Talk:Arrietty

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

Arrietty continues to set new records[edit]

[1]. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arrietty[edit]

The official English title is "Arrietty", should the page be changed to reflect this? - Plau (talk) 06:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOS-AM says to use the most commonly known English title, so an article name change would seem to be in order. David Bailey (talk) 13:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now, "Arrietty" is called "The Secret World of Arrietty", then. What is the title? I suggest to change again the title as 'The Secret World of Arrietty. There are a reference from United Kingdom where "Arrietty" is called "The Secret World of Arrietty"The Secret World of Arrietty in News Shopper, another reference in Amazon.com [http://www.amazon.com/Art-Secret-World-Arrietty/dp/1421541181 Buy "The Art of The Secret World of Arrietty" book]. Now, "Arrietty or "The Secret World of Arrietty?--Blitz Lutte (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The Secret World of Arrietty" should suffice. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then. Can I to move "Arrietty" to "The Secret World of Arrietty"?--Blitz Lutte (talk) 22:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's do it. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now, it's moved. As a suggestion, can we move the article's peer review to match the article's title, please? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I already linked to the peer review above. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The cast section needs fixing[edit]

It's currently using a very restrictive template (anime voices), which is not suitable for the task. Basically, instead of having:

Voiced by: Actor A (Japanese), Actor B (English)

We need:

Voiced by: Actor A (Japanese), Actor B (English), Actor C (American)

Since the template won't allow for that, I think each line for the actors needs to be typed out manually, rather than using the template. Unfortunately, I don't have a full list of the actors in question, so I can't do it, otherwise I would. By the way, the actors currently listed under English are actually the American actors. To whoever is able to fix this, thanks for your help! :) 2.216.230.60 (talk) 02:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Push?[edit]

Hi, I am considering a push to at least GA-level. There are a few things we still need to do:

  • Lead section - needs to be expanded to at least three or four paragraphs
  • Plot section - looks good, close to the WP:FILMPLOT recommendation of 400-700 words
  • Voice cast - may need a table so that it could be separated into columns, otherwise looks good --Per MOSFILM, best not to use tables for this section
  • Development - looks good, can still use interviews from reliable sources to help find the production history and inspirations.
  • Casting section' - looks good
  • Release section - can be merged to the box office section --This section should be put out on its own, as per WP:MOSFILM. This section should include the release dates in individual countries, as well as any film festival it partici[pated in. One of its sub-sections should also be the "Home Media" section.
  • Music section - can be expanded with sources and details on the soundtrack release. (Note: second paragraph is currently unreferenced- Can someone find some reference for that?)
  • Box office section - needs more detail on gross revenue, its opening weekends in various countries and also add total gross to the box office
  • Critical reception - can use reviews from critics in reliable sources, such as The Guardian and The Hollywood Reporter.
  • Miscellaneous sections (Subsection of "Release") - home media releases needs to be added to the article with details about its releases in Japan and internationally. (place into "home media" section as per Manual of Style for films)

Also, I am going to do a peer review as well. Any other suggestions on how to help improve this article should be very much appreciated. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have made some changes to Sjones23's suggestions. --Lionratz (talk) 06:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a review for the page and I will be helping out as well. I think this page needs more Japanese sources from Japan, as that is its home country. I can help with the article's Japanese sources translations (for the reviews, interviews and articles). Anyone else who knows Japanese and is willing to help out?--Lionratz (talk) 05:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, here are a few sources that I can find pertaining to production:

Would these work? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Progress on page (as of 4 September 2011)[edit]

  • Lead section - basically looks okay
  • Plot section - Good
  • Voice cast - should be okay
  • Development - can be expanded
  • Casting section' - good, but can include casting of other languages
  • Theme song - Can do with more references and details
  • Release section - can be expanded
  • Box office section - needs more information for respective releases
  • Critical reception - basically okay, but can include more details
  • Merchandise - Okay for now, but can include more information

Also, note that certain parts, like the "Production", "Post-production" and the film's official soundtrack album listing is missing.--Lionratz (talk) 13:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More updates[edit]

Now that the film has been released in the United States, here are some critical reviews that will help in improving the reception section.

Also, we may need to update the Box Office Mojo references as soon as we get the US grosses in. Would that work? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on it when I have the time. Thanks for the sources!--Lionratz (talk) 10:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. And we can also use Anime News Network's review as well in addition to the above sources. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 12:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why Is The Article Under Disney's Title?[edit]

I'm just curious why the article for this film is titled after Disney's name for the film instead of its original name. Shouldn't the article name be the original name of the film as given by the film's animation studio? IndigoAK200 (talk) 04:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is at the most common title, and since the wide release of the film in around 1200 theaters in North America, this has become the most common title in English when referring to the film. See WP:COMMONTITLE for more details. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
However, this film is only known under this title in the US. It is still known as The Borrower's Arrietty in many other places (like Japan, UK, Taiwan, France etc.) Shouldn't this be the more common title in this sense? Only the US visitors will know this film under this title, and it might be biased to say that the US title would automatically be the most common one.--Lionratz (talk) 11:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You make an excellent point. The population of the United State is only 1/21st of the world's approximate population, which means the number of people who know this film by it's original title or a similar title far outnumber the number of people who know it by its US title. IndigoAK200 (talk) 13:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article was previously under the UK/Australian title Arrietty. Per WP:RETAIN it should immediately be moved back, I'll do it now. Smetanahue (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it back, so lets take any other move discussions from here, since no discussion was held before the first move. There might also be some instances of US English in the text which has been changed from UK English and needs to be switched back, I didn't go through the whole article. Smetanahue (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) For reference, the Studio Canal site: http://www.studiocanal.co.uk/Film/Details/b444987a-09f1-4ac5-af80-9efb011debf1 Shiroi Hane (talk) 16:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Until its premiere in United States its name in English was Arrietty. In Canada and United States the film is called The Secret World of Arrietty. Disney is a producers of Studio Ghibli films and its International English name is The Secret World of Arrietty. I've moved it back to The Secret World of Arrietty because its official name both USA and Canada--Blitz Lutte 2 (talk) 09:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"International name" is a misnomer, as The Secret World of Arrietty is only used in North America! It's a bit like saying that "International English" is the same as "British English"... it isn't. Given that the film came out in the UK before North America, shouldn't the first English title take precedence? David Bailey (talk) 10:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is obviously a conflict both here and with WP:RETAIN, you have to do a proper move request and discussion before moving to the US title. Until then it should stay with the first established English variety. Smetanahue (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought WP:RETAIN was only used to police changes due to spelling variations between American or British English (color vs. colour) etc, not first used title of a film. Wouldn't WP:COMMONNAME be the more appropriate guideline here? David Bailey (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but Wikipedia:COMMONNAME#National varieties of English only really summarizes Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English (to which it also links), where WP:RETAIN is the relevant section in this case. WP:RETAIN is a very clear and pragmatic solution to what otherwise could cause a lot of edit wars. Smetanahue (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've move-protected it for two weeks. If the current title isn't satisfactory, please start a WP:Requested moves discussion to determine the correct title. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move - march 2012[edit]

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 No consensus. Lynch7 03:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arrietty → The Secret World of Arrietty – So far, there has been no request moves without proper discussion and it has become apparent that I have decided to make the request after Blitz Lutte 2's note at my talk page. Given the fact that Disney is the international distributor of most Ghibli films and have used official English titles for their releases (such as Ponyo, Castle in the Sky, Whisper of the Heart and Spirited Away), I am considering a page move to the official title per the relevant guidelines at WP:COMMONNAME and WP:MOS-AM and the suggestion in the above discussion by Smetanahue. Any comments or objections? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - WP:COMMONNAME states use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article. Having done a quick head count of the English langauge sources used in the article, seven use "The Secret World of...", one uses "The Borrower..." while six others refer to it as just plain old "Arrietty". It seems to me that both The Secret World of Arrietty and Arriety satisfy the titling requirements. I don't feel too strongly either way, but leaving it as Arriety seems to occupy the middle ground between all three title forms better than the proposed rename. Betty Logan (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Disney is just one of several international distributors for this film. Given that both titles are used pretty much equally in the English speaking world, I think the first English use of a title (in this case Arrietty for the film's UK launch) should take precedence here. The Arrietty title also works as a shortened form of the longer titles, so nobody will be confused by it. David Bailey (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It also appears to be different case here since unlike the three other films mentioned this film aired in other English speaking countries with a different title and it was released there before the US version. I am not saying this should not be changed but the there will need to be a new rationale due to the different circumstances regarding this film.--70.24.208.34 (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Arrietty is the UK title and The Secret World of Arrietty is the US title. Since the subject of the article is neither British nor American, both titles are equally suitable, so I see no reason for a move. The UK title was the first one established, so it makes sense to let the article stay there; WP:RETAIN advocates this system as a pragmatic way to avoid edit wars. Smetanahue (talk) 23:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Disney isn't just one of several international distributors for this film, it's more than it. At present, Walt Disney Japan is one of the producers of the film in its original country, Japan. In imdb.com said: "AKA, The Secret World of Arrietty is International complete title in English. Nevertheless, I've sent a mail to Imdb.com for that they say to me which they consider the most correct title, I'm waiting their response although the main poster in the page is called The Secret World of Arrietty. The Secret World of Arrietty is official title in Canada, United States and it is useful like reference in other countries like Latin American countries where it's usually to name a traduction of English title. The Book of Art of the film always has the official title in English (for example, The Art of Kiki's Delivery Service or The Art of From Up on Poppy Hill). In Amazon the book of art is selling like The Art of The Secret World of Arrietty. While the title Arrietty is only known in UK and Australia like other Ghibli films in this countries have different name (Castle in the Sky in UK and Australia is called Laputa: Castle in the Sky). It's true that the first title in English but now The Secret World of Arrietty is more well-known than Arrietty. The film has sold more 14,000,000 dollars in United States and Canada and there are many medias (newspapers, websites, TV channels, etc) where the film now it's called The Secret World of Arrietty. I think that the title The Secret World of Arrietty should be the main title and to put that Arrietty it's the name only in United Kingdom and Australia. The British name isn't the most well-known title although had been the first title.--Blitz Lutte 2 (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)--[reply]
    Wikipedia doesn't use the "proper" title or even the most "well known" title, it uses the most commonly occurring one in reliable English sources. On that basis The Secret World of Arrietty and Arrietty are as good as each other. If Disney did co-produce the film however, then a move would be qualified under the "national ties" rationale. Betty Logan (talk) 00:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me, now I use the term most commonly. I insist, The Secret World of Arrietty now it's the most commonly name of the film. It is possible to make a comparison between North American repercussion and British repercussion. In United States and Canada, the film has been shown in 1,522 theathers and the box office is more 14,000,000 dollars while in UK and Australia the box office is only 800,000 dollars. In UK and Australia, although had been shown before, the film is less known than United States and Canada where the film is having a success box office. Maybe isn't enough like source. In addition, in Taiwan the film is called The Secret World of Arrietty too--Blitz Lutte 2 (talk) 00:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The number of people that have seen the film is not really that relevant as far as the guidelines apply. If box office success resulted in significantly increased coverage then that would be a factor, but there is no evidence of that as yet; the sources used by the article seem to be pretty evenly spread between the two titles. Betty Logan (talk) 00:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, the external links there are only one with Arrietty title while there are six with The Secret World of Arrietty title. The references: Anime News Network, Big Carton DataBase, Metacritic, Rotten Tomatoes and Box Office Mojo--Blitz Lutte 2 (talk) 00:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I personally like the name "Arrietty" a little better (in terms of which sounds better to me), but I think that "The Secret World of Arrietty" is a little more common among the references and links used on the page. Furthermore, doing a Google search returned many more hits searching for Arrietty with the phrase "Secret World" than searching for Arrietty exluding pages with the phrase "Secret World". Since I think "The Secret World of Arrietty" is more commonly used both in the links used in the article and on the Internet in general, I think per WP:COMMONNAME it should be used as the name in the article. Also, I want to mention that I don't think WP:RETAIN has any bearing on this discussion, and that I have commented to Smetanahue on his talk page that I think he misapplied it. Calathan (talk) 02:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I've read the comments and I think that The Secret World of Arrietty is more common than Arrietty. When I knew the existence of this film, I knew it with this title (The Secret World of Arrietty). According to the references and WP:COMMONNAME, the title The Secret World of Arrietty is more adapted for this film.--Jslarrive90 (talk) 12:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There was a similar discussion about UK vs US titles one month ago at Talk:Bande à part (film)#Requested move. An interesting read, which ends in no consensus and a call for a broader discussion about WP:EN. Perhaps there would need to be something as explicit as WP:RETAIN in the title guidelines, although personally I can't see what really separates them. Smetanahue (talk) 18:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I took part in the Bande á part discussion, and really the crux of that issue was whether we should use the French name over the English name when it is widely used in English sources, even though it required disambiguation. This is a much simpler debate really, because we have two English names, and it is just a case of determining which has the most common usage in sources. If that cannot be determined then I would say WP:RETAIN then applies. Betty Logan (talk) 12:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I have seen the references that have been commented by Blitz Lutte 2 and I think that the page should be moved to The Secret World of Arrietty. Both in links from United States and links from another countries it's called this way. So, I think that The Secret World of Arrietty is the name that should have the page.--Alfon linds (talk) 22:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Blitz Lutte 2 again. I've received response of Imdb.com and the website of Imdb The Secret World of Arrietty is International English Name. I think that it's clear and The Secret World of Arrietty should be used as the name in the article. I think per WP:COMMONNAME it.The reference: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1568921/releaseinfo. --Blitz Lutte 2 (talk) 09:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the article is moved or not, it won't be on the basis of what IMDB says, since it is just one source in one country. Betty Logan (talk) 14:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Hi, I have seen several sources about film. The title that I have seen more times is The Secret World of Arrietty. It has happened in Wikipédia.fr with film Only Yesterday. This movie had edition problems because there were two different titles in French (Omoide poroporo - Only Yesterday and Souvenirs goutte à goutte). Finally, the most common title, Souvenirs goutte à goutte, was chosen. I think both Arrietty and The Secret World of Arrietty are valids but, according to WP:COMMONNAME I think The Secret World of Arrietty is more common than Arrietty. So, I support the change.--Efournier88 (talk) 23:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Different end of film narration[edit]

There is currently a line in the Plot section stating "Shō's narration reveals that even though he and Arrietty never met again, he usually hears from neighbors about small things around their house just all of a sudden going missing." This doesn't appear in the Studio Canal version of the film. Is it just in the Disney version? David Bailey (talk) 12:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is in the Disney version. Should we remove it altogether or not? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably best to just add a note that the line is only used in the Disney dub. David Bailey (talk) 10:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've amended the line to show that the additional narration is in the Disney dub. David Bailey (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do we use Shō/Shawn, Sadako/Jessica in plot section?[edit]

Which localised names do we use in the plot section for Shō/Shawn, Sadako/Jessica? Do we use the Japanese names (also used in UK version) or the American names? We need to reach a consensus on this, or else their could be a lot of reverts back and forth between editors for different countries. David Bailey (talk) 11:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We use the Japanese names. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move - June 2012[edit]

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: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 04:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Arrietty → The Borrower Arrietty – Some said they prefer the US film title, some said they should keep the film originated from UK, Arrietty. The best is using the literal title from Japanese language itself, it's The Borrower Arrietty. Silvergoat (talk∙contrib) 15:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose WP:UE , WP:UCN , WP:NOR -- this has been released in English, therefore it has an English name, this is the English Wikipedia , we use the English name when available , and there are two available, both waaaaay more common in English than various opinions of what the correct translation of the Japanese title is. --70.24.251.208 (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose it has an English name (or two) so that takes precedence over a translation of the foreign name. Note that it had that name originally: see the second discussion on this page. But as soon as it had an English name it was correctly moved, so the translated name is now a redirect in case anyone does try the translated name.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 02:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The title Arrietty is the common simple form English name for the film. As others have said before, this is the English Wikipedia, so we use the English name when available. David Bailey (talk) 10:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Why is the setting not mentioned? anime version is setting in japan.[edit]

setting change in the localize version?　A seggie dislikes the name and setting of Japan. 60.39.55.84 (talk) 10:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed that claim that a character is a "Japanese/American boy". Since the film is based on an English story, it is more likely that he is an English boy, but since it is a fantasy, it is extremely unlikely that the film actually makes any geographical claims explicit. Of course they could be reinstated if supported by evidence, but it seems much more likely that Japanese or American viewers empathising with the character will see him as Japanese or American, but then Russian viewers would presumably see him as Russian, and so on. Similarly, does the plot really say that the mother's home is in Tokyo? (I don't exactly understand the comment above, but looking at the "official" website www.karigurashi.jp the setting is recognizably Japan. On the other hand, my remark about fantasy makes this largely irrelevant.) Imaginatorium (talk) 13:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Sho" used as the name of the British or Russian boy? Sho(翔) is Japanese name. A fact that TOKYO is a stage is missing from this article. 60.39.32.174 (talk) 01:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


English version Official Trailer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vp2nb9Vq0yY

Watch 1.04. The family of Sho wears a kimono.　Do you know Kimono? It is Japanese national costume.

Watch 1.03. Sho seems to be proficient in English with English version. However, the letter is written in Japanese language by the Original Japanese version.

The English animation version is localize version. Does English speaker dislike the Japanese setting and name? Discrimination thought and the arrogance show it to me. 　60.39.32.174 (talk) 09:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no reference other than watching the film, but to me it seems they intentionally made the setting less clear. To my eyes, most faces are not Japanese, except Haru’s and the pest destroyers’. The house and the doll house all seem more British style than Japanese, but Sho does take off his shoes when going inside, etc. etc. It seems logical that they wanted to preserve the atmosphere of the original book, yet make it easy to identify with for the Japanese audience. If we can find a good source, we can add a sentence about these different aspects of the setting, otherwise it may actually be best to leave it out... --Geke (talk) 12:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plot rewrite[edit]

I know, the plot was considered "good" in earlier posts here, but that funny alert irritated me, so I shortened the plot to 700 words. In the process, I ended up doing quite some editing, so I thought maybe I should post my change here. Also because I don’t know if I’m entitled to remove that alert myself. --Geke (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why so much emphasis on money and studio milestones in this article?[edit]

A great deal of this article appears to focus on promoting the animation studio which produced the film, making a point of how much money was made on various days at various places, bragging about how this is more than some other film, how it sets milestones for most this and biggest that. Various other films by this studio are promotionally mentioned throughout the article; for example, several film credits of Ryunosuke Kamiki are listed, since they are with that studio, but the credits of the others are pointedly not mentioned, with the reason given that they were with other studios. I've removed a couple of the most blatant examples, but much more needs to be done; the focus of the article needs to be on the film itself, and not so much about announcements from the company. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is that, as with many show-biz topics, the article was written by the PR arm of the studio. They usually do a good job, but are prone to excess. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Arrietty. 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: 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) 14:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arrietty&oldid=1205364811"