Talk:Meet the Parents

Meet the Parents 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 21, 2008	WikiProject peer review	Reviewed
April 8, 2010	Peer review	Reviewed
April 11, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Comedy Low‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chicago Low‑importance

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Film: American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
	This article has an archived peer review.

Relation to Meet My Folks

Was the film directly related to 'Meet My Folks'? I mean, was the tv series associated in any other way apart from subject matter? If not, then 'spawned' isn't really appropriate. If you know one way or another (cos I don't) replace it with something like "led to the creation of" pomegranate 00:16, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Independent film

Where's the source for the independent film? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.202.198 (talk • contribs)

Odd line

The third line in the article is quite odd - both because of the writing which seems like a personal comment - and becuase I'm pretty sure the "Call me... Kitty-Cat" is said by the mother of the girl in "Wedding Chrashers" when she want's Owen Wilson's chracter to feel her up... Correct me if I'm wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.227.231.26 (talk • contribs)

"Liminality?" This has the odor of a term paper for which the author wants more than a community college degree. It's a comedy film.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.193.239.8 (talk • contribs)

To clarify the intent of the editor starting this section, the comment by User:131.227.231.26 was posted on December 13, 2006 and the line to which he is referring is shown here being removed by the same user. It does not refer to the article in its current state. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tuxedos

"A scene in the movie focuses around the Byrnes family trying on tuxedos for the wedding; in the marriage at the end of the movie, no one is wearing a tuxedo." I always assumed they weren't wearing tuxedoes because, as shown earlier in the movie, the fake Jinxie had torn the tuxes up. I will get rid of this piece of trivia unless there is a responce.68.79.11.47 16:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zionism

Try this, please: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/Page/VideoPlayer&cid=1194419829128&videoId=1215331184624 I nearly included some of the allegations but.. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...but it's insane and probably mistranslated. Wow talk about clutching at straws, on both sides. ʄ!•¿talk? 04:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resources to use

Google Books about nursing
Google Books about Jewish identity
Buchbinder, David (2008). "Enter the Schlemiel:The Emergence of Inadequate or Incompetent Masculinities in Recent Film and Television". Canadian Review of American Studies. 38 (2): pp. 227–245. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
Baskind, Samantha (2007). "The Fockerized Jew?: Questioning Jewishness as Cool in American Popular Entertainment". Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies. 25 (4): pp. 3–17. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
GK: Meet the Parents: SE, Film Review (0957-1809) n.653 , February 2005, p.125, English, illus
TOAL, Andrea: Meet the Parents, Sight and Sound (0037-4806) v.15 n.2 , February 2005, p.85, English
CARO, Jason: Meet the parents, Film Review (0957-1809) n.601 , January 2001, p.20-21, English, illus
CARO, Jason: Meet the parents, Film Review (0957-1809) v.Spec. n.34 , February 2001, p.89, English, illus
DINNING, Mark: In person, Empire n.139 , January 2001, p.128-129, English, illus, Interview with actor Ben Stiller who discusses his role as Greg Focker in MEET THE PARENTS.
LEIGH, Danny: Reviews, Sight and Sound (0037-4806) v.11 n.1 , January 2001, p.54-55, English
Bob's your uncle? Film Review (0957-1809) v.Spec. n.33 , December 2000, p.66-69, English, illus, The actors talk about making MEET THE PARENTS.
DALY, Steve: Inlaws and disorder, Entertainment Weekly (1049-0434) n.563 , 13 October 2000, p.28-36, English, Review and interview with Robert De Nero and Ben Stiller about their new film, 'Meet the parents'.
COMERFORD, Jason: Score, Film Score Monthly v.5 n.9 , November 2000, p.50-51,58, English
GETLEN, Larry: He's not angry...just opinionated, Film Score Monthly v.5 n.8 , September 2000, p.22-25, English, illus, Interview with composer Randy Newman who discusses his songwriting, and his understanding of the role of the composer in film, referring to MEET THE PARENTS.
Toumarkine, Doris. "Meet the Parents." The Film Journal 103 Nov (2000): 117.
~~Schickel, Richard. Divine foolishness. Time 156 Oct 9 (2000): 110.~~
Lally, Kevin. Parent trouble. The Film Journal 103 Oct (2000): 8+ [2p].

Some resources to use. I think I can access most of them; let me know. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote to Meet the Parents (soundtrack)

WP:HATNOTE states that the purpose of hatnotes is "to provide links to other similarly named articles". Meet the Parents and Meet the Parents (soundtrack) are two similarily named articles. Arguments about the appropriateness of separate soundtrack articles aside, a reader not familiar with the naming conventions of Wikipedia might have a hard time trying to locate Meet the Parents (soundtrack) if a search string of "Meet the Parents" took them to an article about the film and they had to look through the entire article to find a link to the soundtrack article. Without having a disambiguation page — which is entirely unnecessary at this point — the hatnote is an entirely appropriate way to disambiguate between the two separate articles and seems to be in compliance with WP:HATNOTE's first example of proper use. What do others think? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reywas92 cites WP:RELATED in his edit summary, and I am not sure if it really applies here. The example used at WP:RELATED involves a sub-topic. For example, Fight Club (film) would not link to Interpretations of Fight Club at the top but instead under the appropriate section. While there is a relationship between this film and the soundtrack, I think that the soundtrack still qualifies as a separate entity. The situation is akin to the film's article having a hatnote at the source material's article. The film is related to the source material, but it does not fall directly under that topic. Erik (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The way WP:RELATED would apply here is if we had a Music in Meet the Parents article; that would be a sub-article and be {{main}}-linked from the appropriate section. There is a distinction between a marketed soundtrack and just music from the film. Erik (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what RELATED is talking about. Are you claiming that the soundtrack article is not "highly related to the topic"? The Hatnote page says "it is better to summarize Extraterrestrial life in popular culture under a subsection of Extraterrestrial life in conjunction with the {main} template." And that's just what this article does: Meet the Parents (soundtrack) is summarized in a subsection of Meet the Parents in conjunction with the {main} template in Meet the Parents#Soundtrack. Reywas92^Talk 02:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both topics are titled "Meet the Parents", and the film is the primary topic. The soundtrack is secondary, and WP:HATNOTE says, "When two articles share the same title, except that one is disambiguated and the other not, the undisambiguated article should include a hatnote with a link to the other article." We see in WP:RELATED topics that are differently titled. Clearly, extraterrestrial life in popular culture is an extension of extraterrestrial life. This is not necessarily true with the soundtrack, which is its own entity. Basically, WP:RELATED should not override the WP:HATNOTE guidelines for two articles with similar titles. Returning to the relationship of film articles and their source material articles (assuming they share the same title), applying WP:RELATED this way would mean that a reader would have to look through the article body of the source material to find a link to the film article just because of the relationship. I'm presuming this is why the WP:RELATED example does not use articles that have the same title. Erik (talk) 03:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think RELATED intends to show that, unlike articles with similar titles, it is not necessary to add a hatnote to two articles that are related in subject matter but that don't share a similar name. If a similar name is shared, RELATED should not be a factor regardless of subject matter. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So far as the soundtrack is obviously derivative and is mentioned within the article -- I agree with Reywas92 that WP:RELATED applies. older ≠ wiser 16:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This does not apply exactly to RELATED, however if you want a rule to justify the removal that's a good one. There seems to be a silent consensus not to link soundtracks in hatnotes, because it never seems to be done in film articles, even though it definitely could be considering most soundtracks are titled the same as the film. I would use common sense here and remove the hatnote. A main link in the soundtrack section is more than enough, and the argument that a user couldn't find the soundtrack article is unconvincing, the soundtrack has its own section in this article. The hatnote does strictly follow guidelines, hence the argument, but I'd agree it makes sense not to have it. LonelyMarble (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide some examples of where there are no hatnotes linking to soundtrack articles? There may be a difference between a hatnote existing on a film article that is disambiguated and a film article that is not. A similar setup is with the source material and its film adaptation. The film is obviously derived from the source material, but it stands as its own topic. While soundtracks are derived from music made for the film, they are individual media products. It's a distinct difference between being an extension of the topic like Blade Runner and Themes in Blade Runner, where no hatnote for that is used. Erik (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't a lot of musical films with separate soundtrack articles where the film title is not also parenthetically disambiguated. A couple of examples though:

There are other films where the soundtrack release has a different title than the film, for example: Cadillac Records and Cadillac Records: Music From the Motion Picture. older ≠ wiser 15:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Schindler's List is another example. And that was actually just the first film I thought of and checked, so I'm assuming there has to be a lot more examples like it. LonelyMarble (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For another example and problem, WALL-E links to the video game in its hatnote but not the soundtrack. Something should probably be changed regarding that hatnote. LonelyMarble (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would video games qualify for hatnotes as opposed to soundtracks? While they are derivative of the film and its source material, I would agree they are more of a separate design. Still, to have one and not the other seems inconsistent. We're simply talking about hatnotes here; video games and soundtracks are demonstrably titled to be separate from the related film. "Themes in Blade Runner" is indisputably an extension of encyclopedic coverage of the film itself. Source material, films adapted from them, and soundtracks and video games based on the films have their interwoven relationships but can still be considered on their own. Soundtracks have their own covers. I don't think sub-articles under WP:RELATED would have that kind of self-identification, though the example used is a higher-level topic and tough to apply to a set of copyrighted works like here and the examples we bring up. Thoughts? Erik (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think video games qualify for hatnotes any more than soundtracks or other media types derived from films. Like I said above, I don't think this is exactly what RELATED was talking about, so this situation doesn't really have a set rule. However, this situation does not seem to be much of a problem on most articles. I think creating a disambiguation page if possible and linking that in the hatnote is the easiest solution. If I have the time I might discuss this on Wikipedia talk:Hatnote more, so an amendment could be added to the RELATED section about media derived from films or other works of art. LonelyMarble (talk) 19:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DAB page created, new hatnote added

Because I just created the new article Meet the Parents (1992 film) which puts at three the total number of articles whose un-disambiguated name is "Meet the Parents", I also created Meet the Parents (disambiguation). Per this edit, I removed the hatnote to the soundtrack from the top of this article and replaced it with a hatnote to the DAB page. Is this acceptable to everyone? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great ides, except its not a redirect. I've updated the hatnote accordingly. older ≠ wiser 14:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the redirect, I got a little ahead of myself. I'm planning to move the article to Meet the Parents (2000 film) per WP:NCF and keep Meet the Parents as a redirect to it since it is the most highly searched article with that name. The hatnote about the redirect would be appropriate at that time but I jumped the gun. Thanks for fixing it. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if we need to move this article; it is the primary topic, so disambiguation is not necessary. For example, we have The Karate Kid and The Karate Kid (2010 film). Erik (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with that. I thought it would be more conforming to NCF to disambiguate as a 2010 film with a redirect from Meet the Parents since it certainly is the most visited article of the bunch. But I have no problem leaving it where it is.

In that case, I believe the issue of the hatnote is now resolved. Does anyone still disagree? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the hatnote is fine now. Sometimes creating a dab page just for two additional articles is a little excessive, but for this case it satisfies everyone so it's a good solution. Also I agree this article should stay at Meet the Parents since it is obviously the primary topic and obvious primary topics should be at the undisambiguated title. LonelyMarble (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Meet the Parents/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC) OK, apologies you've had to wait so long for a GA review. I'm pretty sure this will pass, but since you've been waiting for so long, I'll try to give you some useful feedback.[reply]

technical stuff

Infobox image has a good fair use rationale
File:Meet the Parents grace.JPG probably qualifies as fair use but providing a rationale does not, in itself, guarantee this. I think the rationale there needs a little strengthening, especially with regard to WP:NFCC, specifically 1, 3 and 8.
All other images are free and appropriately tagged.
You have a redirect to a disambiguation page
You might want to have a look at your external links but I don;t think there's anything to be concerned about with those.

I'll be back later on, I want to read the whole article before I make any suggestions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting this and no apologies necessary for the delay. I was well informed of the backlog when I nominated the article and I had no expectations of an immediate review. Reading through your initial comments, I wanted to reply to a few points.

File:Meet the Parents grace.JPG had an error in its rationale when it came to point #8. As Erik and I discussed before, I've used the example of File:Fight Club bathtub.jpg (which he uploaded) as a guide to gauge the appropriate type of image as well as the fair use rationale. I inadvertently copied point #8 from his image and didn't adjust it to properly reflect on the image I uploaded. It has now been resolved and I hope there are no further concerns with the image.
The redirect to the WASP dab has been resolved. No further links to dab pages exist.
The external link tool showed one dead link which I've removed because it wasn't extremely useful anyways; two other references still exist to cite the sentence in question. There seem to be no further issues with ELs.

I look forward to further input. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Specifics

OK, good work on addressing those and I'm certainly a lot happier with that fair use rationale now- it feels less of a boilerplate and certainly explains the significance of the image. I'm in the process of reading through and I have a few suggestions for you:

The quotes used in the "themes" section require a citation immediately after the closing quote mark, not just at the end of the sentence

Fixed. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should explain WASP for the first time it's used, even if it is linked (I think it's important enough in the context)

Fixed. I expanded the link to full title with abbreviation immediately following in brackets. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Roach then cast Stiller for the role of Greg Focker because he could think of no one better for that type of role[24][27] and because he was also impressed with Stiller's improvisational and ad lib abilities."
- That sentence needs a bit of a rework
- You don't need two connectives

Fixed. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of using "USD $", just pipe "$"- like [[United States Dollar|$]]- it's tidier and saves the duplication

Fixed. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In "crtical reception", again you need citations immediately after quotes.

Fixed. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

bbc.co.uk should just be "the BBC"

Fixed. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're to take this on to FAC, you'll need work and publisher in your references- most have one or the other but few have both

Point taken on this one. I have come to realize that some work is needed before this can be considered FA quality. This will be one of the things that I'll have to correct prior to FAC. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with the references is something you can work on prior to the FAC. The rest are all minor issues, so I'll pass this as soon as they're fixed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of the above issues have now been addressed. Please review and let me know if I've missed something. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. I'm happy to pass this. Contrary to what I said above, for the first use of $, you should probably stick US in front of it (without a space) on the very, very faint chance that it gets confused with one of the other currencies called dollar This certainly meets the GA criteria, for further progression- towards FAC- the problems that will hold you back seem to be purely technical now that the above are fixed. Once the references are filled out- ideally, all would have title, URL, author, work, publisher, publication date, accessdate though authors and publication dates aren't always available- any other issues should be minor and fixable within the time frame of an FAC, though the references will be tedious. For a tip, publishers can be tricky- it's easy to fall into the trap of giving the owner of the publishing company rather than the publisher itself. Good work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, mentioning all publishers is not necessary. Template:Cite news says to only use the "publisher" field for publications that are not major. For example, if it is the New York Times, it is not necessary. For ComingSoon.net, it would help. Erik (talk) 12:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DreamWorks as the non-US theatrical distributor

There's been an ongoing dispute over the inclusion of DreamWorks (DW) into the infobox and lead paragraph. As an article that is now recognized as being of GA quality, all significant facts (such as theatrical distributors) mentioned in the lead and infobox should be repeated in the body of the text with proper citations. I have been unable to definitively confirm through reliable sources that DW distributed this film theatrically outside of North America. I have been able to find a few sources that identify UIP as the distributor in other countries such as United Kingdom, Australia and Germany. For those countries in specific, UIP has been mentioned in the body of the text and, as such, UIP is more appropriate to be mentioned in the lead paragraph than DW although I believe that it's better to omit it altogether from the lead. DW did collaborate with Universal and Tribeca as a production company but we lack citations that they acted as a distributor and, until we have reliable sources attesting to that, DW really needs to stay out of the lead and infobox. This reference was provided earlier as proof that DW is the foreign distributor but it is dated prior to film's first release date and speaks only of production, not distribution. It's not completely unlikely that different countries had different distributors so references specifying the country where DW handled the distribution would be best if it is to be reinserted. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to add that I'm not stating it's incorrect that DW distributed this film. WP:V and the truth are two completely different things; DW as a foreign distributor, while possibly true, is unverified. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, UIP looks like it's the right one. These news results indicate that. Erik (talk) 13:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DreamWorks was involved in the financing though; at least acknowledge their involvement in the production process.--Freshh (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree with that. This says, "Ron Meyer pointed to the success of Gladiator and Meet The Parents which were co-financed by the two studios [Universal and DreamWorks] last year..." Erik (talk | contribs) 19:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

98.30.67.163 (talk · contribs) continues to make edits to the infobox that contradict that information we have above. I've linked to this discussion on the IP's talk page, but there is no response. Erik (talk | contribs) 02:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to advise him of the same thing before I noticed that you already did. I'll keep an eye on him and give him a 3RR warning should he continue. Those edits are starting to become disruptive, he'll earn himself a block if he keeps going at this pace. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Video clip

I don't think that the screenshot in "Themes" does much justice. Would it be possible to do a video clip instead? For example, this could be converted to use on Wikipedia. Also, any consideration for Featured Article status? :) Erik (talk | contribs) 20:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with that particular image has come up before, both before and during the GAN. I originally added the image but, admittedly, I'm not very well versed in fair use of images so I will not complain if we eventually decide to leave it out of the article.

The video might be an excellent addition to the article itself but, again due to my insufficient knowledge of fair use, I would definitely have to leave it up to someone like yourself to provide a fair use rationale and add it to the article.

I've been wanting to make this article a candidate for FA status but I feel that there is some important material missing. Notably, I've been unable to find much (actually, anything!) in terms of cinematography. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 21:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually browsing WorldCat.org before commenting because I wanted to see if there was anything left to use. (I used the website to put together Talk:The Passion of the Christ/references.) There was not anything, really. It does not quite have that kind of notoriety, I guess. One thing you could do is go to Google Books Search and choose the range of a year (such as 2010) and search "meet the parents". If you do that for each year, you can see the best results for each year rather than go through an overall search. I think that the screenshot is weak because there's nothing in the frame itself that reveals the themes. Stiller is in prayer, but we know what he looks like, and it's easy to imagine. To see the scene itself is more useful, although I'm not 100% sure how other editors would feel about it. It's not a technical scene like the video clip at American Beauty (film) or the ones at the Featured Articles for Star Trek films. Erik (talk | contribs) 01:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Properly implemented, I think your suggestion of a video clip would be beneficial to the article but I'll invite some comment from other project members since we don't seem to be 100% sure about its appropriateness. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support The image adds next-to-nothing thematically, and I feel a fair-use clip would be far more illustrative.— Preceding unsigned comment added by FunkyDuffy (talk • contribs)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Meet the Parents. 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/20101229135635/http://www.goldenglobes.org:80/browse/year/2000 to http://www.goldenglobes.org/browse/year/2000

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).

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) 12:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Meet the Parents. 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).

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) 16:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jinx, the cat

Is there a picture of him with the lizard in his mouth. 2603:6080:E40:240:4986:89BB:397:CC16 (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]