) While an interesting read, this particular review doesn't appear to be notable versus all the other online commentary available on Aguirre. Why do you believe this one review should be linked? That said, I have no great argument against its inclusion and if you believe it serves a great purpose I won't revert its re-insertion.-Hal Raglan (talk) 05:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think it's a good compromise, we'll combine the paragraph mentioned, keep the PLOT section named that way, and the link. I can see where you are going re: the paragraph sections. I disagree, but it's not that big a deal. I'll insert the link. BTW- I found out about that site when it was recommended to me by someone into Popol Vuh and native music. Cheers, Puppette (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW: I grouped the links via sites that are informational and those that are critical, rather than having them split up. Puppette (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2009_Archive_Jan_1#Spam_links_to_Dan_Schneider_articles_again, I am about to remove the previously discussed link to a non-notable review site. There are many analytical critiques of this film available online and no good reason has been provided as to why this one should be featured. Please discuss before re-adding the link. -Hal Raglan (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-US criticism[edit]

The reception section has only comments from US critics, which is not ideal. There's no reason why it shouldn't include reviews in other major languages, particularly German.

Peter Isotalo 13:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • If there's "no reason" why they shouldn't be included, that implies that numerous reliable English-language sources are available containing examples of translated reviews from other countries. Instead of simply slapping on a tag and making such a presumptuous claim, why not be bold and add excerpts from these easily traceable sources yourself? - Hal Raglan (talk) 01:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why do the sources have to be en English? There's obviously not going be much written about French or German critical reception in English, so non-English sources are probably required. I don't personally know anything about the European film critic community, but there has to be at least some information out there.
Peter Isotalo 10:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see that this issue has been under discussion on the WikiProject Films Style guidelines page. Apparently, it is acceptable policy for editors to translate foreign language reviews for use in wikipedia articles. That being the case, I will begin looking for German-language reviews and translate them with one of the free online translation services that are out there.-Hal Raglan (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nastassja Kinski?[edit]

I always thought that Nastassja Kinski played opposite her father Klaus Kinski in Aguirre as his daughter. But this and other sources identify the actress as Cecilia Rivera - who seems to have acted in nothing else except a very obscure tv show. But is it possible that Cecilia Rivera was a pseudonym for Nastassja, who would have been 10 years old during filming? She looks just like Nastassja Kinski as a child. Some websites do identify the actress as Nastassja Kinski. Very confusing. 24.233.254.29 (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its entirely possible that the experience of filming in deep Amazon rainforest, on a miniscule budget, on a raft with those two famously uncompromising mental cases (Herzog and Kinski) put Sig. Rivera off acting for good. FWIW Natassja's d.o.b. has been subject to some speculation because of her relationship with one Roman Polanski. Plutonium27 (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Language - Failure[edit]

The Language of the movie is written as "Language English (dubbed: German)[1]" I think its the other way round, original language was german. see imdb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068182/ Subversiv-action (talk) 11:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, as explained in the article, the cast spoke their lines in English. The German language version was in fact dubbed. Hal Raglan (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Synopsis: Changes[edit]

I made three changes to the plot synopsis:

1. Aguirre, unsure of the loyalty of soldiers, sarcastically suggests the fat, lazy Don Fernando de Guzman (Peter Berling) as the leader of the expedition.

I changed his to: >>To ensure the persistence of the third leader of the troop and Aguirre's accomplice in the mutiny, the fat, lazy Don Fernando de Guzman (Peter Berling), Aguirre coerces the soldiers to "elect" him the new leader of the expedition.<<

This is, as I strongly believe, the actual reason why Aguirre suggests Guzman as new (puppet) leader.

2. Some days later, Guzman is found dead near the outhouse. Taking advantage of Guzman's death etc.

I changed this to: >>Guzman goes too far in his inaptness when he dines on the low food supplies while the men are starving, and has the expedition's only horse pushed off the raft because it annoys him. Soon after, he is found strangled near the outhouse (Aguirre is implied to be the murderer). After Guzman's death<< etc.

Guzman is indeed murdered; a noose around his neck is visible when he is found dead (it is easy to miss). It is never openly resolved, but it is pretty clear that Aguirre is supposed to be the murderer.

3. I changed one time "explorers" to "soldiers" - I thought "explorer" is a bit euphemizing.

Hope that's ok! Corinius (talk) 02:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

400 monkeys in a jeep?[edit]

Something is wrong with the article. It states at one point:

"Herzog paid several locals to trap 400 monkeys...Herzog loaded them into his jeep and drove away."

Now, this strikes me as exceedingly unlikely. Can anyone clarify what was really going on here? Checking the source? (It seems to be the commentary track on the DVD, which I do not have.)

Beska (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it should be 40? That sounds more like the actual number in that scene. More likely Herzog just made up some number out of nowhere on the commentary. He has no problem exaggerating. Staecker (talk) 01:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Aguirre, the Wrath of God. 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}}).

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) 20:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Aguirre, the Wrath of God. 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, 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) 06:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aguirre, the Wrath of God. 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, 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) 00:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aguirre,_the_Wrath_of_God&oldid=1216966362"