This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Goodbyeee article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Goodbyeee is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 11, 2014. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Off the top of my head, I seem to remember seeing a bit a trivia regarding this episode, that mentioned that after filming the final scene (going over the top), Rowan Atkinson proclaimed that he would not be able to do it a second time (the quote was something along the lines: "I'm sorry, but that was terrible". Could anyone with a bit more knowledge on the production of series enlighten me if this was true or not? KDLarsen 06:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I've always understood the splinter, which Baldrick sees on the ladder, to be completely unrelated to his final cunning plan. The joke is that Baldrick can be concerned about such a minor and mundane cause of injury, when he is about to face certain death. However, a lot of people seem to associate this with the 'cunning plan' which Baldrick has a moment later. Notably, the laugh for the splinter comes before Baldrick's plan is mentioned, thus indicating it is a joke in its own right. While it is entirely possible that Baldrick could have come up with a plan involving it, it isn't elaborated upon, as Blackadder tells him his plan will have to wait. Therefore I have removed mention of it from that section, and ask that it not be put back without verification. 91.109.189.130 ( talk) 00:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
When I hear Blackadder's description of war prevention involving "2 super blocs" with "2 vast opposing armies each acting as each-other's deterrent," a plan that "was bollocks," I immediately think that this is, arguably, a similar scenario for the situation in the Cold War and that it was told with a hint of irony, as it is arguable that this description fits the method by which a nuclear war was avoided. I also feel that it is connected quite well because of the fact that it was aired on November 2nd 1989, which was nine days before Armistice Day, but also barely a week before the Fall of the Berlin Wall, which was considered to have been the final stage of the Cold War before its official end. I wondered if anyone has drawn a similar conclusion? Grieferhate ( talk) 17:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Surely the WWI song "Goodbye-ee" is more significant than an episode of a television series. But it doesn't have a Wikipedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.10.198.101 ( talk) 20:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
As a recent editor noted, it only seems to be spelt like this on Wikipedia. I've checked episode title screen, plus other web sources, and it doesn't have the ellipsis. I'm going to ask for it to be moved, I think. Bob talk 21:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
The production section contained this line:
It is left ambiguous as to whether the protagonists survive, although the part of the script describing how the characters rush over the edge of the trench also states that "They will not get far".
which IMO is (a) unsourced and (b) bollocks. The ending shows (see also the original ending, which was shown in a documentary that is now on Youtube) the protagonists getting up and - after a few feet - falling down under German fire.
I would propose to keep this sentence out.
Cheers, 77.248.187.160 ( talk) 18:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: TBrandley ( talk · contribs) 23:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
TBr and ley 04:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
In the Production section, citation number 7 is used to support the statement, "Tim McInnerny did not know about these changes before the episode aired, and has said that he found the ending particularly emotional." I can't find anything in the source referring to this. PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 08:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, huzzah and hurrah! God Save the King, Rule Britannia, and Boo Sucks the Hairy Hun! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
The section "Themes" contains a minority, revisionist historical viewpoint about the episode's prominent theme, i.e. the senselessness in a significant number of the war's casualties. The revisionist viewpoint contends that the enormous casualties were largely inevitable ("[Haig] was commanding the largest British army ever. Whatever he did you ended up with lots and lots of casualties."). It is supported in the text by a single historian's work, Gary Sheffield's. (Note that the Wikipedia article on Sheffield himself has been tagged for relying "on references to primary sources.") The entry on "Goodbyeee" should either do away with the the whole section or, preferably, include other historians' viewpoints that support the theme emphasized in Blackadder's last episode. - The Gnome ( talk) 09:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I added this yesterday, and it was summarily erased, in contravention of WP policy:
Historians of the First World War have taken a different view. William Philpott referred to the series, by name, as "bathetic" [1] and felt it part of a "post-facto generalisation of the nature of their war" which even veterans of the conflict were "sucked in" by. In other words, the First World War soldier had become a "victim" in the public consciousness, a circumstance which was at odds with the perceived historical record. [2] The impact of Black Adder on the public consciousness was so pervasive that Gordon Corrigan referenced it in his book cover copy when he published his book "Mud, Blood, and Poppycock," which was an attempt to "dispel various myths" about the war. According to the book's ad copy: "The popular view of the First World War remains that of BLACKADDER: incompetent generals sending brave soldiers to their deaths...Gordon Corrigan's brilliant, witty history reveals how out of touch we have become with the soldiers of 1914-18. They simply would not recognize the way their generation is depicted on TV..." [3]
The material is cited. This is not a "minority view" but only the two historians I could find - mainstream military historians - that happened to mention the series by name. In military historical circles, the series is infamous for setting back the cause of understanding the First World War experience, due to the nature of the presentation (comedic, satiric, entertainment vice education, etc.) It's unfortunate that Wikipedia is using the article as a "Featured Article" on Remembrance Day as this only furthers the confusion as to what Black Adder actually is - an entertainment piece that bears little relation to how First World War soldiers thought about themselves. 96.51.198.182 ( talk) 13:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
( edit conflict) I was in the middle of responding to The Gnome above when I was edit conflicted by the intervening comments. In a way I'm glad because it seems to emphasise my point, which I'll now present as I first wrote it:
Speaking as a reviewer at the article's FAC, and as someone who has an interest from the historical perspective as well as the media angle, I found it pretty balanced and I can only assume others taking part in the nomination (and the preceding Peer Review) did as well. The article spends a fair bit of time discussing the show's attitude to the war and the generals, and then offers a contrasting view. To follow that with a long spiel re-emphasising the original viewpoint, particularly when, as far as I could see, none of it dealt specifically with the episode or even the show in general, seems to unbalance things. By the way, I'm not sure how highlighting deficiencies in Wikipedia's article on Sheffield is supposed to raise doubts on his standing as an historian, if that indeed was the point of the statement. Anyway, I'd be interested to hear other editors' thoughts... Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 14:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay, we now have an anonymous editor adding further material that seems to buttress the viewpoint that The Gnome objects to. The upshot is that I would still say we have a reasonable balance in the article as it is. I'd like to spend more time on the discussion now but it's getting late where I am... Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 14:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
( edit conflict) My point of view, as you call it Mr Anon (why not get a user name if you feel that passionate about contributing, by the way?) is in favour of presenting the best article possible on this TV comedy show, per my recommendations above. Perhaps I'm not explaining myself well but that means divorcing myself as much as possible from my perspective on history -- which for all you know might be very similar to your own -- and considering the show primarily, though not exclusively of course, as a show, hence placing historical points together in Themes. Or perhaps, as Irondome suggests, in a Historical Perspectives section or some such, though it did seem to fit well in Themes, and that seemed to be considered reasonable by a good many editors in the article's reviews. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 21:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
References
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Goodbyeee. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
In the caption about the poppy field image, it says 'it was inspired by John McCrae's poem "In Flanders Fields".[22]' The reference for this is an American article, [2]
I have a problem with this. I think virtually every British person will say that the poppy field was shown because for us, the poppy is the symbol of remembrance, which we as a nation wear every 11 November. A lot of Americans I know are unaware of this tradition and the deep, deep place the poppy and poppy fields hold in our national psyche. Conversely, I don't think may people in the UK are aware of the poem that originally started the idea of the poppy as the symbol of remembrance. So I would guess that the scene was inspired by our use of the poppy as a symbol, not by the poem.
The thing is, I can't find a source for the creators saying this. The other thing is, what is the evidence the American author, Sara Baker, has for her assertion? She gives none, she just makes the bold statement. Why is it given credence here? As an American, she will know of the poem and perhaps she assumed that it was the inspiration. I don't believe it was, but unless she has proof that it was, her assertion should be given no more weight than mine and should be discarded. Maybe she is ignorant of the poppy symbolism here.
Here's a piece about the ending: [3]. It says
"“Someone then suggested taking out the colour, draining it out to black and white. And the production secretary said, ‘I know. We could have some poppies. I know where there’s a slide of poppies.’” Boden had always hoped to end on a poppy motif, and helped to select just the right still of bucolic peace, while someone from sound selected birdsong to complete the effect. Wadsworth recalls the first time he mixed between the drained battlefield and the poppy field, and says, “It was a Yes immediately – this was a moment.” So, Lloyd proudly says, “There were about five or six people contributing bits and when you put it all together, blow me down, it’s the most moving thing you’ve ever seen. It’s extraordinary and to this day I feel a fantastic privilege that I was allowed, as it were, in the room where something as wonderful as that happened.”"
No mention of the poem, because there was the unspoken language of the poppy with everyone involved. Please remove the unproven assertion that the poem was the inspiration. It was the inspiration for the adoption of the poppy as a symbol of remembrance, but it was not the inspiration for this choice of end shot. Indirectly, at several removes, yes, but not directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.225.240 ( talk) 20:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Goodbyeee. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Goodbyeee. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm surprised the article doesn't mention this conversation: [4], which is one of the most famous Blackadder routines ever. Aren't FAs supposed to be complete and thorough? Could someone add mention of it to the article? Softlavender ( talk) 11:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Goodbyeee article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Goodbyeee is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 11, 2014. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Off the top of my head, I seem to remember seeing a bit a trivia regarding this episode, that mentioned that after filming the final scene (going over the top), Rowan Atkinson proclaimed that he would not be able to do it a second time (the quote was something along the lines: "I'm sorry, but that was terrible". Could anyone with a bit more knowledge on the production of series enlighten me if this was true or not? KDLarsen 06:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I've always understood the splinter, which Baldrick sees on the ladder, to be completely unrelated to his final cunning plan. The joke is that Baldrick can be concerned about such a minor and mundane cause of injury, when he is about to face certain death. However, a lot of people seem to associate this with the 'cunning plan' which Baldrick has a moment later. Notably, the laugh for the splinter comes before Baldrick's plan is mentioned, thus indicating it is a joke in its own right. While it is entirely possible that Baldrick could have come up with a plan involving it, it isn't elaborated upon, as Blackadder tells him his plan will have to wait. Therefore I have removed mention of it from that section, and ask that it not be put back without verification. 91.109.189.130 ( talk) 00:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
When I hear Blackadder's description of war prevention involving "2 super blocs" with "2 vast opposing armies each acting as each-other's deterrent," a plan that "was bollocks," I immediately think that this is, arguably, a similar scenario for the situation in the Cold War and that it was told with a hint of irony, as it is arguable that this description fits the method by which a nuclear war was avoided. I also feel that it is connected quite well because of the fact that it was aired on November 2nd 1989, which was nine days before Armistice Day, but also barely a week before the Fall of the Berlin Wall, which was considered to have been the final stage of the Cold War before its official end. I wondered if anyone has drawn a similar conclusion? Grieferhate ( talk) 17:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Surely the WWI song "Goodbye-ee" is more significant than an episode of a television series. But it doesn't have a Wikipedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.10.198.101 ( talk) 20:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
As a recent editor noted, it only seems to be spelt like this on Wikipedia. I've checked episode title screen, plus other web sources, and it doesn't have the ellipsis. I'm going to ask for it to be moved, I think. Bob talk 21:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
The production section contained this line:
It is left ambiguous as to whether the protagonists survive, although the part of the script describing how the characters rush over the edge of the trench also states that "They will not get far".
which IMO is (a) unsourced and (b) bollocks. The ending shows (see also the original ending, which was shown in a documentary that is now on Youtube) the protagonists getting up and - after a few feet - falling down under German fire.
I would propose to keep this sentence out.
Cheers, 77.248.187.160 ( talk) 18:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: TBrandley ( talk · contribs) 23:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
TBr and ley 04:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
In the Production section, citation number 7 is used to support the statement, "Tim McInnerny did not know about these changes before the episode aired, and has said that he found the ending particularly emotional." I can't find anything in the source referring to this. PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 08:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, huzzah and hurrah! God Save the King, Rule Britannia, and Boo Sucks the Hairy Hun! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
The section "Themes" contains a minority, revisionist historical viewpoint about the episode's prominent theme, i.e. the senselessness in a significant number of the war's casualties. The revisionist viewpoint contends that the enormous casualties were largely inevitable ("[Haig] was commanding the largest British army ever. Whatever he did you ended up with lots and lots of casualties."). It is supported in the text by a single historian's work, Gary Sheffield's. (Note that the Wikipedia article on Sheffield himself has been tagged for relying "on references to primary sources.") The entry on "Goodbyeee" should either do away with the the whole section or, preferably, include other historians' viewpoints that support the theme emphasized in Blackadder's last episode. - The Gnome ( talk) 09:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I added this yesterday, and it was summarily erased, in contravention of WP policy:
Historians of the First World War have taken a different view. William Philpott referred to the series, by name, as "bathetic" [1] and felt it part of a "post-facto generalisation of the nature of their war" which even veterans of the conflict were "sucked in" by. In other words, the First World War soldier had become a "victim" in the public consciousness, a circumstance which was at odds with the perceived historical record. [2] The impact of Black Adder on the public consciousness was so pervasive that Gordon Corrigan referenced it in his book cover copy when he published his book "Mud, Blood, and Poppycock," which was an attempt to "dispel various myths" about the war. According to the book's ad copy: "The popular view of the First World War remains that of BLACKADDER: incompetent generals sending brave soldiers to their deaths...Gordon Corrigan's brilliant, witty history reveals how out of touch we have become with the soldiers of 1914-18. They simply would not recognize the way their generation is depicted on TV..." [3]
The material is cited. This is not a "minority view" but only the two historians I could find - mainstream military historians - that happened to mention the series by name. In military historical circles, the series is infamous for setting back the cause of understanding the First World War experience, due to the nature of the presentation (comedic, satiric, entertainment vice education, etc.) It's unfortunate that Wikipedia is using the article as a "Featured Article" on Remembrance Day as this only furthers the confusion as to what Black Adder actually is - an entertainment piece that bears little relation to how First World War soldiers thought about themselves. 96.51.198.182 ( talk) 13:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
( edit conflict) I was in the middle of responding to The Gnome above when I was edit conflicted by the intervening comments. In a way I'm glad because it seems to emphasise my point, which I'll now present as I first wrote it:
Speaking as a reviewer at the article's FAC, and as someone who has an interest from the historical perspective as well as the media angle, I found it pretty balanced and I can only assume others taking part in the nomination (and the preceding Peer Review) did as well. The article spends a fair bit of time discussing the show's attitude to the war and the generals, and then offers a contrasting view. To follow that with a long spiel re-emphasising the original viewpoint, particularly when, as far as I could see, none of it dealt specifically with the episode or even the show in general, seems to unbalance things. By the way, I'm not sure how highlighting deficiencies in Wikipedia's article on Sheffield is supposed to raise doubts on his standing as an historian, if that indeed was the point of the statement. Anyway, I'd be interested to hear other editors' thoughts... Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 14:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay, we now have an anonymous editor adding further material that seems to buttress the viewpoint that The Gnome objects to. The upshot is that I would still say we have a reasonable balance in the article as it is. I'd like to spend more time on the discussion now but it's getting late where I am... Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 14:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
( edit conflict) My point of view, as you call it Mr Anon (why not get a user name if you feel that passionate about contributing, by the way?) is in favour of presenting the best article possible on this TV comedy show, per my recommendations above. Perhaps I'm not explaining myself well but that means divorcing myself as much as possible from my perspective on history -- which for all you know might be very similar to your own -- and considering the show primarily, though not exclusively of course, as a show, hence placing historical points together in Themes. Or perhaps, as Irondome suggests, in a Historical Perspectives section or some such, though it did seem to fit well in Themes, and that seemed to be considered reasonable by a good many editors in the article's reviews. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 21:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
References
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Goodbyeee. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
In the caption about the poppy field image, it says 'it was inspired by John McCrae's poem "In Flanders Fields".[22]' The reference for this is an American article, [2]
I have a problem with this. I think virtually every British person will say that the poppy field was shown because for us, the poppy is the symbol of remembrance, which we as a nation wear every 11 November. A lot of Americans I know are unaware of this tradition and the deep, deep place the poppy and poppy fields hold in our national psyche. Conversely, I don't think may people in the UK are aware of the poem that originally started the idea of the poppy as the symbol of remembrance. So I would guess that the scene was inspired by our use of the poppy as a symbol, not by the poem.
The thing is, I can't find a source for the creators saying this. The other thing is, what is the evidence the American author, Sara Baker, has for her assertion? She gives none, she just makes the bold statement. Why is it given credence here? As an American, she will know of the poem and perhaps she assumed that it was the inspiration. I don't believe it was, but unless she has proof that it was, her assertion should be given no more weight than mine and should be discarded. Maybe she is ignorant of the poppy symbolism here.
Here's a piece about the ending: [3]. It says
"“Someone then suggested taking out the colour, draining it out to black and white. And the production secretary said, ‘I know. We could have some poppies. I know where there’s a slide of poppies.’” Boden had always hoped to end on a poppy motif, and helped to select just the right still of bucolic peace, while someone from sound selected birdsong to complete the effect. Wadsworth recalls the first time he mixed between the drained battlefield and the poppy field, and says, “It was a Yes immediately – this was a moment.” So, Lloyd proudly says, “There were about five or six people contributing bits and when you put it all together, blow me down, it’s the most moving thing you’ve ever seen. It’s extraordinary and to this day I feel a fantastic privilege that I was allowed, as it were, in the room where something as wonderful as that happened.”"
No mention of the poem, because there was the unspoken language of the poppy with everyone involved. Please remove the unproven assertion that the poem was the inspiration. It was the inspiration for the adoption of the poppy as a symbol of remembrance, but it was not the inspiration for this choice of end shot. Indirectly, at several removes, yes, but not directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.225.240 ( talk) 20:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Goodbyeee. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Goodbyeee. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm surprised the article doesn't mention this conversation: [4], which is one of the most famous Blackadder routines ever. Aren't FAs supposed to be complete and thorough? Could someone add mention of it to the article? Softlavender ( talk) 11:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)