Talk:Father's Day (Doctor Who)

Are the Reapers intelligent?

My version: The Doctor rushes forward, yelling to the creature that he is the oldest thing in the room. It swoops down and devours him.

Khaosworks's version: The Doctor rushes forward, pushing the others behind him as he is the oldest thing in the room. The creature swoops down and devours him instead.

OK, in either version it is clear that the Reapers hunger for people who are very old. But, is the Doctor telling the Reaper he is old to draw it away from the others? Or is he explaining to the others that his age will attract the Reaper to him so they will be safe? Discuss. Ravenswood 02:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

That's why I tried to write it to keep it a bit more ambiguous. In one version he's calling out to the Reaper to take him instead; but it doesn't quite gel with what he's said earlier, that the walls are keeping the Reapers out because the walls are old and older things are stronger.

If you take these two together (the remark about the walls and the remark about him being the oldest coupled with pushing the others back) an alternative interpretation presents itself, that he is pushing the people behind him because he thinks that he will make an effective shield... but it doesn't quite work out that way. --khaosworks 03:19, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

My personal feeling is that the Reapers like old people, but can't stand old things. Ravenswood 03:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

My interpretation is the Doctor is acting as shield. The idea of old things being resistant to the Reapers is open to questioning. The bricks that houses in the area are made of would be from clay despoits that were older than the construction date of the church walls. Presumably, people ensconsed in Norman churches (12C and earlier) would be safer a lot longer than that 19C one in the episode. (Stop rambling now, Graeme) GraemeLeggett 09:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

The Blinovich Limitation Effect

The treatment of changing history in this episode contradicts some elements from the classic series. Although changing history was always shown as a possibility in serials like Genesis of the Daleks, Day of the Daleks and Pyramids of Mars, it was always assumed that the Blinovitch Limitation Effect prevented anyone from "redoing" their own actions like Rose does here. -- Ah, but it did prevent Rose from having a do-over.

In "Day of the Daleks," Jo asks, concerning a group of assassins from the future, "If they failed the first time, why don't they just go back in time to the day before and try again?" The Doctor explains that they can't because of the "Blinovitch Limitation Effect." When Jo asks him what that is, though, they are interrupted before he can answer.

It is my theory that the Doctor's answer would have been, "Well, these giant repiloid creatures called Reapers would show up and eat everybody, that's what it is!" -- So it's not really a contradiction after all. (But since that's just a pet theory I'm not going to add it to the article.) Ravenswood 03:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

To counter that, though - or at least give you more data to work with  :) - in Mawdryn Undead, the Blinovitch Limitation Effect doesn't summon Reapers, it shorts out the "time differential" between the two Brigadiers. In Invasion of the Dinosaurs, the Doctor says that overcoming the BLE is one of the big problems of perfecting time travel technology. This implies that the Blinovitch Limitation Effect is not some kind of line that brings about retribution when crossed, but a physical effect of temporal physics. See Novikov self-consistency principle, which sounds an awful lot like what the Doctor was trying to say in Day of the Daleks, although Novikov came up with it about a decade later. --khaosworks 04:33, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

I'd have to re-watch it to check (or re-read the book), but I'm pretty sure the problem with the two Brigadiers was a discharge of Blinovich energy, not the BLE itself.

As for the Novikov self-consistency principle, I would personally label that puppy The Novikov self-fulfilling prophecy. I've noticed that a lot of physicists seem to find the very thing that they're looking for, for the simple reason that they're not looking for anything else. In other words, if you go to the zoo looking for elephants, you will only find elephants. If you go to the zoo with an open mind, you will discover monkeys and tigers and giraffes as well. Ravenswood 05:55, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. Of course, in the 'old days' (wrt the Doctor's personal timeline), the Time Lords were around to patch things up if any paradoxes got out of hand. So, possibly, the paradox 'radiates', and acts as a beacon allowing your friendly neighborhood Time Lord to drop in, fix the problem, and scoot out before the damage propagates. In the absence of the Time Lords, then all sorts of nasties can sneak in through the gaping hole in spacetime. They'll also fix things up in their own way, but it won't be so pleasant.

A physical analogy might be this. By stripping lots of electrons off a metal ball, you leave it with a positive charge. It'll start to attract negative charge to itself, which will tend to neutralise it. Any negative charge will do, whether bare electrons, negative muons, whatever. The Time Lords and Reapers are like the different types of negative charge, attracted by the BLE to neutralise the paradox. And although they are each of the same charge, their other attributes mean that they handle the neutralisation in a different manner when they get to the epicenter of the paradox.

All IMHO, of course. --DudeGalea 17:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I like that theory. Very good. Ravenswood 18:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

In Day of the Daleks, never mind the Daleks coming back to try again--the entire Dalek-ruled future is already a change in history. The Daleks have had this future for hundreds of years with no Reapers at all appearing (and no Time Lord intervention to fix the future either).

In Pyramids of Mars, the Doctor takes Sarah to a 1980 where Sutekh has won. In this alternate 1980, history has been different for decades from what Sarah previously knew--yet the Reapers have not appeared (unless the Doctor meant to tell Sarah that that the destruction seen was caused by the Reapers, not by Sutekh). Ken Arromdee 16:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

The implication from that being that the Reapers are a phenomenon that arose to fill the vacuum left by the Time Lords. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 17:10, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

The problem with idea being that in those two cases the altered histories existed for decades or centuries without Time Lord intervention (unless the Time Lords acted to stop only the Reapers while allowing the change itself to continue). Ken Arromdee 23:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

But time is all relative and wooly when it comes to time travel, though. From the Time Lords' relative perspective, it is entirely possible that when they got around to looking at fixing the problem, the Doctor had already fixed it. In other words, although decades passed for Earth, for the Time Lords it was just a blink of an eye... an edit conflict, perhaps. ;)

Alternatively, what we see in Pyramids and Day is the pre-Time War situation, where Reapers are not part of the universal fabric. Perhaps the elimination of the Time Lords created the necessity for Reapers to keep the universe functioning neatly, where they had not existed prior. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:21, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

The idea of an edit war ignores the problem that just because it's a blink of an eye for the Time Lord doesn't mean it was the blink of an eye for the Reapers. If there was an edit war, then history would have been altered, the new history would have had a couple of minutes change and then destruction by the Reapers, and then when the Doctor fixed the problem, fixing the problem would have wiped out both the change and the Reapers. The Time Lords would have seen that as happening in the blink of an eye, but it wouldn't have meant no Reapers during the blink.

The theory about creating the necessity for Reapers works, of course, but you're making it up to cover a plot hole, which is that Father's Day was unlike every other treatment of time changes in the series. You could as easily say "it wasn't Sutekh who destroyed the Earth, it was the Reapers but the Doctor didn't mention it." (This also brings up the idea of the Reaper Bomb. If you want to destroy a planet, send a bomb back in time a couple of years. It kills some random guy, which summons the Reapers to wipe out the planet.) Ken Arromdee 14:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course I'm making it up to cover up a plot hole - that's why I'm saying it here instead of in the notes, since it's pure speculation on my part. :) The article itself does note that the treatment of time travel in Father's Day is indeed contradictory to the earlier depictions of it. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:16, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

At the Gallifrey convention last weekend, Paul Cornell said that it wasn't fair for people to criticize the episode for being inconsistent with the Blinovitch Limitation Effect — he even said, "the whole episode's about the Blinivitch Limitation Effect!" He pointed to the line, "Two lots of us being there made that a vulnerable point" as the explanation for why the Reapers don't show up in any other altered timelines seen in the series. (Perhaps if the Third Doctor or Jo had tried to alter time at the end of "Day of the Daleks" the Reapers would have shown up. Perhaps they did and the Time Lords [who at that point were keeping a pretty close eye on the Doctor, let's remember] took care of them.)

I'm not sure how much of this we can or should say in the article page — I've probably gone too far already. I suppose that reportage of convention interviews counts as original research? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The End

At the end of the episode, is everything changed back to the way it was or are the dead people still dead?

Dead people are alive again. We see Stuart's father coming out of the church, when he was eaten by a Reaper before. But there are differences, as seen in the difference between Rose's flashback at the start and at the finish. --khaosworks 15:38, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

And also obviously, the Doctor is now alive again.--Codenamecuckoo 18:58, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

The article spekulates about wether or not Rose and the Doctor remember the happenings of this episode. I think we can remove that, I think it's clear they do remember. At the end of the season, I think "The Parting of Ways" when Rose is stuck on earth with her mom, she tells her that the blonde woman holding her father's hand was Rose. --Mithcoriel (talk) 15:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Speculation

User:TheDoctor10 wrote in an edit summary:

no, you canNOT just revert. tidy if you want, talkpage if you want. how DARE you just revert.

From Wikipedia:Verifiability:

Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable or credible sources, regardless of whether individual editors regard that material to be true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. For that reason, it is vital that editors rely on good sources.

I say: Give a reputable or credible source that the character was pregnant with Adam. She isn't even given a surname. As to "how DARE I" - look on the Main Page

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

So don't claim "newbie biting" when your own user page says you've been editing for two years.

Tim! (talk) 09:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry Tim, I think everybody understands. It looks like we've reached a decent compromise here.--Sean|Black 09:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The version where Khaosworks left it had only statements of fact in it, and cited The Shooting Scripts, so Hammond has no business reverting it. I'll put it back...but I've explained here that it's got a source, so no 3RR please.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 16:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

But see, he does have the right. Look, I agree with you here- it's fine the way it is. You don't need to complain everytime someone reverts one of your edits, okay? Just let it go.--Sean|Black 22:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Isle of Wight

Can someone explain this quote? PMA 15:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The saying is, "The past is another country." 1987 isn't that far away from the present, and probably a bit naff, so it's just the Isle of Wight. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Cornell thought 19 years ago isn't all that different? On the surface maybe but i can remember plenty of things that were there in 1987 where i lived that aren't there now (the metal slides at the playground, the milk bars, the State Bank of Victoria branch that is now a pizzeria, only non-pay TV, ciggarette companies sponsoring the cricket telecasts, Young Talent Time, high schools and technical schools not secondary colleges...) PMA 15:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, nobody said it was a good metaphor. :) --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the implication was something along the lines of "going back to the time of the dinosaurs crosses lots of generations; the time gap between 2005 & 1987 isn't even one generation", just as going from London to Australia would cross loads of countries, but London to the Isle of Wight wouldn't even cross one. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 19:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

But the reference to "naff" could also apply to both 1987 and the Isle of Wight. -- Beardo 02:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Stupid ape note

The Doctor's line, "I've picked another stupid ape," may be a reference to the attempt by his former companion Barbara to alter the course of Aztec history during The Aztecs. It also may be a reference to Adam Mitchell, who attempted to use knowledge of the future to advance Earth technology in The Long Game.

Given that this is speculation but the second part actually happened in the previous episode, would it better to swap these two possibilities around? We have no evidence either way but in deciding the emphasis of the note I'd suggest the new series is more likely to be referencing itself than the classic series if this is intended as a reference. —Whouk (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I've swapped it around, but I think the reason why the note was phrased the way it was is because of the Doctor saying "another stupid ape" in reference to Rose. A reading of that statement might seem to refer to someone before Rose, and Adam was picked up after. But it works either way. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The Doctor's jacket

This is the only 9th Doctor episode where he takes his jacket off, but I am not sure if it is notable enough to be mentioned in the article. Also, has anyone been able to tell if his shirt changes color? I noted in this episode that it is a light green color. (I hope that he had at least changes his shirt over the 13 episodes.)
—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 15:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Are we forgetting the scene in Dalek when he had no top on at all?

Tardis Shell

I think this entry should be added to the page:

Trivia

• This is the first time the exterior shell of the TARDIS has been shown by itself, rather than connected to its interior.

Is this information correct, and should it be added to the article on this episode?? --Promus Kaa 05:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It is correct, and I've added it (slightly reworded) under "continuity". Good idea! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

---

---

When the Doctor and Rose see they future selves when Pete was about to get hit, they, disappear, but in the serial, "The Five Doctors", they all see each other but do not disappear.

Yeah, the 5 doctors are 5 different bodies... essentially 5 different people. 5 Tardisses would however pose a contradiction. Also in the 3rd doctor serial, Day of the Daleks, the third doctor talks to himself and a Jo Grant from the future. I'd say this can be removed from the list since there isn't really a steady pattern here.... I'd just say that different occurences in time result in different encounters.

Also, one might see if the dates that Doctor and Rose were in, might be the same dates as earlier serials... a previous incarnation of the doctor would also have had to have a problem with the reapers and/or help to eliminate them.

And finally, to prove my first point, Rose would have had to vanish when seeing her baby self...

They didn't disappear because they saw each other, but because history was changed. The original Doctor and Rose saw Pete die; when he lived, they couldn't have seen him die, so they stopped existing in that timeline. Gwinva 21:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Similarity to Carousel =

There are many points of similarity between this story and the Rogers and Hammerstein musical Carousel. Some of these are pretty unusual plot points making it seem to me like more than coincidence.

• Rose's father never makes a success of his life.
• Louise's father never makes a success of his life.
• Rose's father dies at a young age.
• Louise's father dies before her birth.
• Rose's father is given a last chance to visit his daughter briefly even after his death.
• Louise's father is given a last chance to visit his daughter briefly even after his death.
• Rose's father uses his brief extra time on Earth to redeem himself.
• Louise's father uses his brief extra time on Earth to redeem himself.

Anyone else noticed this? Sigfpe (talk) 23:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Plot & Good Article?

The Plot is written out of order, and it doesn't help to overall understand the story. I fixed a bit but I'm getting tired so i will continue to elaborate and switch the order a few paragraphs maybe, please check my work if I write something incorrect. Also I noted that in the episode the infant Rose had light blue eyes yet the older version had brown eyes... I don't know if that should be added in anywhere. Oh one last thing, I noticed this article doesn't have an official rating thingy, yet episode's like [Rose (Doctor Who)|Rose]] have Good article status. After its patched up a bit could someone help me find out requirements and get it reviewed for that.Betsi-HaP (talk) 06:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Father's Day (Doctor Who)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Father's Day (Doctor Who)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "commentary":

• From The Empty Child: Steven Moffat (2005). Commentary for Doctor Who episode "The Empty Child" (DVD (Region 2)). United Kingdom: BBC.
• From Aliens of London: Phil Collinson: DVD commentary for "Aliens of London"
• From Doctor Who (series 5): Campbell, Jonny; Alex Price, Toby Whithouse (2010). Audio commentary for "The Vampires of Venice" (DVD). Doctor Who: The Complete Fifth Series Disc 3: BBC.{{cite AV media}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
• From Army of Ghosts: Russell T Davies. "Army of Ghosts commentary". Archived from the original (MP3) on July 21, 2006. Retrieved 2006-09-16. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• From The Unquiet Dead: Callow, Simon; Mark Gatiss; Euros Lyn (2005). Audio commentary for "The Unquiet Dead" (DVD). Doctor Who: The Complete First Series Disc 1: BBC.{{cite AV media}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
• From Bad Wolf: Commentary for Doctor Who episode "Bad Wolf" (DVD (Region 2)). United Kingdom: BBC. 2005.
• From The Long Game: Christine Adams, Brian Grant, Bruno Langley (2005). Commentary for Doctor Who episode "The Long Game" (DVD (Region 2)). United Kingdom: BBC.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Father's Day (Doctor Who)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 13:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this one; as it happens, I watched this episode for the first time about a month ago. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-5 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

A few initial comments. This looks very solid so far--I'll be back on in an hour or so to try to finish this up. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• " leading the adult Rose to eulogize about her father" -- this is a little unclear, and I can't remember exactly how this plays out. Is the adult Rose watching the conversation of young Rose and Jackie? Or is the adult Rose recalling her mother's different version? As a minor grammatical point, I think the standard form is to say just "eulogize her father" (no "about").
  • Yeah that is strange; it's a separate scene with a voice-over of adult Rose (over a picture of her father). I clarified it. Glimmer721 ^talk 02:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
    •  Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
• "the death or Rose's father" -- should this be "death of"?
  • •  Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oops, fixed. Glimmer721 ^talk 02:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
• I'd suggest cutting the Grim Reaper image. It seems a little misleading to have it, since a reader may think this is an early production sketch; almost all readers will know what the Grim Reaper looks like in any case.
• It seems worth clarifying here that the Reapers were entirely CGI (or were there any practical effects mixed in)?
  • I worked it in; as seen in Confidential, there were no practical effects aside from markers where the actors were supposed to look. Glimmer721 ^talk
• Why is " Smith?, Robert" written with the question mark? -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • •  Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

The biggest concern I see here is the note under 2b. On the whole, though, this is excellent work. Let me know your thoughts. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	See a few prose quibbles above, but the prose is largely well done and the plot summary coherent.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	I'm not sure that http://www.shannonsullivan.com/ can be considered a reliable source; it appears to be a solo internet project, which means that it would lack editorial oversight and reputation for factcheking. Outpost Gallifrey is probably okay, though, given its reputation as a leading site on the topic.
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The Grim Reaper image seems a little misleading to me; my suggestion would be to remove it, but if we could find a more appropriate caption explaining why we're including this image of the Grim Reaper I could maybe be talked into it.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as GA

Thanks for reviewing! I will tackle this in the next couple of days. As for Robert Smith?, he explains it here at his University of Ottawa page. Glimmer721 ^talk 22:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

How bizarre... thanks for the link to clear that up. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, only two minor points left then. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the Grim Reaper image since I think there's no issue with having it in the article, license-wise, and it provides a nice contrast to the image above. Should I clarify that it is not a production sketch instead? I am also on the fence about Shannon Sullivan and try to use it for minor things that are supported easily by other sources. He does cite his sources and the website is used heavily in the FA "Doomsday". Glimmer721 ^talk 01:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

If the Sullivan made it through FA as a source, it's good enough for GA; it's not as if it's being used for anything controversial here anyway. There's definitely no problem with the Grim Reaper image license-wise, as you say, but it's a little unclear from the caption what the image is/how it relates to the article--or at least why this particular portrayal was selected to represent the grim reaper image the show's creators were imagining. I myself clicked on the image history to make sure it was just a random Grim Reaper drawing and not something actually related to the show. Perhaps you could add a parenthetical saying something like "Pictured: an artist's representation of a Grim Reaper"--does that make sense to you? Thanks for all the fixes! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes that was along the lines of what I was thinking of putting in the caption. I've done it now. Thanks for reviewing! Glimmer721 ^talk 16:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Father's Day (Doctor Who). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5yVVIozkz?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thehugoawards.org%2Fhugo-history%2F2006-hugo-awards%2F to http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/2006-hugo-awards/

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) 01:11, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Father's Day (Doctor Who). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070628003603/http://cluebytwelve.net/Hugos2006/07_Dramatic_Short.htm to http://cluebytwelve.net/Hugos2006/07_Dramatic_Short.htm

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) 04:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)