Talk:Defying Gravity (TV series)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

==It seems quite similar in some ways to <Planetes>

This article is a perfect example of the flaws inherent in Wikipedia[edit]

So it's due to broadcast in Germany in 2009? Really? How very timely, given that it's now 2012 and the series was cancelled three years ago.

This article demonstrates clearly that Wikipedia needs to get its shit together on the content front


I realise I am a day late and a dollar short with this comment, but how about you just edit the article as appropriate? Wikipedia does not magically update itself... --81.23.54.142 (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation re: cancellation[edit]

I deleted a line which cited a Variety article as saying ABC may pull the show. The source article says no such thing; all it has is the writer's comment that the show isn't likely to run 6 years without an improvement in the ratings which is not the same as saying ABC is planning to pull the show. There may likely be other sources quoting ABC or another broadcaster as threatening to pull the show, so if one is found, feel free to reinstate the comment. But let's make sure it's a reputable source. According to some blogs, Merlin was going to be cancelled after its 3rd episode, but the full season aired on NBC. The fact ABC is not the only funder of this series -- it involves Canadian, British and German networks, too -- may improve the odds of it lasting, so we should wait till there's a firm indication that ABC is giving up before posting it. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 14:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Section on Donner Monologues[edit]

I'm new at contributing to wikipedia. Learning the editor, etc. I would like to add a section to this article that lists the Donner monologues. I would like some guidance from someone more experienced and who has contributed to this article. Is this a good idea? Where would I place the new section? Any other advice? How can I tell if there are copyright issues? Certainly the monologues are copyright, but wouldn't they be considered fair use to be listed here for the purpose of studying the episode's themes? Thanks, SerSteve (talk) 10:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)serSteve[reply]

Are you talking about transcripts of what he says on the show? If so, that likely won't be something that we can add here, primarily due to copyright issues (I don't think that full transcripts qualify as "fair use", although I'm not an expert on this at all. Personally, I'm all for outright ignoring copyright completely, but this isn't he place to fight that battle). That level of information is a bit too much for an encyclopedia article anyway (this isn't a fan site, after all).
If, however, you're talking about adding a paragraph or two that describes (or even paraphrases) third party coverage then that is a completely different story. One thing to keep in mind here is that while we should write about, in our own words, what others are saying regarding the topic of the article, we should not write our own analysis or interpretations of anything here. For more on that subject, see WP:OR.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 13:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
V=IR is right. You need to establish that the monologues are notable - find some mention of them in a non-wikipedia source. (I take it that you mean the narration by Donner for the audience at the beginning and end of each episode.) I suppose that you could mention the monologues in the premise. The monologues certainly state the themes of each episode, but you'll need to quote a source to make that statement in the article. Noting that Gray's Anatomy has something similar would be appropriate. Then you could include a summary of each monologue in the episode list (while carefully avoiding publishing original research).
You want to avoid getting too detailed. This is an encyclopedia, and encyclopediae are not intended to be exhaustive. You also don't want to over-emphasise this facet of the show and make the article unbalanced. Notability is the first test, but balance is almost as important.
Finally, remember that Wikipedia is not a fan-site. Articles about tv shows should be similar in tone to articles on classical literature, history, science, etc. Ronstew (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I get it. And I'm glad I asked. I am talking about complete transcripts of Donner's narrative at the beginning and end of each episode. While each episode is fairly easy to follow, I am interested in experiencing the monologues as a whole across all episodes. I didn't intend to write my opinion or interpretation, only the transcripts. I understand now that this isn't the place to share this kind of work. If I post it somewhere else, and that results in notable discussion of, i.e., use of narrative in TV story telling with emphasis from this TV series, then a reference here to those discussions would be appropriate. Thanks guys, SerSteve (talk) 21:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)serSteve[reply]

You're welcome, and Welcome to Wikipedia as well!
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 03:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible original research[edit]

The summary contains the following:

"(...) during which they are monitored from earth via a realtime, faster than light communication system."

There is a ref after this which indicates it would support it - see here. However, that ref only supports the text preceding this part - there is no mention of monitoring or FTL communication. Isn't that original research then? Shouldn't it be removed? --Dfonseca (talk) 17:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that the ref makes no sense. The only thing it mentions is that there are 8 astronauts, it doesn't mention anything else in that sentence; Year, mission duration, gender amount, … It could be places right after "the series follows eight astronauts". Additionally adding this reference. resulting in this:

Defying Gravity is a multi-nationally produced space travel television drama series, first aired on August 2, 2009 on ABC and CTV. Set in the year 2052 (with flashbacks to five and ten years earlier in the story's continuity), the series follows eight astronauts[1]—four women and four men—from five countries on a six-year space mission through the Solar System,[2] during which they are monitored from earth via a realtime, faster than light communication system. The series was pitched to networks as "Grey's Anatomy in space".[3]

I would say that the show itself is proof of a faster than light communication system. the minimum distance between Earth and Venus is about 2.11 light minutes while the longest is 14.51 light minutes. Which is the time it would take light, or any EM wave like a radio, to reach it (one way). So the only way that they have instant communication is by having a FTLCS. It is not uncommon to have a reference to the show or an episode itself. Xeworlebi (t•c) 18:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just found an article which mentions the FTLCS from SCI FI Wire I will add it alongside with my previous modifications. Xeworlebi (t•c) 18:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I took out the actual "faster than light" statement. It says in the referenced article that they've chosen to not represent communication delays, but that choice is clearly a writing and pacing style, not some sort of technologically based writing device that the show has developed. So, ultimately, Dfonseca was correct.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 13:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it may be worth, the Antares is stated to be 30 million kilometers from Earth at time of the events in Episode 8. Since light travels at approximate 300,000 kilometers per second, it would take a radio or laser signal almost exactly 100 seconds (1 minute 40 seconds) to travel each way. Any reply, however immediate, wouldn't be received for at least 200 seconds (3 minutes 20 seconds).

References

  1. ^ Benzine, Adam (2008-12-17). "Transatlantic space drama on launch pad". C21 Media. Retrieved 6 September 2009. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
  2. ^ "ABC.com - Defying Gravity - About the show". {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |accesdate= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ "ABC Picks Up Gravity". The Hollywood Reporter. 2009-06-30. Retrieved 6 September 2009. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)

Notability of the "story within a story"?[edit]

In the Premise section, we have,

"In a story within the story, the lives of the astronauts are being recorded and broadcast back to Earth as part of an ongoing documentary."

It is a minor part of the story. Of course there is a crew member who is in charge of sending back PR packets. And really, that's not a "story within the story" anyway. Anybody going to complain if I delete the sentence? Ronstew (talk) 00:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an item that is featured in every episode, where several characters regularly "talk to the camera", and of course Morales's ongoing documentary, I think that it's an important topic to mention. The single sentence is perfectly adequate coverage, as well.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 00:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair comment. How about ditching the phrase, "In a story within the story"? Ronstew (talk) 04:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
that wouldn't bother me. I actually intended to mention that I wouldn't have an issue with copy editing the sentence.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 12:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like what you did with it OhmsLaw. Ronstew (talk) 02:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Website[edit]

This is sort of lame, but... an editor removed the abc.com website addresses earlier today and I reverted that change (it was the only thing changed). He since removed the addresses again, and I'm now re-adding them.

It's not that I particularly care that these External links exist, it's just that there's no reason (yet) to remove them. If and when ABC takes the specific site down, then we should remove the links. ABC and other major corporate websites tend to leave pages of for long periods of time regardless of show cancelations or anything similar, which is why I feel that the show (probably) being removed from ABC's schedule is an inappropriate reason for removal of the addresses.

Let's also keep in mind here that ABC is not the only network carrying the show. CTV is also (still) airing it, and there are a couple of European networks airing the show as well. Aside from all of that, a DVD release is typical, and it's not as though the show is being erased from existence, so some site for the show is likely to continue to exist anyway.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 01:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm correct, it's AdamDeanHall. Since this seems to be a violation of WP:3RR, I've warned him. If he continues, I'd advise sending a report. As for the article, if the editor in question is Adam, he needs to understand that Wikipedia covers several countries, not just the USA. As a result, the links do need to stay, as they help viewers who live, and watch the show, in other countries. -- GSK (talk ● evidence) 01:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrote[edit]

OK, I reordered and copy edited the article so that there is a section dealing with all of the scheduling mumbo-jumbo that is going on. I added a summary sentence in the lead about all of the scheduling changes as well (IAW WP:LEAD). I'm not at all happy with that sentence, but it is at least pithy and descriptive, and I just can't think of anything better (right now).

There is a reference in the article source about the show not actually being canceled on ABC, but external links to aceshowbiz.com currently seem to be spam filtered for some reason. The reference is technically still there, but since it's really unusable I've commented it out and added a "Citation needed" tag there instead. If true, a regular news service is bound to pick up on the story in the morning regardless, and those should be preferred as references over blog posts anyway.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 04:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Section on ship design[edit]

The Antares and the Icarus II from the movie Sunshine (2007) share mostly the same design. If you compare images of the two ships side by side you will see that both have large umbrella like structures that are paneled with reflective mirrors. Both crafts also feature rotating armatures that create earth gravity. Smaller similarities include antenna arrays and the storage system. RobertMTodd (talk) 07:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find any sources backing that up you can go ahead and add it to the page. This article could use some more info. Xeworlebi (t•c) 08:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, someone needs to write about this somewhere, externally (Offline print sources are perfectly acceptable as well, by the way). Is there a connection between the production personnel at all? If not then the similarities are likely coincidental.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 12:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call it coincidental, rather they both draw from real world space vehicle designs for what would be required for a manned journey that close to the sun. This isn't like talking about ewoks or arthurian legends. Space ship design is based in physical reality and just as you wouldn't say Toyota copied Ford when they decided to put wheels on their cars, nor would you say that the fact they both make cars with wheels is coincidental. In the same way, it would be expected that science fiction describing a near sol mission will have ships that share design characteristics. Shielding issues and artificial gravity are design issues that have been developed by real world designers, from whom the writers/set designers draw their inspiration. --Mandra Oleka (talk) 13:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a short sequence at the start of James Cameron's Avatar that shows the transport vessel taking people from Earth to Pandora. This ship seems to follow the same design again; big domed solar panel, long shaft with storage around a central corridor, rotating arms with pods and satellite dishes on stilts..
Here's a (not very good) photograph; the only still I can find. --Jimbo (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"series" vs. "season"[edit]

I knew that this was going to be an issue. I specifically looked at the few available sources talking about the show's reported ABC finale, and they all state "series finale", which is why that is what the article uses. It's looking as though they were all wrong (surprise!), but that's neither here nor there. What the sources actually stated at the time is verifiable, so it shouldn't be changed.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 17:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one of the first sources to mention the announced "season finale": www.aceshowbiz.com/news/view/00027208.html. The author interpreted it to in fact be a "series finale," but this didn't come from ABC. Everybody else read downstream from this source or also made their own interpretation, but ABC called it a "season finale." -71.72.114.63 (talk) 02:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It really depends what we want to report. If you would like to say that a number of blogs interpreted the eighth episode to be a "series finale," you could do that. If you want to report what ABC called it (as it now reads), then you must go with "season finale." -71.72.114.63 (talk) 02:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another source that is very clear. -71.72.114.63 (talk) 02:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never disputed any of that, but it's not our place to correct the sources that we use. From Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". I know that these things are tough to deal with sometimes, but this is a pretty important core philosophy behind the entire encyclopedia.
All of that being said, you did just provide an additional reference (and usable, since you may have noticed that the aceshowbiz source is not usable).
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 13:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know more about these things than you may realize. I'm aware that the aceshowbiz site appears to be blocked by wikipedia. It also, appears to be the sole source of information used by the author of the examiner.com article that you have referenced as a reason to revert me. One might suggest that if the primary source is not usable, that the secondary source should not be used either.
Saying that ABC called it a "series finale" was neither true nor verifiable. At least your current edit is not obviously false. Please keep in mind, however, the goal is to write statements that are both true and verifiable and relevant to the article. We do not need to repeat obviously false statements here just because some other source has made them. I think the words used by ABC to describe the episode are much more relevant to the article than false or premature interpretations made by a few bloggers. Alas, I don't have the energy to keep fixing these statements and you seem to have no shortage of energy for changing them. So, I leave it to you. -71.72.114.63 (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that I didn't add this info (and, if it were my choice alone, I likely wouldn't include any of this info). Since it was added though, I've at least been maintaining it. The aceshowbiz report may or may not have been the original reporters, but none of the other reports reference it, so the whole statement about it being the "sole source of information" appears (to me) to be speculation. It was, and is, a new section, so it needed copy editing, which is what I did. I never disclaimed what you were saying, but simply because there is disagreement over phrases used is no reason for Wikipedia to pick and choose which sources to believe or not, which is the only reason that I reverted your change.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 20:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it seems like "speculation" to you, it may be that you have not looked carefully at the first sentence of the examiner.com article that you have cited which defers (via link) to aceshowbiz.com. In this case, the banned site actually has the better reporting since they merely say that it "looks" like the show is canceled. Further, WP:V does not mean that you have to accept every source on the internet as equally worthy. You are to use reliable sources. If you and I both know a source to be falsely reporting something, we should be able to agree that it is not reliable. Your edits have given undue weight to something that you know is factually incorrect. Over and out. -71.72.114.63 (talk) 04:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, OK, one last thing, a quantitative measure of undue weight (OK, this is sort-of a joke, don't take it too seriously) -71.72.114.63 (talk) 05:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really wish that you would quit attributing the addition of any of this to me. The examiner.com source, and indeed the entire content that we're discussing here, was added by other editors. Again, I don't think that any of this content should be in the article, and 6 months from now, after ABC makes an official announcement, all of this will be moot anyway because I'll replace the whole thing with actual reliably sourced material. I don't have a POV in this at all, I'm only dealing with this silly, ephemeral content that all of you keep wanting to add. None of it is actually important, but as long as it's going to be here then it's going to 1) be as well formatted as I can make it in the time that I put into working on it and 2) be representative of the whole story. If it bothers you or the other IP that seem to want only their favorite (own?) blogs included, then that's just too bad.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 05:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now come on, no need to be a jerk. I didn't add any of the BS either, I just tried to correct a false statement (that ABC announced an episode as "series finale") and you reverted back to a false statement and referred me to the Examiner.com source, which you do not seem to have examined carefully. Since then I've just tried to clarify what seems to be obviously unclear to you. In return you have falsely accused me of speculation and what, pushing some blog? So please, tell me just what blog you think is my favorite? All I've done is complain about them being wrong. -71.72.114.63 (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to belabor the point, but HERE IS WHERE YOU ADDED THE EXAMINER.COM ARTICLE and called it an announcement by ABC. This probably wasn't the best research you've ever done. I don't blame you for forgetting about it, but your really must stop blaming "other editors." -71.72.114.63 (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm Facepalm You know, I'm really not sure what made me decide to waste my time with this type of article in the first place. It's all yours, feel free to add or remove whatever references you'd like because I've just removed this article from me watchlist.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 19:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably not a bad move for you. The thing is, I think I'm done here too. -71.72.114.63 (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ROFL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.56.92 (talk • contribs) 05:18, 21 September 2009

Y'all know that the two terms are used interchangeably in some places outside the USA right? What a hooha over nothing. Rotfl 78.149.205.182 (talk) 01:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

a multi-nationally produced space travel television drama series?[edit]

Ok, it is multinational produced, but it's not a space travel television drama ... it really is a drama that this is called that way, because it's only mystery crap that happens in space randomly (or even pourposed there, because all other places had been occupied by mystery yet). The astronaut training sequences really are a joke ... like calling a bunch of playing school kids an "FBI agent training camp". And the relation to Grey's anatomy is defying sense ... since Grey's anatomy is professional stuff and therefore the opposite of THIS. One of the worst there to me is the trying to include sex into the storyline. Not that sex is bad generally, but it's the way of the prude ones, who have no natural impression and no talent for that. So what's shown here are the worst possible views ... there's no beauty in the act itself and everyone can see, that the people only act as they do. because the script said so. Without the mystery and the prude parts, the series could have become one of my favourites, because I really waited for such a long-term space travel feature from near future. But seeing this I just got the opinion, that this series coud be made to act against space travel ... to influence the mind of people negatively to space exploration programs. CMA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.104.86.181 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 26 September 2009

The show is set in space. They are on a journey, traveling trough the solar system. It's on television. As long as a show is not a comedy, a soap or fiction it's a drama. Therefor a space travel television drama. The comparison, Grey's Anatomy in space was in my opinion a stupid one, both repelling people who don't like Science Fiction and those who don't like Grey's Anatomy. But that is how they [the creators of the show] pitched it to the network. Xeworlebi (t•c) 15:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On this level of definition, the bible would be called a fairy tale ... CMA
No fairies in the bible, so no. Look, Defying Gravity is a boring, badly written show with gratuitous sexual tension, unresolved mysteries, unrealistic training scenes, annoying flashbacks and all kinds of undesireable stuff. But it is still a multi-nationally produced space travel television drama series. Ronstew (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Germany, UK?[edit]

So... has this been broadcast in Germany or the UK yet? If so, someone should add that info in... is anything beyond episode 9 a Canada-only affair? 76.66.197.30 (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've only just noticed. but the first two episodes air on BBC2 in the UK tonight, 21st October.85.210.11.176 (talk) 08:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I suggest looking at a TV guide if you live in Germany or emailing a TV channel and requesting this show be aired. Any channel that this series has aired on would be listed in the main article itself. It's worth noting that Wikipedia essentially isn't a TV guide. One of the reasons why the show ceased airing in America was the poor ratings, this may affect any channel outside of America/Canadia being interested in the show.82.15.9.117 (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a multinational coproduction, and someone slapped the WikiProject BBC banner on this page, so the BBC may be airing it. It wouldn't be TV Guide, since TV Guide only says it aired on channel X, in whatever your market is, not it's airing on channel Y on the other side of the globe. So it should mention if it airs as a first-run TV show and in which markets. It should mention if it airs in the markets for which it was bought for by the international consortium that produced it and the networks that signed up. (ABC, CTV, apparently, since they aired it, and CTV bumped it to SPACE, which is the Canadian version of SyFy) 76.66.197.30 (talk) 21:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn't aired in Germany yet, to the best of my knowledge. Not on Pro Sieben at least, and they'd have to localize it first. If they ever will, doesn't look that good for it (which leaves me pissed, if I may say so). Amalthea 23:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the Canadian/USA ratings are anything to go by you're probably right. I think if it ever gets a DVD release, they will probably just do German Subtitles or something 82.15.9.117 (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seven[edit]

  1. Alpha - Mars
  2. Beta - Earth
  3. Gamma - Venus
  4. Delta - Mercury
  5. Epsilon - Europa
  6. Zeta - rings of Saturn
  7. Eta - Pluto

Discovered 2038, from signal from Mars to Earth and then response from Nazca

Ref: Defying Gravity episode 9

76.66.197.30 (talk) 12:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2042 - year of Mars mission

Ref: Defying Gravity episode 10

76.66.197.30 (talk) 12:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mars[edit]

... One small step for Man, One giant leap for Mankind ...

So... apparently Astronaut Walker was the first man on Mars, and his first words were...

"Red planet conquered, the warrior brought to his knees"

Ref: Episode 11.

76.66.201.240 (talk) 04:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Venus[edit]

...Tranquility Base, The Eagle Has Landed...

So... Zoe's the first person to set foot on Venus, and after hyperanxiety trying to come up with something to say, says:

"Mark the day with a footprint, a step forward in the path of man."

Ref: Episode 12

76.66.201.240 (talk) 04:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

_____________________________________________________________________

Suggestion re BBC air times: show was moved to Saturday nights, getting later each week and ending up starting 11.10pm on 28 November. No wonder ratings went through the floor. Apologies if not submitting this suggested amendment correctly. Now find cannot even get tilde on my keyboard. Bother. Hang on - there it is! 81.159.35.186 (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC likes to hide away its failures (as well as non-BBC produced critical successes, such as The Wire) as late in the night as it can get. 93.97.143.19 (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final word from creator on ending of series[edit]

Understandably, a link to my own post regarding the subject of how the series would have ended was removed, because I added it to the main page for the show myself. If someone else feels it's fitting to be added, here is said link. No harm or spamming meant, just citing research I've done. Gudlyf (talk) 19:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Defying Gravity (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 32 external links on Defying Gravity (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Defying_Gravity_(TV_series)&oldid=1206917227"