Talk:Katie Holmes/Archive 1

message: Now, I'm as down with the whole "Katie Holmes was kidnapped and brainwashed by crazy Scientologists" insinuations as the next man, but the article as it stands seems to be pretty POV in that direction.  (Obviously, it doesn't say this directly, but this is clearly the implication, and all of the known facts are pretty blatantly given the most negative characterizations possible) Any thoughts on how to improve this?  john k 20:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, but right now I was surprised to see how little info we had on all that: I thought I remembered reading this article before and we had a fair amount of info, but now it's really poor. Everyking 02:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it would appear that just about everything was taken out.  Obviously some discussion is needed, but we also shouldn't be basically repeating information which has only been disclosed in gossip columns. john k 03:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stuff about Cruise/Scientology 

message: Anyone else think there is no too much about Wonder Boys here?  Additional material seems excessive and bordering on NPOV violations without sourcing.  66.213.119.98 17:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wonder Boys 

message: Unless there is some overriding cultural or historical signficance, I object to using advertisements as images; this is essentially free advertising for large, wealthy multinational corporations like the Gap. If her fans want to add more pictures to this article, why don't the find screenshots from her movies? -- Viajero | Talk 18:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if we did that, then people will object.  Some folks don't believe screen shots are acceptable.  PedanticallySpeaking 19:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  no to advertisements 

message: When I wrote the body of this article, I tried to give printed citations to my sources.  The personal life section has been greatly expanded since then.  The citations are to web-pages.  I'd appreciate if future contributors would cite printed works.  I will examine these web-cites and see if I can come up with printed ones; though I would be much obliged to those who added them if they would help.  PedanticallySpeaking 19:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no reason to restrict sources to printed material.  Just because something is printed doesn't necessarily make it any more reliable than material appearing on a web site.  That said, we absolutely should drop information cited only from web sites that are not considered credible.  Fan sites, gossip sites, etc. etc. etc.  --Yamla 19:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying we can't use web sources.  My objection is that we're citing web-sites of magazines, e.g. People and Entertainment Weekly.  I'd like to see the citation to the actual printed article included.  Once information is in print, we should cite that over the web.  PedanticallySpeaking 17:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal life sources 

message: Does anything think this could be a featured article?  It failed once before and many changes have been made since then.  66.213.119.98 18:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC? 

message: Does anyone think that Katie has Italic textthose Bold texteyes? If we see Dawson's Creek first season...those eyes make us feel her character's pain, her wish of living.
:And the relevance of this to an encyclopedia would be...? DJ Clayworth 15:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Katie isn't really cute? 

message: Gee, this article isn't very nice on her, is it? When it comes to her last few roles, anyway. I'm sure we can include a positive review in there, somewhere? Because putting in a quote that basically singles her out as the worst thing in "Thank you for Smoking" is kind of POV in one direction. JackO'Lantern 01:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  If I said she was the worst thing in a film, that would be POV.  But citing one of the few published reviews of the film to that effect, is not POV.  In general, she has gotten bad reviews for her films and to try to balance every negative one with a positive one would be misleading to readers.  PedanticallySpeaking 19:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Her acting 

message: This disucssion copied from Wikipedia talk:Citing sources
The number of references in articles which are making it through FAC has been rising, seemingly inexorably, for some time now.  I often object to articles with more than about 40 references because I think it's almost always unnecessary to cite so many sources, and very distracting for readers to see so many footnotes in the text.  In every case I object to, people are citing things which really don't need citing, like uncontroversial facts and things which are just common knowledge, and they commonly respond to my objections by saying they're only following guidelines here.  So, I think it's time to include guidelines on when citations aren't necessary, and possibly a guideline on how many citations are likely to be appropriate for articles of a given length.  What does anyone think? Worldtraveller 17:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that over-referencing is a valid concern, but very few articles reach a problematic level.  There's no need to cite thing that are common knowledge; but I think it's desireable to cite facts—even uncontroversial ones—if they are obscure or difficult to find.  This tends to be the case for many FAs on historical subjects. —Kirill Lokshin 17:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so what would you say would be a problematic level?  If we aren't reaching it now it looks like we inevitably will reach it at some point.  I really agree with what you say, but I believe we've reached a situation of over-referencing if an article on a minor actress has 89 references.  An article on World War I or the British Empire or something like that, I could understand needing this number of references... Worldtraveller 00:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, that one would probably qualify as problematic.  I suspect that both the overabundance of footnotes and the length of the article (56K!) are caused by the inclusion of too much trivia. —Kirill Lokshin 01:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Footnotes at the bottom of the page in no way destract from the reader.  They're in a separate section, anybody can ignore.   We need to cite more than a typical publication, because an uncited claim in Wikipedia has the reliablility of a UseNet posting.  Also, if something truly is known by everybody, and needs no citation, than why are we writing about it?  Why are we telling people things, that everybody already knows?  Generally, we should write about things not already known by everybody, and those things need citations.  Remember, the very readers who are learning about something from the article, are also our "fact checkers" and editors.  It is absolutely essential fact-checking be done by non-experts.  There simply aren't enough experts to catch maliscious sneaky vandals, as soon as they slip rubbish in.  Other publications don't need so many citations, because they don't let just anybody write the origianl version, or fact-check it later.  I suggest thanking people for "over-citing".  Now occassionally there is true over-citing.  Sometimes a citation is used for a fact already well supported by other sources, or if the fact was removed from the article (but the citation was not).  But rarely, is there true over-citing.  Quite the opposite. --Rob 17:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well said, top to bottom. Very good points. - Taxman Talk 23:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's these: [1] all over articles which I am saying are distracting, not the footnotes section.  Look at the first few paras of Katie Holmes and tell if you don't think that's messy looking.  And we should certainly be telling people things they already know, as well as things they don't - otherwise we wouldn't be comprehensive.  I find for the scientific topics I write about, 20 references is about the most I feel the need to include, and no-one's yet complained they're under-referenced, so when I see minor actresses with 89 listed references I think that's excessive. Worldtraveller 00:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First Katie Holmes is not a "minor actress"!.  And yes, I know what you were referrring to.  No, those are *not* distracting at all.  I think Harvard(?) inline references can be distracting, like "(Smith et al, 1986, p. 3)".  But "[1]" after ever sentence is perfectly fine.  Katie Holmes has a little maintainability problem, because its useing the ref/label (which can get out-of-sync) instead of the new <ref><references>.  But, basically it is seems to be doing what it is supposed to (I haven't read it thoroughly though).  I've written a number of articles with more footnotes then sentences, and will continue to do so.  The beauty of these footnotes, is you only have to follow/check the ones you care about, and can ignore the rest.  A fact checker doesn't have to check all 89.  They just check the ones they doubt.  If there were 20 citations, but the fact they questioned was one of the other 69 other uncited facts, they'ld have a real problem.  --Rob 13:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: There are two technical solutions possible.  a) short term - use template:inote for some of the references b) long term - use style sheets and classes to make only key references visible by default.  Given this, there's no justification for reducing the number of references in an article.  They do not have to add clutter to the end user.  Mozzerati 21:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it's fairly easy to hide them (especially with cite.php) if readability is the prime concern and the value they offer in verifying material is so high that I see no benefit to holding back from encouraging the citing of all important facts. What's common knowledge to you may be novel to me and I appreciate the verifiability and the evidence that someone researched it, so it's much better to err on the side of more rather than less. We have to be careful to avoid dishonest citations and making articles appear more authoritative than they are, but that's standard content negotiation and research. More reliable sources wins out all the time. - Taxman Talk 23:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But that's my point really, is that I see a lot of things being cited that there is very little value in citing.  Also, faced with 89 references in an article, I personally would feel very disinclined to check very many of them.  If there were only 20 I might.  I think in this way excessive referencing can be harmful. Worldtraveller 00:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not the point I made and I don't agree that's happening very often. My only qualification was referring to not using high enough quality sources. Again, what's common knowledge to one person is novel to another. I'd rather have 500 references in an article if there were that many important facts in it given they are easy to hide and if hidden, they wouldn't hurt readability which is the only drawback to them. And you don't have to check all 89 references. Check several and if they all check out well the chances of any being fraudulent are much lower. If a few don't check out that calls into question every citation that editor made, allowing effort to be directed to where it needs to to improve the article. Only in a type of formal review process would every citation need to be checked, and in that case again more is better. I think its a fantastic thing that we've finally turned the corner were editors are reallizing verifiability is the most important thing we can work on. Other people have already given the reasons why WP is different from other types of reference works and why we need to cite infinitely more than they do. Finally, why did you make the same post here and at WP:V and not note that in your post? - Taxman Talk 13:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Over-referencing 

message: Second paragraph - "In October 2005, the couple announced Holmes was pregnant with the reincarnation of L. Ron Hubbard." 139.163.138.14 00:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted, albeit funny.  --  Zanimum 02:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I really dislike vandalism, but I really have to ROFLMAO on this one! :-) Dr. Cash 04:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism? 

message: the filmography is upside down on this article, should be in chronological order (see all the style guides). please reverse it, or this article will be removed from FA list. Zzzzz 11:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, this is ridiculous that this is the third page I've found in a row that you've started this discussion, and with an idle threat to boot.  I defer to my comment on the Julia Stiles talk page except to point out that both articles zzzzz links are inactive and he just changed the order shown to suit his needs.  Why should I believe you carry this discussion in good faith when you're changing "policy" to fit your argument?  Sad. Cburnett 03:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A further note.  Zzzzz changed the Wikipedia:Filmographies to fit his argument so he could use it as an authoritative source (despite it being inactive).  I've started discussion on Wikipedia talk:Filmographies#Chronological ordering to address this since Zzzzz is scattering discussion on many articles' talk page.  Please continue this discussion there. Cburnett 03:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filmography wrong way round 

message: What has happened to the encyclopedia? Half this article is gossip. --  12:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipeoplemagazine 

message: The bibliography at the bottom of the article is way too long and not important since the articles are not used as references. I suggest radical cutting. --Tone 13:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography 

message: ...then this project is in serious trouble.
The article from top to bottom is incoherent, with no narrative structure or theme nor even a good timeline. The first paragraph makes absolutely no sense. The sections on Dawson's Creek make very little sense to someone who has never seen Dawson's Creek. The sections on her recent relationship to Tom Cruise are ludicrously over-referenced to citations that never should have been referenced by any reputable encyclopedia.
If anyone wanted an example of an article that looks as though it's been written by chimps, then this is it.
Don't bother with the "SOFIXIT" tag, because this article should be composted rather than try to salvage anything worthwhile.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.45.184 (talk • contribs) 
:This "chimp" tried to encourage major changes to Wikipedia policy to prevent phenomenon such as this, instead users who like chimpy gossip harrassed me, intimidated me, so I just left and started writing some books.  Now here I am again preventing libel and other vandalism from less intelligent chimps. --67.77.201.22 16:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If this article is the "best of Wikipedia"... 

message: Do we really need to know what her grade point average was in high school or what score she got on her SAT? The article might as well list how old she was when she had her first period! That's all the first paragraph of the "Early life and career" section is: a random collection of facts. It doesn't give any insight into who this person is. I'd edit it down, but it's been oh so carefully cited. --  14:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd second the suggestion of a rewrite/reorganization.  This article is commendably informative but it reads like a magazine piece, not an encyclopedia entry.  Perhaps some of the factoids could be bulleted and the fat cut out.  And 85 references?!? ka1iban 14:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivial information 

message: Uh, in the early career section..."but turned it down[16] to continue her job as a prostitute on the streets of Los Angeles".  I'm not judgin', but this is probably vandalism, yes? ka1iban 15:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're talking about one of the vandalisms that wasn't correct until several edits later.  It was overlooked by those reverting vandalism and I had to manually take it out. --67.77.201.22 16:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prostitute? 

message: "Weeks after ending a four-year relationship and year-long engagement with actor Chris Klein, Holmes began a highly publicized relationship with actor Tom Cruise in in a small role, Libbets Casey, in the film which starred Kevin Kline and [[Sigourney life. Her life parallels mine, which is all about new everything—relationships, personal perceptions—and about being guarded." Holmes filmed the pilot of Dawson's Creek in Wilmington, North Carolina, during spring break of her senior year of high school in 1997.[1] When the show was picked up by The WB, Holmes moved to Wilmington, where the show filmed."
Somebody fix that paragraph, quick? :-/ It's a featured article at the moment, kind of embarrasing. I'd revert it myself, but I'm not exactly sure what it's supposed to say.--Hawkian 17:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ummm 

message: Weeks after ending a four-year relationship and year-long engagement with actor Chris Klein, Holmes began a highly publicized relationship with actor Tom Cruise in in a small role, Libbets Casey, in the film which starred Kevin Kline and [[Sigourney life. Her life parallels mine, which is all about new everything—relationships, personal perceptions—and about being guarded...
What's that supposed to mean? I couldn't make any sense  of it. It's currently the featured article on the Main Page. Please help!--May the Force be with you!  Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 17:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The force was with User:Berolina. --ElectricEye 17:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Muchas gracias, Berolina!--Hawkian 17:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please fix 

message: I commend the people who worked on this. We need more good actor articles. So many are poor and don't deserve to be. I'll link to one who I think is high-level enough and needs improvement - Michelle Pfeiffer. JackO'Lantern 20:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article! 

message: I don't want to start another furor, but the Bell's Palsy article has Katie listed as a sufferer (along with a few questionable others).  Can anyone confirm she's a sufferer or is this just prankery?  Or possibly the work of evil psychologists? :) ka1iban 14:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As the principal author of this article who read dozens of articles to compile it, I have not seen a mention of this disease in connection with Holmes.  If someone could cite a source for this, I would be grateful.  PedanticallySpeaking 15:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For want of a source, I removed the reference to Holmes in the Bell's palsy article.  PedanticallySpeaking 15:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bell's Palsy 

message: I still think the bibliography list is far to extensive. I would delete all but let's say 10 items but I would prefer someone who knows more about it to do it. --Tone 18:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder why someone added all the biography? It's totaly useless for an encyclopedia. --Tone 14:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because we are supposed to cite our sources.  The list is not useless for it allows people to verify where facts came from.  See Wikipedia:Citing sources for more on this.  PedanticallySpeaking 15:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But this is what references section is for, as far as I know... Of course it is essential to cite sources but bibliography section just seems to list the magazines she was in. --Tone 06:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography 2 

message: BBC News has a story about Tom Cruise eating Katies Holmes placenta after child birth: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4918012.stm - Think this should be added in the pregnancy section.
:That's called gossip. (And kinda sick.) --Kevin Walter 18:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Placenta Eating? 

message: anyone want to add some stuff on this crazy thing? I understand the birth was done this way.
:Ther'e been no confirmation that ths crazy thing went down this way. BabuBhatt 22:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  There's a lot of press hype on this but the articles so far have had little of substance, even People which seems to have had the inside track on the subject.  So I'd prefer to wait until we get confirmation.  PedanticallySpeaking 16:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  silent birth 

message: There's a good deal of references and such that could be greatly improved, using the named references function of cite.php. As I'm not really familiar with the article, would someone who is be willing to go in and tag it as such? I noticed a good deal of "ibid" and "[lastname]" references in the article, which can be changed thanks to Cite.php. I believe the article at WP:CITE would be useful for anyone familiar enough with this article's sources. -Mysekurity [m!] 03:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: It has been reported that Katie Holmes will design a range of toddler clothers "inspired by Suri" for Armani, to be sold in high-end department stores. Here is a source link:  
I'm still pretty new at editing wikipedia, so could someone else please put that in for me in case I somehow mess up the page? Thanks. Omgplz (talk) 12:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armani line 

message: Also! The article on Bell's Palsy links to this page, but there is no mention of her having suffered the condition here. Is there any source that says she did actually have the disease other than just her appearance during her Dawson's Creek years? Omgplz (talk) 12:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bell's Palsy 

message: This section had been in the article for a while but I took it out.  I don't see any reason for its inclusion as it has no direct relation to Holmes.Joshua4 19:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kissing Katie Holmes 

message: In Saudi Arabia/Arabian gulf countries. Suri is a nickname for Sarah. It's very common to use it instead of Sarah but not a formal name. 213.251.134.44 08:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:UNDEL for information on how to undelete articles.  --Yamla 19:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The name Suri 

message: Kudos to those that penned Katie's page. Not only is it detailed but you've got the references. 
Katie would be proud to have obsessive fans that have high acedemic standards. - Htra0497 20:00, 14 July 2006 (AET)
::As the principal author of the page, thank you very much.  PedanticallySpeaking 12:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow! 

message: I'm not extremely familiar with Wikipedia's fair use policy, but is it true that no fair use image is allowed on an article if a free-licensed one has been located? It's just that the fair use images on the article have recently been removed for this reason. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 21:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is not correct and restored those images.  PedanticallySpeaking 16:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it is correct if the copyrighted image is being used for the same purpose.  Thus, a copyrighted image to depict Ms. Holmes may not be used if a free image is available.  But a copyrighted image of Ms. Holmes posing on the cover of Playboy (hypothetically) would be fair-use if attached to a paragraph discussing the resulting controversy.  --Yamla 17:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use images 

message: How come there is nothing on the article about the Suri sightings?? Leah Remini and Jada Pinkett Smith have spotted Suri and described her. Yet nothing in the Katie Holmes or Tom Cruise articles talks about it. Lil Flip246 16:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SURI SIGHTINGS 

message: where did the info go where it said katie went missing for 2 weeks so much that no one could get into contact with her before announcing that her and tom were dating? that shouldnt have been deleted that continues to prove to people that scientology is a brainwashing unit
:This was noted in an article on the Fox News Channel's website.  I removed it because of the lack of sourcing for the claim.  If you have a reliable source stating this, let me know and I'll see about restoring the information.  PedanticallySpeaking 17:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would this be of intrest anyway? Celbs are often not seen for a few days or weeks for varouis reasons. Just because she was not seen for two weeks before she started dating Tom might not even be related.ShadowWriter 23:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's another excellent point that I also should have made.  PedanticallySpeaking 14:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: This information had been restored, again citing to the same dubious source, and I again removed it today.  PedanticallySpeaking 16:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  about her missing 

message: do you know that it is possible to use reference name="any_memo_name_choosen" to avoid doublon. it is quality article but more than 80 references is a bit reluctant (and as there are doublons I thing there are work to do...). I can help a while --Ayanoa 15:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  references 

message: The name suri DOES come from the hebrew princess (from the word "sar" which means officer), and is an Ashkenazi variation on the name Sarah (in Genesis Sarah is names 'Sarai'. It is a very popular hebrew name among Ashkenazi Jews outside of Israel who consider it their hebrew name. It comes from the hebrew, even if it is not in the israeli pronunciation. I wonder if the Israelis interviewed knew this when they said that it means "get out of here". They probably did. 
   216.106.49.131 08:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In Eesti it means asleep/dead/death>suri/surnud/surm, respectively.24.56.247.13 (talk) 09:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name Suri 

message: If the name of Katie on the birth certificate of Suri is Kate Noelle "Katie" Holmes shouldn't we write that, even if everyone writes just Katie Holmes? It must be the correct name, if it's there. --80.63.213.182 17:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would always refer to her as "Katie Holmes" but in the first sentence it is Wikipedia practice to give people's legal names, if known.  So that's what I've done and documented the same in a footnote.  PedanticallySpeaking 17:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I always thought her first name was Katherine and her parents just shortened it to Katie.  Could we look into her name a little more?ShadowWriter 21:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please click on this link! Citizen Dick 17:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: I added some parts about the name "Suri" according to some references. Iran ‘s "National Organization for Civil Registration"  has a website which you can search a name and find how many people with that name exist in Iran. The problem with the site is that one can not link to an entry directly. So, if you want to check the credibility of the “3184” SuriS, please go here  and in the  blank area cut and paste this سوری . by the way my aunt's nick is also Suri! "--Pejman47 23:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Again About Suri 

message: The dismissive reference to Michelle Williams might be a little uncalled for.  If anything, Williams has a better repuutation as an actress now than does Holmes. Cranston Lamont 18:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Babe-O-Rama? 

message: On November 18, there were changing to the article indicating that Holmes had changed her surname to "Cruise." Doing some quick googling, I don't see any references indicating that she's changed her name. I've therefore reverted it to Holmes unless there is sufficient evidence that she has. Sean Hayford O'Leary 07:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surname 

message: What is wrong with whoever keeps re-adding that made-up journalist's fantasy sequence about if the TomKat relationship were fake. That has NOTHING to do with Katie Holmes! Yes, the conspiracy about their relationship being fake does, but that huge paragraph is just put there to try and subconsciously influence people's opinions of her. STOP IT! GET A LIFE! Why do you even care? IF you hate her so much then why do you keep coming back here and posting it? Why don't you go do sometyhing productive or something to be proud about, something is extremely wrong with you and it's extremely disturbing to see someone care so much to make lies up like that and spread them. Why would u do that to her? why do u even care? youre possessed. Johnpedia 17:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well clearly someones a fan. Take a chill pill though. -- Lima Golf Talk | Contributions 21:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, I can't stand fans like that either.--71.235.72.188 03:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the hell! 

message: These should be incorporated into the article.  Smee 17:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've looked at these and I don't think they have anything of value to add to the article because they are either gossipy or about Cruise rather than Holmes.  Many of them have no real sourcing--"rumored", "reportedly", or quoting dubious sources such as Life & Style.  PedanticallySpeaking 18:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More recent sources 

message: I suggested adding a link to some Suri Cruise photos under the [Katie Holmes] article, but it was quickly removed. Is it time to start an independent Suri Cruise article? There seems to be enough news and noteworthy information about her that she has already become a celebrity in her own right- deserving more than just a [redirect] to her mother. Thoughts? Patchagogo 17:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The link was inappropriate.  Please see WP:SPAM and WP:EL.  --Yamla 18:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: What has Suri Cruise done that is notable independently from Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes?  I'm not aware of even one notable incident but I've not been keeping up on the latest news.  --Yamla 18:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suri Cruise 

message: Some time ago I suggested trimming of the bibliography section. The only response I got was connected with citing sources but all the references are clearly made in the reference section. In comparison, similar FA like Angelina Jolie have no such section. Besides, it contains 100+ items and is therefore useless. So I am going to remove all of it. If any of the items is important for the article, please state its importance. --Tone 22:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography revisited 

message: I see this article uses  Toledo, Ohio, USA to identify the origin of the subject. Would it be all right with just Toledo, Ohio, USA instead? I don't think the little flag really adds any encyclopedic information. See WP:FLAG for more detail on this. --John 19:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take it down in the next 24 hours or so unless someone can come up with a good reason for keeping it. --John 05:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant flag icon in the infobox? 

message: I took out this section:
:Even before Holmes' engagement, her hometown paper was already speculating about "what happens if our very own 'good ole Katie' morphs into 'Katie Holmes, the former actress now better known as Tom Cruise's third wife.'"Roberta De Boer.  "Toledo turns its attention to new breed of 'TomKat'."  The Blade.  June 2, 2005.  B1. Following the engagement, the Chicago Tribune sent a reporter to Toledo who found the citizens felt the biggest star from their city was not Holmes, but Jamie Farr, who played Corporal Maxwell Klinger on M*A*S*H.  "I think he's bigger than Katie.  He's so humble and he's so proud of his hometown—he name-drops it all the time.  If it wasn't for Jamie, I don't think people would really know about Toledo", said a Toledo waitress. Others quoted by the newspaper were puzzled by her interest in Scientology.  Farr subsequently wrote a letter to the newspaper declaring "I admire Katie Holmes.  She is a wonderful, beautiful actress" and "I do not feel that Katie and I are in any form of competition in the city of Toledo."Nana Schoenberg.  "Toledo's biggest star?  Sure, Katie Holmes 'is very nice.'  But 'she's no Jamie Farr.'"  Chicago Tribune.  July 12, 2005.  Sec. 5, p. 1 Jamie Farr.  "Toledo's finest" (Letter to the editor).  Chicago Tribune.  July 25, 2005.  14.
This seems to be just repeating a few comments from a couple of newspaper stories.  I don't think it is important enough for an encyclopedia article. Steve Dufour 05:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hometown Reaction" 

message: Is it really necessary to say that the movie was her first (and only) topless scene? It seems a little trivial. -OptimistPrime 01:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Topless scene 

message: For a featured article, the images in this entry do very little to show the reader what Katie looks like. Topher0128 18:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find better freely-licensed images, we'd love to have them.  We can't use fair-use images for this, though, as per WP:FU.  --Yamla 18:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: This page has been vandalized, the entire bottom of the article is gone. – Ilse@ 20:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a problem with S. M. Sullivan's edit. AndroidCat 22:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Despite many claims to the contrary, Katie Holmes birth name is Katherine Noelle Holmes. Please click on the references below for proof:
 
:*TV Guide Online - Katie Holmes 
:*Mooviees.com - Katie Holmes
Citizen Dick 17:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In an interview, cited in my footnote--once removed, now restored--she said "my name is Kate."  Suri Cruise's birth certificate--linked to in the footnote--gives her name as "Kate."  The fact that these two sources, which are dubious, say otherwise is not persuasive.  PedanticallySpeaking 15:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Katie Holmes birth name is Katherine Noelle Holmes 

message: :Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Possibly_reliable_source_repeating_speculation.3F
A watered down version with a reliable MSNBC source is in the works. KatieHfan (talk) 07:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hiding this in a footnote isn't the solution. The MSNBC page is "Tabloid Tidbits" - that alone makes it questionable. It appears to be based on a National Enquirer article, also questionable. The source is an unnamed guy who claims to be a friend of Chris Klein - questionable. And the MSNBC page says "A spokesperson for Holmes says the Enquirer story is false." In the WT:BLP link above, the only comment so far was agreeing this should go. Gimmetrow 20:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Katie Holmes first pregnancy before Tom Cruise's baby 

message: I fail to see how it is neutral to call it a religion. The only supportive argument that it is a religion and not a cult is made by the cult itself. Putting "church" in the name of an organization does not meet the definition of religion. Thus using this name is not neutral and is biased towards the organization. Calling it a cult is more than neutral.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by FreeThoughts (talk • contribs) 09:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Reliable sources call it a religion. Wikipedia is based on reliable and verifiable sources. Constantly removing any mention of "religion" when it comes to Scientology is POV pushing, plain and simple. --clpo13(talk) 22:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  To FreeThoughts, we're not going to be calling it a cult. Using "religion" would be fine; the source here has "Katie Holmes says she is embracing the tenets of Scientology, the religion of her boyfriend, Tom Cruise". The two versions in the article are "joined Scientology" and "converted to Cruise's religion, Scientology". Is "joined" really worth reverting? Gimmetrow 22:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article sited did not refer to it as a religion for this even. There is much dispute across countries addressing this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.64.36 (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  How is "embracing the tenets of Scientology, the religion of her boyfriend" not referring to Scientology as a religion? If this can't be resolved, this article will end up quoting the source verbatim. Gimmetrow 22:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't object to a verbatim quote if it would avoid silly edit wars like this. This article in particular has been the target of removal of the word "religion" in the context of Scientology over the past couple of days. --clpo13(talk) 22:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For all intents and purposes, Scientology is considered a religion and is classified as such. Whether people agree with that or certain countries recognize it as one isn't the point. Every religion or set of beliefs have their critics. In my opinion, this article isn't here to establish whether or not Scientology is a cult or a religion, it's about Katie Holmes. This only became a problem in the last couple of days when, seemingly, one registered editor and some anonymous IPs decided to change this article and any other article connected with Scientology. If it's that big of a deal, I found an article written by a professor of religious studies at the University of Calgary that covers this topic and addresses this very question. Pinkadelica (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it shouldnt be labeled a cult, and this isnt the place for it. But the debate about if she "convered" to scientology is valid. Either directly quote the article, or leave it as joined a "church"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhoSaysNo (talk • contribs) 01:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calling scientology a religion 

message: User:Tone removed the bibliography section. I was thinking of doing the same, but there are sources in the text which refer to the bibliography, like "Cohen". The bibliography listed two sources by Cohen but at least it narrows the possibilities to (hopefully) those two articles. If we can't get the reference info from this version moved in a reasonable time, I think it should be restored until someone is willing to do the work. Gimmetrow 18:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography 3 

message: Could you guys GET a more UGLY picture of her? I mean good lord  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.169.121 (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Her ugly ass picture 

message: :Source to use in this article.  Cirt (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  TomKat's marriage impossible 

message: Why the hell is suri asian? so caucasian+caucasian=asian?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.21.240 (talk) 01:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suri 

message: I don't have a source at this time, but Katie Holmes isn't technically from Toledo. She's from Ottawa Hills, which is a neighboring township with an independent government and police force. I'll check back issues of the [i]Blade[/i] and post when I can fid it. I live in Toledo, so they made ahuge deal about this on local news. 
LordShonus (talk) 09:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toledo 

message: needs to be abbreviated or broken into separate articles.   we don't need excruciating detail about her lousy movies and her lousy performances in them.  they suck, she sucks in them, we get it. 71.231.103.130 (talk) 07:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  waaayyyy to long 

message: *What for, is this article about d...creek; mixing person and figure, pretending to be an interview and calling April Joy?
Boardering writing , which tries to hurt an extraordenary actress! Please remove this! Mirrowship in a dull form, not having understand
the relations this film family acts on.
A turkey isn't a duck, and she isn't playing a duck either. A marvolouss film about american tradition in real life being spit on.
In my eyes..........--Danaide (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you should read it again. The section starts out describing the character, which by the way is "Joey", not "Joy" and then discusses how she got the role and how Holmes herself said she was a lot like the character. Perhaps your English skills prevented you from realizing this... Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Mother's finest!''' 

message: Doesn't she have another child named "Sun." Who did she have that child with and how old is the child? Why hasn't this been included in the article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp0 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not entirely sure where you got that, but to my knowledge, no, she has no other children. Which would also be why it isn't included in the article. I'm not quite sure where she would have worked that in, with her schedule without it being widely reported. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no famous person that has a child named Sun. I'm not sure what this commentator was even thinking; judging by his edits, he seems to be knowledgeable and wise enough. ★Dasani★ 22:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about her other child 

message: The word Suri doesn't mean "princess" in Hebrew. The Hebrew word ("Nesikha"; נסיכה) isn't even close to that. If, at all, this word (סורי) means "Syrian". I don't know if Mr. Cruise was misled or misquoted, but what he said was simply wrong. Idobi1 (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Middle Eastern script used for the name was not provided when Tom Cruise announced the birth of his daughter. He offered the explanation that it was Hebrew in origin but many speculated it was just a diminutive of Sarah. ★Dasani★ 22:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "In Hebrew, it means 'princess'" 

message: Isn't this article rather running far afield? The section is no longer about her daughter, mind. We've gone from an article about Katie Holmes to an article about the name Suri. Wouldn't a lot of this content be better suited in an article about the name per se? Dlohcierekim  17:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is extraneous content and we never add sourcing to other Wikipedia articles. I removed the newest addition. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Suri Cruise]] 

message: "New Idea" and "Woman's Day" both report that Katie is pregnant with her second child. I added this information but it was removed. Why? 58.110.117.96 (talk) 01:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it because you didn't source it. Nymf hideliho! 01:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pregnancy 

message: *Citation Bot
*Major contributors
*Checklinks
*automated peer review:
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
**Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
**Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 000 pounds, use 000 pounds, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 000 pounds.[?]
**This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
**The script has spotted the following contractions: wouldn't, Don't, Don't, Don't, Don't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
***In quotes, title of movie. --Malkinann (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tool recommendations 

message: The lead section mentions nothing of Holmes's life post-2006, and reception for her work after 2006 is similarly spotty.  There are also fact tags that have been in the article since October last year.  Citation "Graham, "What Katie Did."" isn't enough to verify the information cited to it.  Neither is citation 25 - which in the article simply appears as "Cohen", with a hidden comment after it. There seem to have been citation issues in the article for some time - see the hidden comment as follows: "writers of both sexes commenting how Holmes was the sort of girl one wants to bring home to meet the parents and to marry."  As this is currently a featured article, it may go to WP:FAR if these problems can't be fixed. --Malkinann (talk) 10:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:Katie_Holmes/Archive_1#Bibliography_3. Gimmetoo (talk) 01:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored the bibliography. --Malkinann (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs update 

message: *Prose is very choppy. "Film" section has a lot of sections beginning with "in" and a lot of one-sentence paragraphs.
* "Other Work" is also proselined. "In x, she did y. In Z, she did a."
* As mentioned on the talk page, the article is still pretty much truncated at 2006, with only fleeting coverage of her since then.
* Several malformatted references that have [1] and [2] in the text.
* Several dead links.
* Further Reading section is way too long. Most of those aren't referenced within the text.
* Intro is too short.
My main concern here is that the article hasn't been maintained since 2006, and as a result, very little info on post-2006 has been added.
Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Bringing the two above threads back from the archives. The points still need to be addressed. A FAR will happen very soon otherwise. Brad (talk) 05:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note 

message: Please add the sentence "Holmes & Yang will present their fashion line at New York Fashion Week for the first time in September 2012." after the mention of Holmes & Yang in the Other work section.  The source is http://stylenews.peoplestylewatch.com/2012/07/06/katie-holmes-fashion-week/
Please also add "Holmes has been in a film adaptation of Anton Checkov's The Seagull"- source http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118053334 and "Holmes has co-written and is co-producing a film called "Molly"" - source http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20610217,00.html to the 2010s career section.
Both Variety and People magazine are already used as sources in the article.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.231.222 (talk • contribs) 
: Lots of time between now and Sept. to create an account and do it yourself.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  New work 

message: I am now at 3RR on the Catholicism inclusion, which I believe is not sufficiently in compliance with WP:BLP for inclusion. I have made notice to the BLP noticeboard asking for clarification and assistance in this matter.
Huffpost quoting an anonymous parisner is not sufficient sourcing for claiming "[...] has officially rejoined the Catholic Church". At most it would be sourcing for "An anonymous parishner has claimed that Katie attended a service at..." etc. 
Categories of Scientology and Catholicism are clear violations of WP:BLPCAT
Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Katie_Holmes 
Gaijin42 (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholicism 

message: Please edit; undocumented unofficial non-verified;
NYPost is a tabloid trash; article alleges hearsay. In addition, legal documents show the two divorcing are "respectful of each others beliefs";
Non-Wikipedia verification of gossip; "Following the announcement, those close to Holmes stated...[102]"
71.53.191.241 (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that the IP has focused a great deal on articles relating to Tom Cruise (who is playing Jack Reacher).  The Geolocate places the IP address within rather close proximity to a Scientology center, much much closer than Geolocate places my IP to my home address.  It's not conclusive, but based on the IP's behavior I'm having a hard time not believing this is a clean up crew from the CoS.  Considering this, and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Church_of_Scientology_IP_addresses_blocked, I'm inclined to ignore this request. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

text: After that many edits the IP should have an account, stop asking for POV edits and fight the battle themselves.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Canoe1967, it appears the IP has taken your advice. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just trying to clear the request backlog. Is there a way to put a polite comment on IP talk pages after they add an edit request template? That may get us some more editors. I don't think I should be involved in the wording though or it may turn out worse than above. I just cleared over 20 of them and left similar comments.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 15 July 2012 

message: Sections of this article read like they have been directly lifted from publicity material or some fan-site. The third para of the Dawson's Creek section is particularly gushing - "The 5 ft 9 in (1.75 m) tall brunette enchanted the press, writers of both sexes commenting...". Would someone pls write this properly so that it seems like it belongs here rather than some tabloid magazine? Also, do we have a ref that the comment about her being the Audrey Hepburn of her generation is a "typical" comment, because that reads like OR, or at least synthesis, to me. Thanks. 124.169.172.237 (talk) 04:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not very encyclopedic 

message: Considering that Katie Holmes has never publicly referred to herself as a Scientologist, and no verifiable data exists on what, if anything, she did in Scientology during her marriage to Tom Cruise, and considering the BLP issues others have made in regards to those who are, in fact, established and acknowledged Scientologists, I'm afraid there is nothing here to justify her being included in the categories for "Former Scientologists" or the quite absurd "Converts to Scientology from Roman Catholicism", which ignores the fact that there is no "conversion" process in Scientology to begin with. Please let us maintain some semblance of respect for BLP here and stick to the facts, and the fact is Katie Holmes does not appear to have ever referred to herself as a Scientologist or advocated for Scientology. Laval (talk) 12:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientology 

message: In April 2006, Holmes gave birth to her first child, a daughter named Suri (Persian: سوری). 
Is there any source that  سوری is indeed Persian for Suri? When I googled سوری  I could find nothing about Suri Cruise and a google image search just showed pics of women jumping over fire,or people being around a fire. Can some one actually cite that سوری  really means Suri, and if so what is the definition of Suri? --98.87.171.203 (talk) 02:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Google translate doesn't give a transliteration, but the translation comes back as "Syrian", with an alternate of "red rose". The latter agrees with the statement according to the Los Angeles Times. But I don't see why we need the Persian word in the article, especially since there is no equivalent Hebrew rendering (or even explanation) of "a word with origins in both Persian and Hebrew", and technically it's not supported by reliable sources. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim of Hebrew origin/roots of the name ought to be removed. Just because some publicist with no knowledge claimed so (and that is the "reference") does not mean it should be asserted in Wikipedia. The older article had a much longer explanation showing Hebrew linguists scoffing a the idea. That appears to have been shortened in the current article. As the article currently stands it has Wikipedia erroneously asserting Hebrew origins108.18.73.162 (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suri 

message: Please stop adding the link to Suri's Instagram account. See WP:LINKSTOAVOID. Meters (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suri's Instagram account (crossing t's prior to 3RR) 

message: Part of me says "No, the lead should just refer to Katie Holmes." But what makes me think "yes" is thinking back to the crazy amount of media attention that their coupling receivedOnBeyondZebrax • TALK 23:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the lead mention Tom Cruise? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Katie Holmes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050420065308/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/reviews/review_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000641292 to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/reviews/review_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000641292
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110418011406/http://uk.lifestyle.yahoo.com:80/beauty/mature-women-named-%E2%80%98most-beautiful%E2%80%99-in-2011-list-blog-64-yahoo-lifestyles.html to http://uk.lifestyle.yahoo.com/beauty/mature-women-named-‘most-beautiful’-in-2011-list-blog-64-yahoo-lifestyles.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Katie Holmes. 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/20080123083601/http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7009769069 to http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7009769069
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Katie Holmes. 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/20051123082125/http://katieholmespictures.com/news/headlines/1091.shtml to http://katieholmespictures.com/news/headlines/1091.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110501095915/http://news-briefs.ew.com/2011/04/27/star-magazine-katie-holmes/ to http://news-briefs.ew.com/2011/04/27/star-magazine-katie-holmes
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified