This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Monsters University 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 |
![]() | Monsters University has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
|
![]() | Monsters University received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There are rumors all over the place, on reliable sources, that the movie will be more a prequel than a sequel about when Mike and Sulley met. Should this be included in the article anywhere? -- Glimmer721 talk 03:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't we shorten the use of the word "release" in some way? It'll help avoid conflict, I guess. Mgangku ( talk) 22:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The article looks empty now because I cleaned up the article as there were many points that digressed from the topic of the film.
The reason I deleted the mention about James Coburn is because it is too early (there have been no reports about the cast of the film yet) to mention just one cast member.
There was a sentence saying that the release date of the film had been changed so as to avoid competition with The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, but not a single reference even mentioned Breaking Dawn. Therefore, I deleted that point.
The interview with Brad Bird was completely irrelevant to the topic, so I deleted it.
If you have any reservations about my edits, please do visit my talk page and leave a message there. I would gladly have a healthy argument if it makes Wikipedia better ; ) Halemane ( talk) 20:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I just read the plot and it seems incomplete. Is there anything missing from the plot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.31.12.244 ( talk) 18:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
If you look carefully at the provided poster, you can see it was obviously fan made. If not, it wouldn't say "A disney presentation of a Pixar film" This puts into question the validity of this page as a whole. -- Dann135 ( talk) 14:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The article is small enough to be marked as a stub. I want some opinions before marking it. Halemane ( talk) 10:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I have changed this to a redirect as it clearly fails WP:NFF which states: "In the case of animated films, reliable sources must confirm that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn and/or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced". Don't worry though, I've preserved the text at the redirect location. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 09:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Support redirect - Per WP:NFF, it says that filming must be started, and that the production itself must be notable as seen by significant coverage by reliable third party sources. That is not the case here in any context. No source saying that filming has started. No significant coverage whatsoever. Fenn, if you're going to compare this to the Superman AfD, then I'll at least point out that if you took all of the information in the article (I'll even let you have the repeated info from the lead) that wouldn't be equal to 1 paragraph of the Superman information in size. So how could argue that there is so much information that it could not possibly be housed at Monsters, Inc.? NFF is clear on this, even the GNG is clear on this. There is no significant coverage. Significant coverage is even defined at the GNG as more than trivia mentionings. Casting information is trivial mentionings. Announcing it will be a prequel is trivial mentionings. I'm not saying it shouldn't be stated, but that's not really significant coverage. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, TheRealFennShysa seems adamant that this conforms to WP:NFF despite it not meeting any of the criteria specified for animated films therein and keeps reverting the redirect, going against WP:NFF and consensus here. Any comments to add on this? -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 15:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I see that this page has been recreated, despite very little further development. I'll contact all the contributors who participated in the above discussion, and see how we all feel about it now. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 08:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I still support a redirect, as the article itself is still not comprehensive enough and lacks showing the persistant coverage to merit being one of those rare but allowable exceptions to WP:NFF. And the SPA IP that had been attempting to resurrect the article for the last two days, [5] despite an assumed good faith in his efforts, has not in my opinion shown the topic as having enough continued and persistant coverage to merit it being a seperate article. Yes, coverage is continuing, but we do not have so much new information that the redirect target would be overwhelmed. [6] [7] And as available sources state that the film has been until June 2013, [8] [9] [10] [11] a redirect still serves... and this latter information can be used to expand the section in Monsters, Inc.#Prequel until such time as we do have enough sourced content whereby a reasonable case might be made for a decent seperate article. I encourage any interested editor to work on and expand a version of a new article in a userspace... but it simply is not ready for a mainspace stand-alone. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Did anyone who made there be a consensus to merge this article to a re-direct to Monsters, Inc. use the following argument:
I say to merge and re-direct for the same reason a user already posted.
I think that if there are arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, there should be arguments to avoid in discussions on whether to merge as well. Georgia guy ( talk) 19:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Can someone please explain what is going on here? Are editors really complaining that other editors just agree with someone else's reasoning instead of adding a reason that will be almost identical to someone else's? Please explain -- JDDJS ( talk) 22:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I have a big concern that people will think that this is the last Pixar film that will ever be made. I would like to know how to make the template mention the "Inside the Mind" film without having to link to it or assume it has an article. I say it's not time for that film to have an article until an official title is revealed from a news source. Any way to do this?? Georgia guy ( talk) 12:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
The article seems to go out of its way to avoid mention of Jennifer Tilly and Celia. I've seen sources that say she's reprising the role, but she's conspicuously absent from this article's list of returning characters. Anyone know something I don't? Powers T 14:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Any thoughts on when to create a Monsters, Inc. (franchise) article?? My suggested time is when this movie is in theatres, meaning that we have 8 months to go. Any thoughts?? Georgia guy ( talk) 13:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I think there might be enough information for franchise article, but "Monsters" isn't the right name for it. Caringtype1 ( talk) 23:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
http://www.fandango.com/movieblog/exclusive-monsters-university-poster-premiere-727435.html Is it appropriate to replace the teaser poster with this one? dogman15 ( talk) 08:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone have any idea if George Sanderson might reappear? I can just see him on the current poster, if you look carefully. Visokor ( talk) 09:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Is it worth putting up the UK release date, which by the way is July 12th, on this article? Visokor ( talk) 11:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
There has been some discussion about how there is a continuity error about how long Mike and Sully have known each other. They meet for the first time in this film, but in the first film Mike said that Sully's been jealous of his looks since the 4th grade. A video on Youtube about this problem has over 700,000 views. [12] The error has been mentioned by the director. [13] [14] Should we talk about it in this article? And1987 ( talk) 03:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I like the new addition. It's very well described and sourced. However, I don't think it belongs as a separate subheading in the "Plot" section. I've moved it to the "Production" section with no subhead, since the section describes how the film's director dealt with the problem and got the blessing of both John Lasseter and Pete Docter to make the change. It's very detailed, and I don't believe it merits a subhead of its own, but I'm flexible based on what other editors thing. Based on what's been added, it looks like the first meeting in college is indeed the retcon. -- McDoob AU93 17:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
In trying to downsize the plot, I'm struck by an item in the summary that is introduced and left hanging, and that's the debut of Randy Boggs. Outside of his introduction, there's very little that Randy does to advance the plot, unlike his appearance in Monsters, Inc. As such, I'm wondering if we should delete the entire sentence where Randy is introduced. Opinions? -- McDoob AU93 02:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I Got BAD news: I Think Monsters University didn't got made into a video game. NO VIDEO GAME., it the first time Pixar didn't made a video game.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld ( talk · contribs) 13:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
A lot of reviews, some of them are a bit too generic and redundant, when I write a review section I try to pick quotes which add further information about themes and split rather than simply "I liked it" sort of thing. It should be OK for GA though but bear it in mind.
All points done, thank you.-- Jionpedia ✉ 15:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Looks OK to me now. Thanks and all the best!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Why did Billy Crystal receive more top billing than John Goodman? It appears to me that after young Mike's school scene, the story slowly starts to focus a bit more on Sulley afterwards. -- 70.190.229.44 ( talk) 11:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
The "focus" is debatable, I think, as both are central characters. Top billing is not something we decide arbitrarily depending on our perception of the film, anyway - standard practice is to use the poster, or another official source. In this case, the official site lists Crystal first, and I couldn't find a poster that listed the voice cast, so the official site would seem to be the source to go with. -- Fru1tbat ( talk) 15:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I notice that the lead paragraph states that the film had "positive reviews," but the lower section suggests that the responses were much more mixed. Even the rotten tomato rating seems to suggest a C+ reaction by audiences. Would it thus be in order to change this to "mixed reviews"? OttselSpy25 ( talk) 00:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Monsters University. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Monsters University. 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) 22:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Monsters University. 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) 15:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Monsters University. 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) 17:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Monsters, Inc. 0 and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 4#Monsters, Inc. 0 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,
Rosguill
talk
17:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Monsters University 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 |
![]() | Monsters University has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
|
![]() | Monsters University received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There are rumors all over the place, on reliable sources, that the movie will be more a prequel than a sequel about when Mike and Sulley met. Should this be included in the article anywhere? -- Glimmer721 talk 03:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't we shorten the use of the word "release" in some way? It'll help avoid conflict, I guess. Mgangku ( talk) 22:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The article looks empty now because I cleaned up the article as there were many points that digressed from the topic of the film.
The reason I deleted the mention about James Coburn is because it is too early (there have been no reports about the cast of the film yet) to mention just one cast member.
There was a sentence saying that the release date of the film had been changed so as to avoid competition with The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, but not a single reference even mentioned Breaking Dawn. Therefore, I deleted that point.
The interview with Brad Bird was completely irrelevant to the topic, so I deleted it.
If you have any reservations about my edits, please do visit my talk page and leave a message there. I would gladly have a healthy argument if it makes Wikipedia better ; ) Halemane ( talk) 20:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I just read the plot and it seems incomplete. Is there anything missing from the plot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.31.12.244 ( talk) 18:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
If you look carefully at the provided poster, you can see it was obviously fan made. If not, it wouldn't say "A disney presentation of a Pixar film" This puts into question the validity of this page as a whole. -- Dann135 ( talk) 14:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The article is small enough to be marked as a stub. I want some opinions before marking it. Halemane ( talk) 10:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I have changed this to a redirect as it clearly fails WP:NFF which states: "In the case of animated films, reliable sources must confirm that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn and/or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced". Don't worry though, I've preserved the text at the redirect location. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 09:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Support redirect - Per WP:NFF, it says that filming must be started, and that the production itself must be notable as seen by significant coverage by reliable third party sources. That is not the case here in any context. No source saying that filming has started. No significant coverage whatsoever. Fenn, if you're going to compare this to the Superman AfD, then I'll at least point out that if you took all of the information in the article (I'll even let you have the repeated info from the lead) that wouldn't be equal to 1 paragraph of the Superman information in size. So how could argue that there is so much information that it could not possibly be housed at Monsters, Inc.? NFF is clear on this, even the GNG is clear on this. There is no significant coverage. Significant coverage is even defined at the GNG as more than trivia mentionings. Casting information is trivial mentionings. Announcing it will be a prequel is trivial mentionings. I'm not saying it shouldn't be stated, but that's not really significant coverage. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, TheRealFennShysa seems adamant that this conforms to WP:NFF despite it not meeting any of the criteria specified for animated films therein and keeps reverting the redirect, going against WP:NFF and consensus here. Any comments to add on this? -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 15:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I see that this page has been recreated, despite very little further development. I'll contact all the contributors who participated in the above discussion, and see how we all feel about it now. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 08:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I still support a redirect, as the article itself is still not comprehensive enough and lacks showing the persistant coverage to merit being one of those rare but allowable exceptions to WP:NFF. And the SPA IP that had been attempting to resurrect the article for the last two days, [5] despite an assumed good faith in his efforts, has not in my opinion shown the topic as having enough continued and persistant coverage to merit it being a seperate article. Yes, coverage is continuing, but we do not have so much new information that the redirect target would be overwhelmed. [6] [7] And as available sources state that the film has been until June 2013, [8] [9] [10] [11] a redirect still serves... and this latter information can be used to expand the section in Monsters, Inc.#Prequel until such time as we do have enough sourced content whereby a reasonable case might be made for a decent seperate article. I encourage any interested editor to work on and expand a version of a new article in a userspace... but it simply is not ready for a mainspace stand-alone. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Did anyone who made there be a consensus to merge this article to a re-direct to Monsters, Inc. use the following argument:
I say to merge and re-direct for the same reason a user already posted.
I think that if there are arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, there should be arguments to avoid in discussions on whether to merge as well. Georgia guy ( talk) 19:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Can someone please explain what is going on here? Are editors really complaining that other editors just agree with someone else's reasoning instead of adding a reason that will be almost identical to someone else's? Please explain -- JDDJS ( talk) 22:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I have a big concern that people will think that this is the last Pixar film that will ever be made. I would like to know how to make the template mention the "Inside the Mind" film without having to link to it or assume it has an article. I say it's not time for that film to have an article until an official title is revealed from a news source. Any way to do this?? Georgia guy ( talk) 12:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
The article seems to go out of its way to avoid mention of Jennifer Tilly and Celia. I've seen sources that say she's reprising the role, but she's conspicuously absent from this article's list of returning characters. Anyone know something I don't? Powers T 14:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Any thoughts on when to create a Monsters, Inc. (franchise) article?? My suggested time is when this movie is in theatres, meaning that we have 8 months to go. Any thoughts?? Georgia guy ( talk) 13:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I think there might be enough information for franchise article, but "Monsters" isn't the right name for it. Caringtype1 ( talk) 23:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
http://www.fandango.com/movieblog/exclusive-monsters-university-poster-premiere-727435.html Is it appropriate to replace the teaser poster with this one? dogman15 ( talk) 08:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone have any idea if George Sanderson might reappear? I can just see him on the current poster, if you look carefully. Visokor ( talk) 09:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Is it worth putting up the UK release date, which by the way is July 12th, on this article? Visokor ( talk) 11:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
There has been some discussion about how there is a continuity error about how long Mike and Sully have known each other. They meet for the first time in this film, but in the first film Mike said that Sully's been jealous of his looks since the 4th grade. A video on Youtube about this problem has over 700,000 views. [12] The error has been mentioned by the director. [13] [14] Should we talk about it in this article? And1987 ( talk) 03:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I like the new addition. It's very well described and sourced. However, I don't think it belongs as a separate subheading in the "Plot" section. I've moved it to the "Production" section with no subhead, since the section describes how the film's director dealt with the problem and got the blessing of both John Lasseter and Pete Docter to make the change. It's very detailed, and I don't believe it merits a subhead of its own, but I'm flexible based on what other editors thing. Based on what's been added, it looks like the first meeting in college is indeed the retcon. -- McDoob AU93 17:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
In trying to downsize the plot, I'm struck by an item in the summary that is introduced and left hanging, and that's the debut of Randy Boggs. Outside of his introduction, there's very little that Randy does to advance the plot, unlike his appearance in Monsters, Inc. As such, I'm wondering if we should delete the entire sentence where Randy is introduced. Opinions? -- McDoob AU93 02:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I Got BAD news: I Think Monsters University didn't got made into a video game. NO VIDEO GAME., it the first time Pixar didn't made a video game.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld ( talk · contribs) 13:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
A lot of reviews, some of them are a bit too generic and redundant, when I write a review section I try to pick quotes which add further information about themes and split rather than simply "I liked it" sort of thing. It should be OK for GA though but bear it in mind.
All points done, thank you.-- Jionpedia ✉ 15:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Looks OK to me now. Thanks and all the best!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Why did Billy Crystal receive more top billing than John Goodman? It appears to me that after young Mike's school scene, the story slowly starts to focus a bit more on Sulley afterwards. -- 70.190.229.44 ( talk) 11:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
The "focus" is debatable, I think, as both are central characters. Top billing is not something we decide arbitrarily depending on our perception of the film, anyway - standard practice is to use the poster, or another official source. In this case, the official site lists Crystal first, and I couldn't find a poster that listed the voice cast, so the official site would seem to be the source to go with. -- Fru1tbat ( talk) 15:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I notice that the lead paragraph states that the film had "positive reviews," but the lower section suggests that the responses were much more mixed. Even the rotten tomato rating seems to suggest a C+ reaction by audiences. Would it thus be in order to change this to "mixed reviews"? OttselSpy25 ( talk) 00:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Monsters University. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Monsters University. 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) 22:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Monsters University. 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) 15:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Monsters University. 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) 17:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Monsters, Inc. 0 and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 4#Monsters, Inc. 0 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,
Rosguill
talk
17:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)