Talk:Season 4 (30 Rock episode)

Move? (2010)

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was do not move. I have made page Season 4 into a disambig page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Season 4 (30 Rock) → Season 4 —

• Unnecessary dab, latter is creation protected —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
• The new title is too indefinite. Very many serieses etc have 4th seasons. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose "Season 4" can be used, seems kind of obvious, to be about the 4th season of any show (many shows have articles on each season). This episode doesn't even come close to being the primary meaning and this is a very needed disambiguation. TJ Spyke 17:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose That's just a silly suggestion. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose This is a joke right. I think this one is a candidate for a quick close. --Labattblueboy (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
• Snowball close as a nonstarter You've got to be kidding, did you see the various meanings for season four spread across Wikipedia, including the hatnote to this article??? 76.66.192.206 (talk) 05:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment If this isn't to be moved, then create a dab, as TJ Spyke suggested above. No page should have a dab without there being a page with that title and lacking the dab. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think that will work, since someone will invariably delete it for being extremely WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Since the primary location is salted, it should stay that way. 76.66.192.206 (talk) 03:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support (and hope I'm not making an idiot out of myself). Obviously, Wikipedia has information on the fourth seasons of many TV shows, but no user could reasonably expect to type in just "season 4" and be taken to the article on season 4 of a specific show. This appears to be the only work actually titled "Season 4," and thus the only topic that the undisambiguated term could reasonably refer to. Meanwhile, with no dab page or redirect at the title, there's no way for a user to enter the actual title of the episode in the search bar and arrive at the right article; right now, they get a list of search results that doesn't even include this article on the first page. That's a failure of navigability. I honestly don't see the problem in moving the one existing topic with the actual title "Season 4" to Season 4. Propaniac (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Also worth noting is that Season 5 redirects to Season 5 (album). Propaniac (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
    • We should delete that and salt it. 76.66.197.77 (talk) 05:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I moved it back, as it should have been after the 2007 discussion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
      • See Talk:Season 5 - that article is now also up at WP:RM 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose There's simply no reasonable way to make a case that this page could lay claim to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the title "Season 4".
  — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 18:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Can you point out what part of my argument is unreasonable? Do you believe it's reasonable that we should title our articles in order to accomodate someone stupid enough to enter "season 4" looking for the fourth season of a specific show? (And, incidentally, such a person would be only minimally more disadvantaged if they were taken to an unrelated article, rather than a list of 146,329 search results.) Do you believe it's reasonable that someone who enters the exact title of a TV show episode should not be able to reach the article on that episode? Propaniac (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• It is unreasonable for the same reason World Series gets to be at World Series and not the World Series of Poker, Darts, etc. Those are "World Series" as well, but the clearly dominant article is the MLB World Series that gave them that name. Season 4 has no such article, so you disambiguate all entries. As in The Office (US TV series) and The Office (UK TV series). Neither one is clearly the article which deserves simply The Office, so it's disambig'ed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• I've explained here several times why an episode titled "Season 4" is a more likely target for the phrase than the fourth season of any given TV show. I think a better analogy for this situation would be if there were only one TV show called The Office, but people were arguing that we can't move that article to The Office because lots of companies have offices. Propaniac (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support. No ambiguity. The reasonable way to make a case for this page to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Season 4" is to check the candidates:
  • "Season 4", an episode of 30 Rock
  • n/a

Since there's only one candidate that could be expected to have the title "Season 4", it's the primary topic. (If there are indeed other candidates that could be expected to have the title "Season 4", the disambiguation page Season 4 should be created instead, of course.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comeon, seriously? Was there some somewhat high profile incident that some of us are unaware of, somewhere, which brought this on? I ask because this definitely appears to be a WP:POINTy type of discussion for the three of you so far !voting "support". So, what's the real story here?
  — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 12:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

  I was skimming WP:RM and happened upon this listing. I made a brief post about it at the disambiguation talk page, where I assume JHunterJ saw it. I can only speak for my own motivations, but I'm not seeking to make a point; as someone who spends a lot of time working on disambiguation issues, I'm accustomed to examining situations like this one and thinking about the practical issue of how we can best meet the needs of Wikipedia users trying to reach specific articles. And as far as I can figure, the current situation results in no real benefit, and significant downside in hampering users from reaching this article; the proposed move would result in fixing that problem, with virtually no downside. The only reason I can see for opposing the move is a kneejerk reaction that it would be arbitrarily favoring one show over zillions of others, but that's not what's being proposed. The proposal is to "favor" (as the target for the search term "Season 4") a topic with the specific title "Season 4", over zillions of fourth seasons of various shows that would not reasonably be referred to as just "Season 4." If that's unreasonable, you need to explain what's wrong with my logic instead of simply dismissing it. Propaniac (talk) 14:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

  OK, but you made my case for me above: "it would be arbitrarily favoring one show over zillions of others". Your characterization of that as a "kneejerk reaction" is peculiar, especially in the face of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, let alone common sense. Why this page vs., say, Law & Order (season 4)?
  — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 14:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

  This article is about a television episode with the title "Season 4." Someone who wants to read about this episode and knows the title would reasonably search for it under "Season 4." The same statement would not apply to the fourth season of the TV series Law & Order. I can break it down further if you still don't see the distinction. Propaniac (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

  I don't see what difference that makes. I'll simply stand by my position above, at this point.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 15:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

  If you wanted to read about the fourth season of Law & Order, what would you search for? If you wanted to read about a specific TV episode, and you knew the title of the episode was "Season 4", what would you search for? Unless your answer to both questions really is "Season 4," I still have no idea where you're coming from. (At the very least, can you acknowledge that you understand this article is about a TV episode with a specific title, and not a TV series' fourth season, which has no official title?) Propaniac (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

  Yes, seriously. The words "season" and "4" have no special magic that would make them work differently than any other pair of words. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Could Season 4 be made into a disambiguation page (maybe there's a better word out there) that says something along the lines of "Season 4 may refer to the fourth season of a television series [and any other set of programs for a medium that has series]"? Yes, doesn't make a whole lot of sentence, but I'm just thinking out loud. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

  I'm happy with Season 4 as a disambig, it's just silly to say (IMO) that a random episode of a random TV show is clearly what most people will be thinking of with the phrase "Season 4", so this shouldn't be the article at that namespace. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

  Agreed.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 11:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

  If there are other articles ambiguous with "Season 4", then I agree (as I said in my !vote above). Television (and other) series that happen to have a fourth season, though, are not ambiguous with "Season 4" -- readers wouldn't expect to find an article on the fourth season of, say, Bonanza, titled "Season 4" except possibly in a Bonanza encyclopedia. But if there are articles to dab, they should be dabbed, and if there aren't, then the only topic should be at the base name. A hatnote with All pages with titles containing Season 4 could be placed on the article at the base name to guide other readers to the other, unambiguous article, if people find that useful; that would be an improvement over a disambiguation page that read:

Season 4 may refer to:

• "Season 4" (30 Rock), an episode of 30 Rock

==See also==

• All pages with titles containing Season 4

since readers looking for the properly-titled episode article would get there directly and all other readers would not be inconvenienced (they'd have to click through to the indiscriminate list either way). -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• I concur with JHJ that such a hatnote would be fine, and preferable to a pointless disambiguation page, although a pointless disambiguation page would be preferable to the current situation. Propaniac (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

  "it's just silly to say (IMO) that a random episode of a random TV show is clearly what most people will be thinking of with the phrase 'Season 4'". What do YOU think of if you hear or use the phrase "Season 4," outside of a discussion of a particular show? Do you think of anything, or do you think of nothing because the phrase has no meaning without specifying the series? Would you ever enter the phrase "Season 4" in a search bar, expecting to find information on a particular topic? That's the problem here: you guys are not thinking about how anyone actually uses the encyclopedia. You have not suggested that anyone benefits from typing in "Season 4" and getting a list of over 100,000 search results, instead of getting the one topic actually titled "Season 4" (with a link to that list of 100,000+ search results.) Propaniac (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support This article is about a work (an episode of 30 Rock) that is actually entitled "Season 4" and thus has a valid claim to the title, unlike the fourth season of any random show. In the absence of other articles with similarly strong claims to the title (e.g. other works entitled "Season 4"), there is no need for a parenthetical disambiguator, and this article is the de facto primary topic. There is no need for a disambiguation page, as none of the articles about the fourth season of a show would be called season 4 "in a sufficiently generic context" (WP:DABNOT). --MegaSloth (talk) 11:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • But the primary use of Season 4 is to denote the use of the phrase for identifying the 4th season of every TV series that goes that long. The fact that we have one show during Season 4 that happens to give the episode the name of Season 4 does not make that the primary use. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
    • But to denote the 4th season of any TV series, you need to specify what series you're talking about. "Season 4" on its own denotes nothing. Propaniac (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Which is exactly why this article needs to be disambiguated. It is not the primary use and there are other articles that are about Season 4. For some history, you may want to review this discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
        • How can you tell it's not the primary use? It looks like the primary topic, since there aren't any other topics that could be expected to be titled "Season 4". If the article about the fourth season of any given television show is somehow ambiguous with this encyclopedia article title, then that still doesn't mean that this one can't be the primary topic. Just like the results of the discussion you linked, in which the album is the primary topic of "Season 5" and the DVD/album is the primary topic of "Season One", so too this episode appears to be the primary topic of "Season 4". -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
        • This comes back to the question that all of the opponents to the move have so far completely ignored: Would a user enter "Season 4" in the search bar expecting to find information on the fourth season of a specific TV show? No, they would not, because "Season 4" on its own does not mean "season 4 of Law & Order", or "season 4 of The Office", or "season 4 of Gunsmoke". The meaning of "Season 4" is not ambiguous, because "Season 4" on its own does not reasonably refer to any of these topics, any more than the phrase "series finale" refers to the series finale of Seinfeld, or "lead actress" refers to the star of Murphy Brown.
        • And, yes, as JHJ pointed out, the discussion you linked led to Season One and Season 5 being deemed the primary topics for those titles, which is exactly the same outcome that we are seeking here. The redirects that were deleted were pointing to articles about seasons of a TV show. Nobody is arguing that the article about season 4 of 30 Rock should be moved here. The argument is that an article about a specific topic with the official title "Season 4" should be moved here; the fact that the topic titled "Season 4" happens to be a TV episode is irrelevant. If other TV shows had episodes titled "Season 4," those would be ambiguous with this one. Propaniac (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per the discussion, and the comments by TJ Spyke. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support unless Season 5 and Season One also get changed. Ucucha 17:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Dab

Please consider If this becomes a dab—which is my second choice after moving—please see Talk:Season 4 and (e.g.) Episodes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Season 4 (30 Rock)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 15:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It's impressive.

1. Well written
2. Cleary nonbiased
3. No edit Wars
4. Images stay on topic.
5. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

Wow, nothing at all, well guess that it means.

Overall: a pass . --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 15:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, it is most appreciated. :) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The Hill People

Kenneth quotes the Hill People on the subject of the Parcell name.
Is that gibberish?
If not, is there a translation? Varlaam (talk) 19:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Innocent IV

The wiki entry for this pope states that his picture was torn up during this episode as a tax protest. True? If so, what is the context? Innocent IV's wiki entry is sort of vague, and this info could improve the article. 2.28.140.201 (talk) 08:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested move (2012)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Jafeluv (talk) 13:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Season 4 (30 Rock) → Season 4 – The non-disambiguating "disambiguation" page currently at Season 4 would be deleted (or could be moved to Season 4 (disambiguation) if for some reason that were more acceptable). Rationale is detailed below. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

1. We have only one topic that could reasonably be referred to as just "Season 4." It is a titled work, of which "Season 4" is the official and explicit title. It is reasonable that a user who wants to read about this titled work would search for "Season 4", in the same way that a user who wants to read about the work titled "Macbeth" would search for "Macbeth." The fact that the work titled "Season 4" is a TV episode is irrelevant; the exact same argument would apply if "Season 4" were the title of a book, film, or other work.
2. There are many TV shows which have had fourth seasons. These seasons are not titled works. They are referred to, among other names, as "season 4", within the context of the particular show. It is extremely unlikely that a user who wants to read about season 4 of The Unit would search for "Season 4", because any such user would realize that there are many TV shows with fourth seasons, and it would be necessary to search in a more specific context. If he did choose to comb through the search results, he wouldn't find The Unit (season 4) until the 96th result.
3. The current state of the Season 4 so-called disambiguation page reflects that there is only one topic, the titled work referenced in point #1, which is reasonably likely to be referred to out-of-context as simply "Season 4."
4. If Season 4 (30 Rock) were moved to Season 4, and a hatnote linking to the "Season 4" search results were placed there, the experience of the user described in point #2 (who probably does not exist but nevertheless may require pandering to) would be virtually unaffected, in that he would still be one click away from those search results. Meanwhile, users seeking the titled work "Season 4" wouldn't be sent through a completely unnecessary one-entry "disambiguation" page.
5. Here are all the similar cases I could find (regardless of whether I agree with how they're handled): Season 1 redirects to Season One, about a DVD and live album. Season 2 goes nowhere, but should (via move or redirect) go to Season 2 (album), which doesn't even show up in the first 100 search results for "Season 2." Season 5 redirects to Aes Dana (ambient group), which has an album titled Season 5. Season Eight redirects to Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season Eight, a comic book series. Season 20, for some reason, redirects to The Simpsons (season 20). Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. "If you believe that you will believe anything," as the Duke said. Have we lost all sense of direction, at these RMs? How in Hades can it be helpful to any readers – anywhere, in any way, ever – to strip every last vestige of precision from such a title? O yes: you can make a case for all sorts of absurdities by narrow interpretations of flawed and contested provisions for titles, as things stand. What is amazing is that people actually strive to do so; and then, that people are convinced that it can be a good idea.

Now, here are more than 200 reasons for not moving the present article to "season 4".

Let the games begin.

♫♪! Noetica^Tea? 23:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Understood that your vote is based on an inherent predilection for using parenthetical disambiguators in titles, and not based on how Wikipedia is actually used, i.e. someone who searches for "Season 4" is likely to know they're looking for the titled work by that name. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose every list of episodes article with a section called "Season 4" should be linked to from the dab page, since "Season 4" of show X is equally likely. The other seasons should all be corrected to this manner of use. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 04:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• I do not agree with your statement that "'Season 4' of show X is equally likely" (as a target). I also do not agree that creating dab pages with hundreds (thousands?) of entries is a good idea. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: A bit of a conundrum. I likewise hate the thought of a thousand-entry disambiguation page; one possible solution is what was done with Season One: a link to the search page for "season 1". But our search function sucks and is highly likely to produce frustration on the part of the person looking for a season of a particular series. Also, we have a problem with the current name: it's ambiguous with 30 Rock (season 4). Yikes! Powers ^T 17:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support per the proposal's rationale and per my points in the earlier move discussion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Season 4 is too ambiguous to be the title of the article. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 14:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

  Why? What's magic about "Season 4" that none of the ambiguous topics (if any of the partial title matches could be considered ambiguous) could possibly be primary? -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: There's no point of citing policies as reasons to strongly support this proposal. Recently, JHunterJ, you have moved from Season 2 (album) to Season 2, while this discussion is still ongoing. Clearly, I think of Season 4 as the fourth season of any TV show or winter in North Hemisphere or summer in South Hemisphere. Ugh, the whole situation is getting more complicated if expressed doubts about "WP:PRECISION as a real reason" are ignored. --George Ho (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

  Correct. While you, George Ho, seem to want to handle any possible move contrary to your views serially but handle all moves that align with your views in parallel, there are no actual restrictions against attempting to improve the encyclopedia in one area (or title) while another area (or title) is having a discussion. Since Theoldsparkle noted the simply wrong arrangement where the base name "Season 2" was a red link while there existed an article at the needlessly qualified title "Season 2 (album)", I applied one improvement. If the album article is subsequently moved, at least some part of that improvement will remain. You really should try assuming good faith some time. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

  I'm not giving you bad faith, but do not expect me to give up my concerns about you. Have you raised issues in talk pages about conflicts between "Season 4" and rules instead of making move performances and citing policies as reasons? To give you good faith, I need links, please. No links to history logs or contribution logs, please. You can search archives if you can. --George Ho (talk) 02:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, I have participated in the move discussions related to the titles. Please point out the policiy's requirement for links to be provided before you can WP:AGF. If you don't feel like giving me good faith, I can't force you to, but please realize that trying to make additional work for me (I am a volunteer like you) is unlikely to go anywhere. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: Still totally ambiguous. Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support, per nom, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and the logic of what people entering "Season 4" will be searching for. ENeville (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • What is your logic? According to Talk:Never Been Kissed#Requested move, no episode titles will ever be remembered for a long time, especially before the boom of DVDs. --George Ho (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
    • My logic is as stated, including that no one looking for season 4 of a show will enter only "Season 4". BTW, I do not hold Talk:Never Been Kissed#Requested move to be in any way canonical. If conclusions there are worthy of guidelines, they should be incorporated as such, else one would presume that they are not worthy of such. I'm sorry, the reference to DVDs is impenetrable to me. ENeville (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support per nom. A hatnote will do the job perfectly well for those users who, for whatever reason, are searching for season 4 of a particular TV series by typing "season 4" into the search bar. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

  Why must dab pages be taken so seriously or literally? What about 30 Rock (Season 4)? How does the dab page violate any policy or guideline? --George Ho (talk) 12:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

  Why must they be taken unseriously or unliterally? Since there's no Wikipedia ambiguity, there's no need for a Wikipedia disambiguation page. A hatnote linking to the "intitle" search for "season 4" will accommodate the hypothetical readers who use the search box for that phrase and don't bother to specify which series they're looking for. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose As this isn't the primary topic for this title. When I Google search for the term "Season 4" I could not find this article on the first 5 pages of results, and nothing about this episode of 30 Rock turned up either. I do assume that Google is able to predict with just some degree of certainty what people are looking for when entering in a search term. They have become quite a big company on that basis of that ability. And I would have expected this article to get favorable treatment, given that Wikipedia article are usually the first thing to come up in Google searches.TheFreeloader (talk) 18:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Season 4 (30 Rock). 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/20120311025742/https://www.nbcumv.com/images/thumbnails/2009/10/NUP_136582/NUP_136582_0169.jpg to https://www.nbcumv.com/images/thumbnails/2009/10/NUP_136582/NUP_136582_0169.jpg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120311025754/https://www.nbcumv.com/images/thumbnails/2009/10/NUP_136583/NUP_136583_0067.jpg to https://www.nbcumv.com/images/thumbnails/2009/10/NUP_136583/NUP_136583_0067.jpg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120311025804/https://www.nbcumv.com/images/thumbnails/2009/10/NUP_136582/NUP_136582_0066.jpg to https://www.nbcumv.com/images/thumbnails/2009/10/NUP_136582/NUP_136582_0066.jpg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120311025812/https://www.nbcumv.com/images/thumbnails/2009/10/NUP_136582/NUP_136582_0029.jpg to https://www.nbcumv.com/images/thumbnails/2009/10/NUP_136582/NUP_136582_0029.jpg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110616210305/http://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/30-rock/episode-1-season-4/281135 to http://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/30-rock/episode-1-season-4/281135
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091206022633/http://www3.timeoutny.com/chicago/blog/out-and-about/2009/10/30-rock-recap-season-4-episode-401/ to http://www3.timeoutny.com/chicago/blog/out-and-about/2009/10/30-rock-recap-season-4-episode-401/

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) 00:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)