Talk:Tunnels (novel)

Merger proposal

The Highfield Mole is now redundant, and should be merged with Tunnels (novel) Dracoster (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This page will be amended and restored back to The Highfield Mole page only. Tunnels now rightly has a page of it's own and this page will be about the original self-published novel The Highfield Mole, with appropriate references to Tunnels. I have replied to the email you sent me this evening. lifesawhirl (talk)

Where exactly is this discussion that resulted in the "not merge"? Active Banana ( bananaphone 16:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Note that this discussion was prematurely unilaterally closed and was re-opened Jan. 2011 Active Banana (^bananaphone 00:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support merge, Mole is simply an earlier edition of Tunnels and can be appropriately covered in this article. Active Banana (^bananaphone 23:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Question

What are "the Styx"? Are they human? Nagas? What? Yes. They are human. They are the underground police118.165.204.207 (talk) 10:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The character profiles will include a description of the Styx and their origin (as much as has yet been released in the book). Should be added in next few weeks, thanks (Lifesawhirl (talk) 09:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)).

Wikipedia Children's Literature Project rating

I have deleted the wikipedia Children's Literature Project rating as I believe the assessment and rating applied is neither accurate nor appropriate for an International best selling series, number one in multiple countries, including The New York Times Best Seller List for Children's books. (Lifesawhirl (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC))

Hi, as a reader of the book I agree and has reassesed the book as Mid-Importance. The article currently quite well written, but is far from a GA. I advise you to use less quotes, find reviews from everywhere and even ones that criticize the book. The reviews must by an accurate representation of how the books was reviewed. Also, I will do some rearraning of the article to match the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). The plot is too long and will need to be cut down to only the most important plot details.The Characters will also need to go as a well written Plot section will introduce the characters. There needs to be a themes section as well using SOURCES AND REVIEWS. This is most important as many people try and use WP:OR to write one. I will be happy to help it WP:GA if you like. Derild4921☼ 13:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

To Derild4921: Thank-you for re-rating this page, as I requested. However, this article may well now sit well with the Wikipedia style guide, but it now contains numerous inaccuracies about the book, authors, publication history and more. Have you really read this book? This new article is badly written, repetitive and lacking in the all important detail of the original article. It seems to me that you value GA rating above a suitably accurate and complete reference for this book. I spent several weeks working on the original article and can confirm the integrity of all the information on the Tunnels page. I would like the original format to be re-instated. By all means tweak that and advise me of best practise (which I would welcome!) - as you originally offered, before you stormed ahead with this new version (Lifesawhirl (talk) 23:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC))

What are your concerns about the content? Your content did not meet WP:Notability standards, please help us understand what is missing, Sadads (talk) 00:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, before the article contained a lot of information, but was badly sourced. I tried to rewrite the article using the same information, but only some of the information in the previous version was properly sourced. Therefore, I had to find my own sources and write it with that. Also, I have almost finished the book. I was preparing to finish it and then improve the article. Then, the next day I foud someone was asking for a reassessment of the article. I took the chance to reassess it and then help improve it. As for the inaccuracies, what problems are there with it? Derild4921☼ 00:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

To Derild4921 and Sadads: If your main dispute is the sourcing with the original article then why did you not contact me, as I could have provided the additional source material - you can see from my contributions I just author Tunnels books on here. As I said above all the content of the original article is completely accurate and can be verified. I have provided a number of source links to justify that. Should I need more, no problem just advise me. As far as I can see I did broadly meet the Notability standards. This may not be in the GA format that you are looking for, but as Wikipedia content relies on volunteers passionate about their article subject, I feel you should be more supportive. As I confirmed above it was me who asked for the reassessment, only at that stage, a few days ago, did you offer to 'help' improve my article. The new article you created in your Sandbox, then only remains there for 1 day before you either lose the content or publish it - hardly enough time for me to discuss my objections about your new proposal to remove my article. To replace my article when you have not even finished reading Tunnels is ridiculous - surely any author on Wikipedia should at least have read the novel first, not sure how that can meet your verifiable Notability standards! That aside I have already correctly embarrassing errors concerning incorrect publishing dates and versions, wrong character and place names like Stynx and Hightail (not a one off). Others that come to mind include: The official publication date for the US Tunnels was January 2008 - it might have been that copies were available on Amazon earlier than that date, but that often happens in the UK and US. Nearly all territories have gone on to publish Deeper, and only a handful haven't yet published Freefall (mainly due to their own financial difficulties, and not because the performance of the series hasn't merited it!) - you can check this on the publishers website http://www.doublecluck.com/rights. The authors changed the title with Barry Cunningham - this article makes it sound as though he did it off his own back! There are two versions of the audiobook in the UK (the Davenport one is abridged), and also the American and German unabridged versions. Chester isn't "about to killed" under SETTING - he is sentenced to go into the Interior! The Plot emphasis is all wrong and does not give a true insight into the overall storyline. The Setting and Plot areas you have changed are so badly written - and I am well aware of my own average writing abilities, but in comparison this new version lacks significant maturity. References to the Highfield Mole are confusing. Barry is now Barry Cunningham OBE, and there's no question that he signed JK Rowling for her first two Harry Potter books whilst he was employed by Bloomsbury. I would like my article reinstated and with your expert help and support I would like to improve and expand my sources, and thus improve my own knowledge of Wikipedia article standards. My priority is not, however, achieving GA status at the expense of diminished quality or informative reading. I do have the support of the UK fansite team on this. The authors have often been kind enough to verify and supply content for my article. Following my notification about your changes, they have emailed me their confirmation that they would also like to see the original version restored. I await your response. Thanks (Lifesawhirl (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC))

FYI, I would like to direct you to WP:Ownership. This is certainly not your article, and if you have problems with the content, re-add the information with properly cited references. If you have difficulty with citation formatting, you might want to add Wikipedia:RefToolbar 2.0 by going to your User Preferences under the Gadgets tab and clicking on the appropriate box.

Also, you mention the support of the Authors and fan site, I direct you to WP:COI, WP:Fan analysis and Wikipedia:Fancruft, all of which provide good advice in this case. Remember, it doesn't matter what kind of support you have, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, therefore material is included based on WP:Verifiability. Please make as many verifiable changes as you can without decimating the referenced material already present, Sadads (talk) 14:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

<ec>I did not finish the novel so for the parts I did not read I replaced with YOUR OWN WORK. Much of the last paragraph is your own writing, especially the epilogue part. As for the title change, it was a quote from the authors themselves. I am not insulted by saying my writing is bad, as I am aware of that. I was about to go through with a wp:copyedit of the article when you undid all of my changes just to take change the 200 to 2,000. As for that, it was the sources fault, not mine. As, for publication dates, the information that was provided by the sources was confusing, I admit, I was relieved to see you change that for me. I apologize for the plot and setting mistakes I made, but it is not your right to criticize me for what I am not good at. The previous summary was too long (see WP:PLOT) and I shortened it keeping only the important plot elements. Also, the foreign editions sectino took me an hour because of the launguage. Thank you for the link, it will make things much easier. Also, please see WP:Ownership. Thank you. Derild4921☼ 14:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

My only interest is in reporting an accurate, informative and interesting article! It is not acceptable for you to completely remove my article, which you have save a few lines here and there, but even then the overall context has been changed. You have requested I do not decimate your article, which I have no intention of doing, but I will be reinstating my text and I will utilise your extended sources. As Wikipedia Children's Literature assessors and experienced authors on here, I feel your willingness to overide my credible efforts with an inferior article and your lack of support very much goes against the ethos of Wikipedia! (Lifesawhirl (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC))

Again, please refrain for the "my article" mentality. There is no ownership of articles on Wikipedia.

Additionally, the old version of the article was too plot heavy, had character sections that were unnecessary (because the characters were introduced in the plot, see WP:Plot about these issues) and had WP:Original research in the themes section. These certainly did not make the article better, though I agree your prose was better than what was added to the article, Sadads (talk) 15:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, is it the writing style because looking back at your previous article, the information there is almost identical to what I have except for the fact I have organized the informatin better. With the article as it is now with the changes you have made, I would like to know what parts are not to your liking? Thank you. Derild4921☼ 15:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

We are on a talk page, hence my reference to “my article” is purely for the purposes of identifying which version we are discussing!! I am happy to merge the characters within the plot, but feel that would unnecessarily extend that section and appear clunky to read. I don't disagree that the plot was too long. In my experience people like a separate section summarising each character, just as in this current Wikipedia article Skulduggery Pleasant!!. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skulduggery_Pleasant If Wikipedia is too restrictive and values style over content then it risks alienating volunteers like myself. A number of observations the authors made, include: the "Concept and Development" section appears to draw heavily on the first reference (an article from AbeBooks) - this wasn't the most accomplished article published back in 2007, the authors were never actually interviewed by the journalist, although it certainly doesn't give this impression. Although I included this as a source, I did not refer to this heavily. And there are many errors in the new Wikipedia page - the date for the US hardback release is wrong - and the syntax is clunky throughout - "Gordon's wife suggested for them to write a children's book" is one of many examples I could give. And under "Sales", "the had and an initial 100,000 print" - sic - and does the writer mean "print run". Moreover the reference cited is for the US edition, not for the UK one. Under "Foreign editions", the Polish publishers' interactive game was based solely on the first book, and there are only three overseas publishers shown as having released Freefall! My observations above also stand (Lifesawhirl (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC))

Please, Be bold and make changes, but remember WP:Verifiability. If issues with what you add come up, we will certainly discuss it here on the talk page, Sadads (talk) 15:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me give you an example when a long plot is relevant, see the GA Quicksilver (novel) the plot is long because the book contains over 1100 pages and such an intricate plot, that analysis of themes would be almost impossible without it. However, notice how the characters section is condensed to make up for that long plot, Sadads (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for that. I still like the Skulduggery Pleasant page, but I don't suppose that is a format you would like me to follow!! I will look at the Tunnels article again and continue to utilise verifiable sources in the new version. This will take me a few days, but this is the only way forward for me. (Lifesawhirl (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC))

<ec>If there are mistakes, please go and correct them! I am not used to writing an article with so much information as my previous projects were on less well known books! Please WP:Be bold and fix any mistakes that I happen to make! I know my prose and writing is not that good. Also, I can not read all the languages on the websites I used as sources, thank you for that great source, please help cleanup the article and make changes. Also, I found Abebooks from the list of references you used yourself so please do not criticize it! Derild4921☼ 16:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I said above that I did refer to the AbeBooks article, but it wasn't my prominant source. I did not criticise this, if you re-read my response above you will see that this was an observation that the authors have made, although I do agree with them! I will correct any mistakes, but in all honesty these should never have been introduced, bearing in mind that you wrote this article to improve upon the previous version. (Lifesawhirl (talk) 17:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC))

Ok, sorry for the misunderstanding, but why do you assume that just because I said I will improve the article, everything will be perfect? Like everyone else, I am only human and bound to make mistakes. In fact, except for some confusing parts of publication history and a few parts of the plot I believe I have improved the article. Now let's put his behind us and improve the article. Derild4921☼ 17:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Amen!Sadads (talk) 17:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I made no assumptions about it being perfect and I will not be drawn into chirlish arguments. However, introducing fundamental errors about the book, publishing history etc. is not acceptable if you are going to remove an existing article which importantly was fundamentally sound (but yes with improvement in the layout)! As I have always maintained in these discussions my priority is to ensure we have an interesting, informative and accurate article. (Lifesawhirl (talk) 18:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC))

Ok, I understand. Now, would you mind going through the plot, fix any inaccuracies, and improve the general writing? After that we can go through the article section by section and fix up the article to both our likings. Ok? Derild4921☼ 20:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand this; the previous Tunnels page, which was factually correct and well written (although it required more attributable references, and the plot section was too long), is one day swopped out for a whole new page in which the prose is far from polished and the factual content decidedly wide of the mark. Then the compiler of this new page suggests to the compiler of the old page that he/she work on his/her effort! I must be missing something here. Is there some hierachial distinction within Wikipedia where some users are more equal than others? Can I remind you - and I quote - "No article is owned by its creator or any other editor, or is vetted by any recognized authority". So why not go back to the previous content which I had the pleasure of seeing evolve over a period of several years, and then Derild4921 can work on this with Lifesawhirl to make it GA worthy? If other followers of this page feel that there has been an infringement of the Wikipedia guidelines - as I do - then we should lodge a request for an investigation. Tantrumi (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No offense to Lifeswhirl by this, but the previous article as you described it was well and factually correct with a long plot. However, it was very poorly organized, and missing a lot of references. I tried to see if I could reorganize it with a few edits. However, I realized that due to the missing references, it would be easier to rewrite. I asked Lifeswhirl to rewrite the plot because he/she(?) has finished the book and can therefore fact check the information. Also, it is hard for myself to fix up my own work. Then Lifewhirl can point out the factual errors as he/she(?) has managed to find better references that I have. There is no hierarchical distinction, it is only that it is evident that Lifeswhirl has better sources for information and better prose skills than I do. Also, in response, the prose is not far from polished or the facts decidedly wide of mark. There are parts of the article that are not very well written, but it is not as bad as you say it is. Derild4921☼ 23:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

What is preferable for me is to re-write the original version (the one I wrote) of the plot, which I have always intended to clean up a little. Only yesterday after these discussions have I now been asked to re re-write the current plot and correct the factual errors. Which is to say is rather irritating and considerably more work than tweaking the original version. As I said above I am prepared to do this as I do not believe the current version offers the best reader experience. Surely the key requirement for any Encyclopaedia should be an accurate representation - over layout! I do absolutely agree with the length and source short comings of the original version. But at no stage was a discussion opened here outlining the improvements needed. Much of yesterdays discussions, in trying to establish why the article I worked so hard on has been replaced by inferior 'content' was an upsetting and quite frankly a rather intimidating experience! Perhaps we should as Tantrumi suggests open an investigation! (Lifesawhirl (talk) 09:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)).

I have a question for Sadads who kindly posted a link to the larger book where brief character descriptions are deemed appropriate. Bearing in mind a large number of the Tunnels characters appear throughout the current 4 books in the series, totalling several thousand pages, do you think there should be a separate Tunnels 'series' page, containing a brief summary of the characters? Thanks (Lifesawhirl (talk) 09:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC))

If you want to reacquire your plot and insert it into the rest of the article, it can be found in the edit history here however, I will warn you, the rest of your old article does not go anywhere near the MOS standards for fiction.

As to the response on the series, the answer is: do the book reviews and other sources treat the series as a well developed overarching narrative? If so then yes their should be a central series page or the author's page should deal with the series as a whole (in this case I think a series page would be better because their are two authors, and how do you decide who's page covers the series?). Remember though, it needs to meet notability standards, which means reviews and other sources ought to deal with the series as a whole. I think some of the publication history in this article ought to go into a series page.Sadads (talk) 11:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Lifesawhirl, I think it might be time to enter into Wikipedia's dispute resolution as it appears that a consensus won't be reached in this situation. Where's the spirit of cooperation here? I find this overt territorialism shocking, and the debate about the "Plot Summary" is a sideshow as everything else on the current Tunnels page now needs to be completely overhauled, which is ludicrous because the previous content was eminently capable of being revised to the requisite standard. Aside from that, Sadads, I think that the central series page is an excellent idea if you truly believe it is merited for these books.Tantrumi (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

IMO, the new page does not need to be "completely overhauled" as you say. Now, I neleive the plot summary is the main problem now. The only part I still am confused about is the audiobooks and why one is much shorter than the other one. I also support a central article as that is done for many of the more popular series. Derild4921☼ 13:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

What content was "lost" in the conversion to the "new" version? What sources support that content? Active Banana ( bananaphone 16:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Mostly long plot summary and long character information, a little bit of unsourced thematic examination and possibly OR qualifying research on the background of the book (from fan community), Sadads (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It was a being bold moment on the part of User:Derild4921. I have attempted to point out the availability of old content back in from the history to User:Lifesawhirl so that he could remerge some of the information (see last big comment by me). That hasn't been responded to, Sadads (talk) 16:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

This hasn't been responded to...yet!! Thanks for the link to old content - this was only 11am this morning. I have already stated above that I will re-work the plot from the original version and that would take me a few days! I will then have to look at the rest of the article to correct the errors as set out above yesterday, unless of course they have since been rectified. You didn't hesitate to remove the old version without discussion, but revising this article with a view to merging the two will take me some time and is still unecessary in my view. Seems there are now others who also prefer the original version! I won't check back on here until tomorrow, as I do have other things to do! I have to say the attitudes of some users on here does nothing to promote or encourage the expansion of Wikipedia.(Lifesawhirl (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC))

Not criticizing you, just giving a overview of what the situation was for Active Banana. I have never doubted your good intentions, I can copy edit or review once you feel the merge is off to a good start :)Sadads (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to say, the older version was always available, all you had to do was go to History and look for the version. Also, I have fixed the foreign language parts though the source is a little outdated as France has already released Closer, but the ref says no one has. Finally, when Lifeswhirl gets back, can you please explain why there are two version of the audiobook? Thank you for yuor work. Derild4921☼ 18:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I just posted on my talk page:

Answer: Yes of course. I want these pages to contain the best content and fit with Wikipedia style guidelines. As I mentioned on the discussion pages I will look at the plot. I can start this today, but I do like to take my time. I didn't get chance to get back on last week, an unplanned medical and hospital trip came up. I will provide that info you asked for on the audiobooks. I am not very experienced at using the Wikipedia coding, so some help would be great. I'd like to get around to doing a series page - a bit like the 'Mortal engines Quartet' - this may or may not be a good example to follow, but that is the type of page I think the Tunnels series is ready for. I already have character information ready for that. (Lifesawhirl (talk) 10:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC))

A better model is what we are currently polishing at Warriors (novel series), it is going through GA review right now, and though it needs a little plot and set trimming, it is getting pretty close to our ideal ratio of real world to fictional,Sadads (talk) 13:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Note to Active Banana; some really great editing, but a thought re your deletion of detail on Barry Cunningham and your "fame by association" comment. One of the main reasons the first book received so much media attention at launch and why it was picked up by so many publishers worldwide was because Cunningham went on record (see the press from 2007 and 2008 in the tunnelsdeeper.com archive) with comparisons with the HP series. My view is that context is lost if this piece of information is disregarded. So it's not so much "fame by association", but an underlying and important factor in the early success of the book. And perhaps Cunningham, who is so prominent in children's publishing (for which he's recently received an OBE) and responsible not just for the HP books, but also the Cornelia Funke Inkheart series, should have his own Wikipedia page? I'd initiate this, but don't know how to go about it.Tantrumi (talk) 12:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Find a third party source that makes that connection. WP:OR. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 12:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Active Banana, here are a handful: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/publisher-of-harry-potter-to-reveal-next-big-thing-452604.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture//3666582/Who-will-be-the-next-Harry.html http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/movies/have-we-dug-up-new-potter/story-e6frfmvr-1111113737650 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1554717/Will-this-book-be-the-next-Harry-Potter-.html Tantrumi (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Second merger proposal

I don't see why this wasn't merged to begin with. Unless there is sufficient scholarship to bring each article up to quality, it seems that the changing editions would be crucial in understanding the topic as whole, not dealt with seperately Sadads (talk) 03:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I see some information can be used in the Hightail Mole, but without sources we can't add it. Derild4921☼ 00:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Why are they separate though? Alot of the information seems to be repeated. I would merge the few reviews and little background information on Hightail Mole into the Concept Development and Publication History sections, no?Sadads (talk) 00:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure, I think it was just created like that. The information can be used, but we're going to need to find the sources. Derild4921☼ 00:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep, definitely don't want to diminish the quality of this article, Sadads (talk) 00:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't merged because The Highfield Mole is available as a novel in it's own right, with a history quite different to that of Tunnels. The purpose of the original re-write of this page was to shorten the previous version. Therefore in my view there isn't enough room to merge all the information onto this page and do The Highfield Mole justice. Tunnels isn't merely a re-name of The Highfield Mole - and it is not called the HighTAIL Mole! This merger issue was raised before and duly closed after a suitable consulation period, please leave it as such. (Lifesawhirl (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC))

I'm reviewing Tunnels for GA and I too feel these articles should be merged. Some Highfield Mole material is simply duplicated here. Apparently Highfield Mole was edited and released as Tunnels but to what extent we don't know. A comparison of the original edition with the revised edition (from reliable sources) would be appropriate in the Highfield Mole article. What needs to be said about Tunnels can be said in a few paragraphs as a separate section in the Highfield Mole article. Tunnels doesn't warrant a separate article. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 08:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Susanne2009NYC (talk) 06:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Concept and development

• • "The idea for Tunnels began in 2003 when the authors were trying to come up with a new project." Tell us who the authors are: "when authors XYZ and ABC were etc". The phrase "were trying to come up with" has a casual, conversational tone. Try something more encyclopedic.
  • "At first," is not necessary. Begin with "Both men". "Ideas" has just been used. Find another word.
  • "16th century" and "house next door" might require hypenation. See if you can find the terms in a dictionary or the MOS.
  • "The house was sold to fund the publication of the first edition of the book, titled The Highfield Mole." Cut ", titled".
  • "The Highfield part of the title came from places in London" Try: "Highfield refers to places..."
  • "self published" might be hyphentated. Check a dictionary.
  • "Chicken House Publishing began publishing". Drop the second "publishing" and find another word.
  • "The title was then changed". Drop "then". Susanne2009NYC (talk) 07:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Done. Derild4921☼ 22:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not happy with this section. Try this:

The novel that would eventually be titled Tunnels took shape in 2003 when author Roderick Gordon's wife suggested her husband and Brian Williams write a children's book. Neither men took the suggestion seriously, but Gordon found inspiration for such a book in the crumbling 16th-century Northamptonshire house he owned and the report of a tunnel leading to the village church in the house next door. Gordon never found the tunnel, but developed an idea about a 14-year-old boy who loved to dig. Williams, on the other hand, was inspired by Joseph Williamson (1769–1840), an eccentric who built many tunnels beneath Liverpool, England. The authors decided to self-publish the book, and Gordon's house was sold to fund a limited run. On 5 March 2005, the novel was released as The Highfield Mole, and, after some editing, was retitled Tunnels and published by Chicken House in July 2007.

I think this works. All it needs is the reference citations. If the book was heavily edited (whole chunks deleted, new characters added, or other drastic revisions) mention a few here. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 08:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Adaptations

• • Section title is misspelled.
  • The film adaptation should be deleted because the film has not yet been released. Things could change. The film may never be produced, it may not be released until 1211, the director may be replaced, etc. AFAIK, Wikipedia does not support the publication of speculative material about what may or may not happen in the future. Cut this subsection completely and return it only when the film has been released.
  • In fiction articles, sections called "Adaptations" are restricted to dramatic adaptations - films, tv shows, radio plays, operas, ballets, musicals, etc. Audiobooks are not dramatic adaptations so the audiobook belongs in a different section. Perhaps Other media or Other formats. The audiobook material can be cut back severely. This article is not a review for the audiobook. The following would be more appropriate and is all that is necessary:

BBC Audiobooks Ltd. released an abridged audiobook version in the UK and Canada on 5 November 2007, and in the United States on 8 November 2007. An unabridged version has also been released. Both were read by Jack Davenport who garnered critical praise for his "perfect haunting tone" and his use of multiple accents to distinguish the characters.

Add the appropriate citations. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 23:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]

Did a copy edit. PASS

• Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout; (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;[2] and (c) it contains no original research.

Del some OR. PASS

• Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

PASS

• Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
• Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[4]
• Illustrated, if possible, by images:[5]

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

PASS on all counts. Congrats! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 12:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Pass on all counts - you cannot be serious! It isn't factually correct - see my changes today. It is no longer Broad in it's coverage, with little about film, audiobook, book characters, key themes, media achievements, Barry Cunningham etc etc. There is a bias towards negative reviews and commentary. This has to be the most subjective assessment process I have ever seen. (Lifesawhirl (talk) 20:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC))

Altering the text

The article has been passed to GA. Please do not alter the text unless changes are discussed here first and citations are provided. For example, do not change "200 paperback copies" (which has a citation) to "2000 paperback copies" unless discussion is undertaken and a citation is provided. Do not change the cover artist "Ian Butterworth" (which has a citation) to someone else unless discussion is held and a citation is provided. Changing the text without discussion and without citations will force the article to be sent to Reassessment and it might lose its GA status. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 09:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

So if I have correctly understood the above - I am not allowed to change the 'incorrect' paperback publication figure of '200' to the 'correct' 2,000 copies! Despite the fact I have already informed others of this during the horrendous changes made to this Tunnels page. The authors were not even interviewed by the main source you use, being AbeBooks! Same goes then for the correction by Tantrumi, who has also confirmed that "David Wyatt was the cover artist - Ian Butterworth was the cover designer. Check copyright information on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tunnels_Roderick_Gordon_%26_Brian_Williams.jpg" With regard to your other comments - we do know about the fundamental changes from The Highfield Mole to Tunnels, as these were set out in a previous version of this article, before the factual and interesting information was deleted to facilitate 'Good Article' status! The current article also reads with a negative bias in the Critical Acclaim - with no mention of the media achievements previously set out in this article. And have I understood you correctly - that you are suggesting that the Tunnels page be merged into The Highfield Mole, with no need for a Tunnels page?? Authors of Wikipedia pages should at the very least have read the books concerned, perhaps then we wouldn't have this inaccurate and biased article devoid of any substance and a poor representation of this book! (Lifesawhirl (talk) 09:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC))

May I point out that the above addresses "history, medicine, and science"? Anyway, the critical respronse section is not "negative". It is neutral and cites major reviews in which the critical consensus is that the book's first third is slow and the remainder picks up the pace and is exciting. It gives good points and not so good points. This is responsible reviewing. Please read Wikipedia's "Questionable sources". It's linked somewhere here. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, perhaps you would be so kind as to inform me why the 'tunnelsdeeper.com' UK Official Fansite in External Links has been removed. This site has the approval of Chicken House Publishing and the authors, and was surely quite rightly listed on here!! (Lifesawhirl (talk) 11:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC))

Material in the article or material added to the article must be sited to a reliable source. "200 paperback copies" is cited to a source. To alter the text to read "2000 paperback copies" without citing a source is untenable. I think The Highfield Mole can be effectively merged with Tunnels. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 13:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Clearly the source used in this version is not a reliable source!! The source for the correct reference to 2,000 paperback copies has always been listed. If you select the link to Mathew and son Official website it takes you straight to the page with the publishing info - this website belongs to the authors, so I would think it's accuracy can be relied upon! As it currently stands the Tunnels article is lacking in accuracy and informative content, in the main due to Wikipedia authors with no experience of the actual book. And who seek accolades such as GA above article integrity. The previous editions, much of which was written by me (which I'm not allowed to say on here!), has now been removed without collaboration - which surely contravenes the core principles and values of Wikipedia! Hence the introduction of new inaccuracies which seem to have resulted in this article being awarded GA status - is that good practice, I think not! Despite my fervent protestations about the merging of The Highfield Mole page in to the Tunnels page, I wholly expect that yet again changes will be made without collaboration and to the detriment of both pages. (Lifesawhirl (talk) 13:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC))

Just jumping in here, you can not except that a page you edit will not be changed from time to time. When I decided to WP:be bold last time, you pointed out inaccuracies and we changed them. After fixing the problems, I heard nothing more. Now, can you find the link I remember you provided last time to show it was 2000 not 200? Also, for the merging, there must by consensus to merge, if editors vote on the merge proposal and the consensus is to merge it, then we will do that unless there is an obvious reason not to. Derild4921☼ 18:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Derild4921 - The changes being discussed are not minor edits, we are talking about the merging of The Highfield Mole page into this Tunnels page, thus apparently negating the need for The Highfield Mole page! Despite my notification about the incorrect publication numbers the GA assessor still reverting my changes on this matter and those made by Tantrumi. Depsite having being informed by two users that this information was incorrect and being provided with the right citation, these changes were still over-ruled and this article passed GA criteria on all counts. Other errors I have recently corrected post GA award include - David Wyatt who is the correct Cover Artist, their were two different publication dates quoted for UK release on this page, 100,000 inital UK sales ad 100,000 total sales - is US not UK. Importantly there was no reference to Barry Cunningham, OBE, the fact that Tunnels is the first of a series, the sequels released. The opening details of this article confirm that the book was critically well received, which is was. You have not selected reviews that support that. With four essentially negative reviews that are all critical of the slow start. I am not disputing that was a common criticism, but the bias in this section is 'negative'. All of those reviews are repetitive in mentioning the start - how is that providing a broad and accurate representation - it isn't. If the book was generally well received, which it was, then you should reflect that consensus in this article. I do not appreciate my changes which improve the accuracy of this article being undone, same applies for my choice of reviews over yours. I have explained why I have selected the reviews I have used and this is supported in the rest of this article. Just because a review exists does not mean it provides an accurate overall impression of how well the book was generally received. For example on the review site you have used for 2 of the reviews, being http://catalog.dclibrary.org/vufind/Record/ocn123539243/Reviews You have conveniently selected 2 of the 4 reviews which include negative comments - not the other 2 which are wholly positive!! With regard to the changes you reverted on the Guardian review - I improved that source by actually quoting what was said in the review. The previous version was a summation made by a Wikipedia user. Therefore to quote what was actually said has to be an improvement and a legitimate edit. (Lifesawhirl (talk) 10:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC))

In articles about fiction, it is not necessary to mention the publisher by name ("Barry Cunningham") or his credentials ("OBE and discoverer of JK Rowling"). This is trivia. Only the publishing firm and date of publication are necessary. Please check other fiction articles; the publisher is not mentioned by name nor are his credentials. In writing an encyclopedia article, it is not necessary to record every little piece of information you find.Susanne2009NYC (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The cover artist has been returned to Ian Butterworth because it is cited to a reliable source in which the authors themselves state he is the cover artist. The source to David Wyatt is not reliable. It appears to be a self published sort of thing and "says" nothing, but only presents a group of pictures. It is difficult to tell from source exactly what is intended. Please do not change the cover artist unless a more reliable source is found to support the change. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The publisher Barry Cunningham, OBE, IS relevant to the publishing background of this novel - as also featured on the Wikipedia page for J K Rowling!! Furthermore if you open a copy of Tunnels then you would 'clearly' see that David Wyatt IS the Cover Illustrator. The source I have used is David Wyatt's own website with the Tunnels cover featured in the 'Current Portfolio of Work', what better source is there? You have been informed of this by others on here, so how can you knowingly, yet again revert correct information for incorrect!! Perhaps you can tell me exactly where in your source it says Ian Butterworth is the Cover Illustrator! Again referring to the actual book, Ian Butterworth is the Cover Designer - not the Illustrator. (Lifesawhirl (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC))

Yes, but he is mentioned in JK Rowling page, but not on the series page. I am not sure about the illustrator as I currently do not have access to the webste. Derild4921☼ 20:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Bary Cunningham, OBE, signing these authors resulted in extensive worldwide media reports, because the media suggested this book as 'The next Harry Potter' - due to him signing J K Rowling whilst he was at Bloomsbury. For this there are hundreds are available sources!! As this is the only Tunnels page then is appropriate to mention him in this article. (Lifesawhirl (talk) 20:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC))

If there are truly that many sources then we might be able to construct a section called "The next Harry Potter". However, this would only be possible with many many reliable sources with a lot of information. Derild4921☼ 20:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Barry Cunningham does not need to be mentioned here. Everything written about him and his discovery of JK Rowling is media hype and trivia. Comparisons to JK Rowling are being used just to create hype and sell books. This is an article about the novel not Barry Cunningham. Even if there was room to mention him, there is absolutely no need to mention his "credentials" as OBE and discoverer of JK Rowling. It's triva here. Please check other fiction articles. They do not delve into the background of the publisher in this way. There is no reason to trumpet his credentials here. This is not his resume. It is enough to say "The book was edited, repackaged, and republished as Tunnels by Chicken House." Every publishing house has a publisher whose job is to recognize talent and good writing. This is nothing extraordinary. And because it isn't, there is no reason to mention Barry Cunningham here. Fans think every tidbit of information must be mentioned here. But this is an encyclopedia -- not a fansite -- and encyclopedias are not fansite extensions or substitutes. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Susanne2009NYC, please can you cite a source to support your assertion that Ian Butterworth was the cover artist? At the moment, you have provided a hyperlink to a former professional footballer of the same name. May I draw your attention to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_wizard/Sources Tantrumi (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

In the infobox. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 00:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

That's only for the fact that reliable sources exist. I understand what your trying to say though. Derild4921☼ 23:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You're right, Derild4921 - sorry! But, Susanne2009NYC, that citation is not pertinent as it merely confirms who designed the covers, and doesn't state the cover artists. If you read it, the question is specifically who "designed" the covers, and the response mentions Ned Host in relation to the design of The Highfield Mole cover (for which Brian Williams did the cover picture). And whilst it's true that Butterworth was responsible for the design of the Tunnels cover, David Wyatt was the cover artist, and his copyright is clearly designated in the UK editions of the book. Can we not just remove the field in the infobox until a reference is identified, rather than have incorrect information here? Tantrumi (talk) 10:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If there's a credit on the book (title page verso, dustcover, etc.), use that as the source. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 15:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes there is a credit on each of the UK paperbacks, but it refers to David Wyatt as Cover Illustrator - he is however the 'Artist' for this cover. Would this reference on the title page verso be satisfactory?. (Lifesawhirl (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC))

Susanne2009NYC - Can I just remind you that Wikipedia should be a collaborative effort. You do not have overiding authority to delete perfectly good sources. The kidsread.com or teenreads.com is sound review with the named author who wrote that review. The Abebooks source has proved unrelaible in terms of The Highfield Mole publishing numbers, yet it remains as your fist reference. I am entitled to add this and correct the negative bias that you are insisting must remain - as per your version. (Lifesawhirl (talk) 16:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC))

There's no reason to believe either the kids or teens sites are reliable sources. Publishers create these sorts of sites and pay "reviewers" to take on their recent releases. It doesn't matter whether the reviews are signed or not. That doesn't speak to reliability. Let's keep the "Critical reception" section above suspicion and stick with those cites above suspicion: NYTimes, Guardian, Publishers Weekly, Kirkus, Booklist. There's absolutely no reason to include every single review on the web in this section because the critical consensus appears to be as already stated: the first part of the book is slow and the rest of it picks up a bit. The reviewers state this over and over and there's no reason to include one more that says the same thing. The Abebooks source is reliable. The business with the exact number of copies printed may be a typo. Who knows? and there's no reason to think your source stating 2,000 copies is accurate either. We're just letting it ride until other sources become available to confirm the count one way or the other. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I rechecked teensreads.com and it is just as I thought. It's a user created site with anyone allowed to become a reviewer. The Tunnels review is one long synopsis and says nothing that needs to be entered here. Every review on the web does not need to be entered here. We have "the biggies" in the field of book review and the critical consensus is the book is slow in the beginning but picks up the pace when the characters reach the colony. There's no reason to include one more review. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more that there is no need to include every single review, however, you have previously chosen reviews that have been centred on negative critique. I fully accept that the higher profile sources are preferable, but the negative bias is not a true record of this book and consequently contravenes Wikipedia standards. I have followed the media progress of this book from before it's release and the media frenzy, incontrovertibly due to Barry Cunningham's Harry Potter connections. The 'overall' consensus has been very positive. All I am looking to do is provide a broad representation of that and some of the reviews you have insisted on using centre on one criticism, rather than the extensive appreciation for this book. And 'clearly' the error in the Abebook article is a typo! My source is from the authors website, and is correct so please do not change this. I own one of these books, so know this to be correct. You continue to remove changes by other authors on here, particularly in 'Reception'. As I said above you do not have exclusive editorial control. Can we please focus on a collaborative effort to improve this article. (Lifesawhirl (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC))

Currently the reception section does not have a "negative bias" as you say. As Susanne2009NYC says, the consensus is that the book has a slow start, but picks up pace and grows much better. That is what the reception section is saying. Derild4921☼ 23:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If you read my comments carefully you will see I am talking 'past tense' in terms of the choice of reviews, as there has recently been some impovements made to the Reception. Although I stand by my observations that continued repetition of one criticism is not providing a neutral or accurate representation of how this book has been perceived. Also the fact that their seems to be a reluctance to let everyone contribute to this article. My final comment called for effective collaboration! (Lifesawhirl (talk) 00:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC))

Yes, each review has been summarized in the section which shows the slow start has been commonly found, but also the section has every reviewer also commenting on the action after the slow start so the section is indeed neutral. Derild4921☼ 00:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The Mathew & Son website is not a reliable source. Any website with a "finanacial interest" in the subject under discussion is not a reliable source. Best to cite info about the cover artist to a source such as a newspaper, journal or some such that has no financial interest in the product. The source that cited Ian Butterworth as the cover artist is actually preferable because it is a source with no interest in the product. It was agreed with Tantrumi that we would remove this until a more reliable source was found. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources. It occurred to me that some material in this article is cited to the Chicken House site. This info makes fantastic claims such as the book has sold a million copies worldwide and has been published in 40 counties. These sorts of claims should be cited to reliable sources such as world class newspapers and journals -- not to publisher or author websites where they appear to be publicity or may be inflated to impress readers and to sell more books. I must delete these claims until we can find more reliable source - ones that don't have financial interests in the product. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Cover artist. We need a reliable source stating in its text that David Wyatt is specifically the Cover Artist. I haven't found one. I do have a reliable source stating Ian Butterworth designed the cover. I have seen something saying Brian Willams illustrated the book. Because this question is all over the place right now, let's leave the infobox blank until a definitive, reliable source is found stating who is the Cover Artist. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 16:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Source - I have re-entered the sales of over a million, as there is currently no overall figure in the article. The source is Variety, so no disputing their credentials. Not that we should need it, but there is another source to back this. http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=b528986f-0233-4da1-98df-ad44cc7f2427&sponsor. Re: above, I don't think it is fair to assume that the books publishers would knowingly quote facts, such as sales, that they cannot substantiate! Often, much of what we see in the press originates from key sources such as Publishers, Agents, Authors etc. The reference to both parts of the Manga has also been re-entered with the appropriate links to Amazon Japan (where Tunnels sold very well) - this is an interesting and perhaps slightly unusual fact and appropriate for the 'Other Formats' section. (Lifesawhirl (talk) 02:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC))

I've removed these statements because they are sourced to "Children's literature", a user-created website. This website allows anyone to contribute and there's no reason to think the site does any fact checking whatsoever. Sensitive information and fantastic claims about sales figures should be sourced to trade journals, world class newspapers, or academic literature. These sources are distinguished for fact checking. There's no reason to think Variety would fact check the number of books sold worldwide, because Variety is a publication about the entertainment industry, not the publishing industry. Books are not their specialty. I wouldn't use your back-up source because it's cynical and it isn't about Tunnels anyways. There's no rush on this, so it's not imperative that this information be sourced and entered within hours. Take a week or two. Better to provide impeccable sources. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 08:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Question for Susanne2009NYC - if, as you say, information released by any publisher cannot be relied upon, such as a book selling a certain number of copies, then who else would you trust as a source for such information? This information - which HAS to originate from the publisher because no other party has access to it - is NEVER checked/audited by outside entities such as "trade journals, world class newspapers or academic literature" because it would mean access to internal and confidential company information. In the real world, this never happens. Publishers issue press releases and talk to journalists, who then compile their articles. So, in effect, you're saying that if it states on Wilkipedia that a author's book sold "x" million, this is wrong and should be taken down. Does this mean that the pages for countless other books and authors on Wikipedia are flawed? And that, really, anything a publisher says should be omitted because they have a "financial interest". I don't believe this is a realistic pronouncement, and I'm certain that Chicken House wouldn't take kindly to be labelled as liars by you. On a more trivial note, I had no problem in seeing the Japanese Mangas in both Internet Explorer, Safari, and Google Chrome - is anyone else having similar problems to Susanne2009NYC? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tantrumi (talk • contribs) 10:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The fact that reliable sources such as Publishers Weekley, Kirkus, The Times, The Guardian, The NY Times, School Library Journal, et. al are not publishing these fantastic claims about numbers of copies sold should tell you something. It tells me that these claims cannot be verified and that reliable sources are seeing them for what they are: publisher hype. This is an encyclopedia and the article should read like an encyclopedia article -- not a fansite blurb, a dustjacket flap, or a promo kit from the publisher. I had trouble seeing the Japanese site, and if I did others will too. Find an English language source for the manga edition. And as far as "You're saying that if it states on Wilkipedia that a author's book sold "x" million, this is wrong and should be taken down" is concerned: I'm saying fantastic claims should be cited to a reliable source and if they're not then they should be "taken down". Susanne2009NYC (talk) 10:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Susanne2009NYC - it took me less than a minute to find a ref on www.canada.com which is - and I quote - "owned and operated by Postmedia Network Inc., Canada's largest publisher by circulation of paid English-language daily newspapers. Its properties include daily newspapers in cities across Canada including the Vancouver Sun, The Province, the Calgary Herald, the Edmonton Journal, the Ottawa Citizen and the National Post, as well as more than 50 destination websites." The article is here: http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=b528986f-0233-4da1-98df-ad44cc7f2427&sponsor= So you're saying this isn't a viable source? 86.158.197.11 (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The article is cynical and not about Tunnels anyway. And yes I wonder here if the author actually researched this number or just grabbed it from a publicity kit. Publishers have inflated sales figures for publicity purposes and to sell more books. I would prefer to see something from a world class newspaper such as The Times or the NY Times or reliable trade journals such as Publishers Weekly or Kirkus. Are you following me on this? If the biggies don't mention these claims, then they might be just publisher hype -- not facts. As I mentioned before, this article should not read as a dustjacket blurb with fantastic claims being made for publicity purposes or to sell books. I think the article stands now as more than adequate and further editing is not needed. Why is this piece of information about a million copies sold so important? An encyclopedia article about a work of fiction is about themes, background, history and such and not about "copies sold" claims. What does this "prove" anyway? Susanne2009NYC (talk) 11:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

[1] this can be used for the number of translations. Derild4921☼ 00:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Susanne2000NYC, being semi-serious, I wouldn't consider The Times to be "world class" any longer. Of course, I do follow your line of argument, and accept that some publishers probably overstate the number of books sold, but you and I aren't discussing some third tier book or series. If you accept it sold 250,000 copies in Japan alone, the books have been in the NYT Best Seller list two or three times, and then you factor in the forty or so other territories in which it's been published, then the overall figure isn't that ludicrous, is it? And, no, the figure isn't particularly important to me, but most users of Wikipedia are likely to want to know this to get a handle on the success of the book. And numerous other Wikipedia pages on books contain this very statistic. I really don't see why there should be any problem when referencing the canada.com article. With all due respect, I think there are double standards here, as the ABE Books article you have relied on so heavily for citations hasn't been written by an accredited (or even named) journalist, and ABE Books is hardly a respected news source. And with regard to your comment on whether or not an information source has a "financial interest", is not ABE Books in the business of helping vendors to sell books on its platform, so one could question its objectivity? The number stated for the Highfield Mole softbacks in the article is patently wrong, so I would tend to treat the rest of the article with some scepticism. What our discussion really boils down to is your subjective and unilateral judgement on what constitutes a valid information source, and I do think you should let others have their say. For example, the cover artist IS David Wyatt - it's printed clear as day in the UK edition of the book, and you've seen the web address for an established cover artist called "David Wyatt" who has the book cover displayed on his website. And the other person who was incorrectly listed as the cover artist is actually a designer (his business is even called Butterworth Design!), so I don't understand the confusion here. Furthermore, you saw the web addresses for the mangas - nothing less than amazon.jp - and they were published, and it is an interesting fact, and I do think it should be reinstated. All I'm asking is for some shared objectivity, and the opportunity for others to contribute to and edit this page. Tantrumi (talk) 01:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

A million copies attests to nothing. Most of those copies were sold to schools and libraries. In my town alone a branch library will order as many as 20 copies of a "hot bestseller" to fill requests and in 2 months when the book is dead, 19 copies will be sent to the town dump and 1 copy retained on the shelves as a historical artefact. These figures mean nothing. They're just publisher hype cited to sell more books. They don't attest to the book's literary aspects or value at all. Some fast food joint in the USA is bragging right now that "We sold a million fries last year!" The figure doesn't attest to the quality of the fry. It's meaningless. This is an encyclopedia not a fansite or a place to publicize and sell books by citing publisher hype. This article is about the literary aspects and value of the subject, not peripherals like unverified numbers of copies sold, and unverified numbers of copies published. The article is just fine as it stands at this moment. There's no reason to add another word until the movie is released and then that should focus on film quality -- not number of tickets sold the first weekend. That's publisher hype and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. If Wikipedia readers want these fantastic stats, then they can go to the canada.com article, can't they? Put the canada stuff in the external links section. If you question the Abebooks citations, delete them all. But Abebooks doesn't make fantastic claims about sales figures. I have no objection to the figure themselves. This is not the problem. The problem is these fantastic claims are not being cited to reliable sources -- those with a reputation for fact checking such as trade journals, academic literature, and world class newspapers. Because these claims are not recorded in reliable soutces, shouldn't that tell you something? We've been back and forth on this question. Please read Wikipedia on Reliable Sources at [2] especially the section called "Questionable sources". Susanne2009NYC (talk) 04:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Susanne2009NYC, comments by Tantrumi do set out what is best for this article, I would support moving forward as suggested by him/her. The sales information is factual and relevant in this article, as seen in other articles, including Harry Potter, which has to be one of the most reviewed articles on Wikipedia (cites a BBC News article as it's source). Just where is your source for "Most of those copies were sold to schools and libraries"? - assumptions about your 'town', are not relevant, are they? This article, which you regard as finished, now seems very poor in comparison to your comprehensive articles on the Beatrix Potter Books.

This article seems "very poor" because there are few reliable sources "out there" with which to build a comprehensive article. One editor has questioned the use of Abebooks as a source. Fine. I pointed out Abebooks does not make fantastic claims about the book and invited him/her to remove everything sourced to Abebooks. This book has not produced a response from academia, trade journals, world class newspapers, major reviewers. As Wikipedia editors we would be remiss in building an article from less than reliable sources. The article is fine as it stands. We've exhausted the reliable sources and there is nothing more to enter at this time. Removing material that is not cited to reliable sources is not subject to collaboration or consensus. It can be removed at anytime by anyone. Unreliable sourcing threatens Wikipedia's integrity. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Generally - Yet again susanne2009NYC claims this article does not need further editing, after informing us not to change incorrect facts on numerous occasions. I refer to Wikipedia: Verifiability Policy regarding reliable sources, which states - “Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available, such as in history, medicine, and science, but they are not the only reliable sources in such areas. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers”. Perhaps at this stage it would be prudent to summarise the key disputes. Examples of situations where Susanne2009NYC has overruled others and stymied consensus are numerous but include:

1. 'David Wyatt' as cover artist, You will not permit use of the Cover Artist's website as source - http://www.david.wyatt.btinternet.co.uk/

There surely is a more reliable source. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

2. Highfield Mole paperback figure of 2,000 - which she have said "will let it go for now". But I see she has now removed all of the publication figures, and will not accept the authors website on the grounds it does not say it’s an Official Website, when clearly it is - http://www.mathewandson.com/index.htm

It doesn't matter whether a website is official or not. What does that have to do with reliability. The material was removed because it was a fantastic claim cited to an unreliable source and was disputed. Figures will turn up someday in a reliable source. There's no rush on these figures. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

3. Removed reference to the Manga versions in Japan and use of amazon.jp as the source, because your PC cannot view it - other users can view the Manga books fine. And you can use English to search in amazon Japan.

As I said, I got only little boxes when I accessed the site. And if I get little boxes, then other users will too. The source was appropriately removed and is not subject to some sort of consensus. This material about a manga should be available on an English site somewhere. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

4. All edits I have made to Tunnels being published in 40+ countries have been reverted to the outdated 35 countries ref, yet this is quoted on publishers and authors website! - http://www.doublecluck.com/ http://www.tunnelsthebook.com/ and in the media such as http://www.variety.com/Home/ also, three Wikipedians have agreed that the following source is fine, except Susanne2009NYC - http://www.childrenslit.com/childrenslit/mai_gordon_roderick_qa.html

This is a user created website and is not a reliable source. Authors' and publishers' websites are not reliable sources -- especially in the matter of fantastic claims. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

5. Susanne2009NYC will not allow users to participate in choosing any of the reviews in Critical Reception to improve the neutrality. My edits quoted more of the review (as preferred by Wikipedia policy), rather than Susann2009NYCs own subjective summation of the review. As another user said - “And not ALL reviews criticized the slow start. The ‘starred review’ by John Peters from Booklist has been removed - why?)” John Peters for Booklist Review gave the book a starred review, describing the book as a "compelling doorstopping debut" and "a very promising series kickoff". And School Library Journal Review stated that "Readers will root for loyal, impetuous, overwhelmed Will as he discovers his roots", with the recommendation to "Purchase this for the intriguing plot (including a surprising twist) and subterranean settings". Both these reviews can individually be cited to http://catalog.dclibrary.org/vufind/Record/ocn123539243/Reviews which is already listed on the Wikipedia page as note 13 at the bottom. Yet Susanne will not allow these to be included.

The critical review section is balanced and neutral as it stands. It doesn't need further editing -- especially with things such as "Great book! Buy it!"

6. Removed my reference to Barry Cunningham (the publisher of Tunnels) saying “Barry Cunningham and his credentials are trivia.” - although reference has since been added, but used to further the negative bias in reviews.

Cunningham's OBE is of no relevance to this article but belongs in an article about Cunningham. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

7. Refuses to accept the publishers own website as a source, accusing them of lying about their sales figures (see discussions page)! - http://www.doublecluck.com/

Fantastic claims about slaes' figures should not be sourced to publishers' websites. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

8. Insisting on sources from only industry journals and "World Class" newspapers such as The New York Times - yet insists on using Abebooks article when inaccuracies have been confirmed in that, no journalist is named and AbeBooks clearly have a financial vested interest in selling books. Sussane2009NYC removes other users sources claiming they have a financial vested interest.

I will remove the material cited to Abebooks. Abebooks makes no fantastic claims but author interviews are not reliable sources. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

9. Other reversions are too numerous to mention, but even my latest edit has been removed, which was to improve the last sentence in the opening paragraph and read - "The authors wanted to retain the original title, but the publishing firm were looking for something fresh" - removed with immediate effect.
10. A previously closed request for The Highfield Mole page to be merged with the Tunnels page has now been re-opened. And despite opposition to this I expect Susanne2009NYC will go ahead and remove the comprehensive Highfield Mole, preferring a brief summary on the Tunnels page.

This is exactly what Highfield Mole needs and at last look HM has no sourcing whatsoever. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

A major re-write of the Tunnels article removed a very comprehensive previous version without collaboration - style and sources needed strengthening, but content was superior to the current version. Also, it introduced a number of inaccuracies, which various users have pointed out and tried to correct, yet susanne2009NYC still assessed and passed this article as GA status. Other users including myself are just looking for the opportunity to contribute. I have spent many hours changing the inaccuracies and adding information which I think is relevant and interesting, yet within a matter of hours Susanne2009NYC has removed them in favour of her own sources, writing style and content.
I am one of the passionate people Wikipedia policy makes reference to - and am very knowledgeable about this book series which I have followed from the very start. I am an administrator on the UK fansite www.TunnelsDeeper.com - which has the support of both the publishers and the authors. I have read and own all the books, including one of the 2,000 highly sought after Highfield Moles, and know my subject matter well. The experience I've had with susanne2009NYC has left me completely disillusioned with Wikipedia, and I have began to question whether its core values are ever adhered to. Stewardship does support retaining a user's version where it is felt further editing would be detrimental to the existing quality. However, this is not the case here. I have thoroughly researched the references to ensure they come up to Wikipedia's verifiability standards, and my only interest is to help make this article as accurate and informative as I can. I don’t know what else I can say, suffice to say that it is clear that susanne20090NYC continues to regard this as her own article and input from other users in this ‘Free Encyclopedia’ is neither welcomed nor valued.(Lifesawhirl (talk) 20:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC))

What is welcomed and valued is reliable sourcing. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Lifesawhirl - I don't understand your objections. You realize that many of the sources which you are putting forward are not neutral but rather have financial interest in the promotion of the book, thus anything they say is biased towards a positive spin on the book. You appear to want to use these sources in ways that are unconstructive because you focus on their opinions about the Novel. l am sorry, but your invested interest in the Tunnel series because of your "officially" sanctioned fan site, suggests that you have a Conflict of Interest.Thank You for announcing this Conflict of Interest. However, I believe your invested interest in the series is causing you to advocate for a biased approach to this article and the use of rampant personal attacks. Additionally, I suspect that the other user account, Tantrumi, which had a very similar set of language to yours, may be a sock puppet account (though I have yet to ask for an investigation because I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt). Please desist from this disruptive editing and personal attacks, and consider what is best for the encyclopedia. Clearly consensus is not with you. I would suggest moving on to another article, where time on the part of many editors would not be wasted on what seems to be fruitless argument (again and again the consensus is against your position). I wish you the best of luck, and hope you will consider my suggestions. There are so many things to do here on Wikipedia, I would not like to see valuable contribution time to be absorbed by the discussion on only one article. If you need help finding other things, feel free to ask, but let us not get stuck in this rut of name throwing and biased arguement. Sadads (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I must agree with Sadads here on everything he has written. All these arguments seem to go round and round. The article is now at a "good place" and with a film being released in the future this article will be heavily referenced. It is imperative that it reflect responsible editing and reliable sourcing -- as it should at anytome whether a film release or not. Fantastic claims about sales figures, number of translations, number of copies printed, etc. should be reliably sourced to trade journals, academic literature, and fact-checking newspapers -- not questionable sources including authors' and publishers' self-created websites. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 23:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Sadads - This is my final response:

Children’s fiction is my favourite genre; reading is what I enjoy on my better health days. I have followed the Tunnels series from the start and this is the one I have most enjoyed… to date. I am a ‘volunteer’ admin/moderator on the ‘free’ fansite, and often provide ‘factual’ responses about the books content. The latest being “Who is Mr Ashimi?”. A vast majority of Wikipedians, also volunteers, create articles because the are very knowledgeable and passionate about that subject, and thus can be effective contributors. Just as Susanne2009NYC seems to be passionate about the Beatrix Potter books, I am about the Tunnels series. This does not in itself constitute a Conflict of Interest, and consequently does not preclude me from being capable of making a valid contribution, or render me incapable of adhering to Wikipedia policy in maintaining a neutral point of view. Even with 400 edits I still feel I am a relative newbie, with much I can learn. I would certainly have found the support of an experienced Wikipedian very helpful - such as the mentoring role you carry out.

Your response does seem somewhat heavy-handed for what is the first stage in the dispute process, and certainly surprising and distressing given our previous friendly exchanges. Wikipedia policy rightly recommends ‘Good faith’ be initially assumed in disputes or in a suspected breach of policy - I therefore extend the same courtesy to you in respect of your ‘false’ allegations. It has taken me two days to write this reply, I certainly do not have the inclination nor the energy to manage more than one account. All disagreements have been rightly carried out on the talk page here, but as I have said there is clearly little or no consensus on here. Placing the matter into the formal dispute process was the appropriate next step, whereby an independent opinion could be sought. Since my efforts to update and correct content in the article continued to be removed, and discussion fruitless, I have made no further edits. The dispute board places a limit on two summary paragraphs. This article now has such an extensive history and discussions page, I therefore set out the specifics of the disagreements (as numbered 1-10), to facilitate ease of opinion for the Editor who takes on this case. My points are focused on the quoted source disputed and the comments actually made by user Susanne2009NYC - they are not personal attacks! At least three users were in agreement about the ‘Children’s Literature’ article being a verifiable sources for supporting my edit to quote “published in 40+ countries”. The Manga edition is also suitably interesting for inclusion (with sound Amazon source) and in my view readers do want to know how well a novel has sold, and this is why I referred to the Harry Potter page as a much scrutinised precedent. Yet there is only one user who assumes the decision making role, in allowing any changes to stand (or not).

When I first created this Tunnels (novel) page I posted a request for support on the fansite, explaining that the Wikipedia pages needed fleshing out and it was too much for me alone to tackle. We have very friendly members from all over the world, of varying ages, so I am not surprised there is at least one other user who shares my view about this article. Quite frankly with your latest comments and the history of this article, I would be amazed if anyone else would want to contribute now. As I have already inferred, these discussions have reached a natural conclusion as no consensus or way forward can be agreed upon. Formalising the dispute allows me to take a step back and let the Wikipedia Editors assess what is best for this article now. An opinion by an Editor who has had no previous involvement in these discussions is surely the right way forward. I have maintained throughout that my main focus is to see an accurate, informative and fair representation of the Tunnels book. I would hope you can appreciate how frustrating it is to see numerous efforts to correct factual errors in this article reverted. Again, I have set out my views clearly and with civility. I have nothing more to say on here. (Lifesawhirl (talk) 11:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC))

I agree my wording is very heavy handed, I apologize if it is too strong, but it stemmed from a frustration with your continued misunderstanding of the Reliable Source and Verifiability policies in relation to this article. Both Amazon and various other sales oriented sources, such as the publisher's website and word of mouth verification from individuals, simply do not benefit Wikipedia. Amazon in particular is link Spam, that only benefits book sellers, not the content of the article. They have a clear POV, and should not be relied on for issues of sales and praise. As to your example of Harry Potter, you realize that that article has consistently failed Featured Article Reviews for major issues, including not using scholarly enough sources (you might want to click through the various nominations in the Article history under "Article Milestones" Talk:Harry_Potter). I am sorry, this frustrates me sometimes as well, but truthiness or "factual accuracy" is not in any way as important for Wikipedia as being able to point to someone who establishes the information in a peer reviewed medium. Because Wikipedia is not peer reviewed like traditional print sources, we have to keep a high standard of sources, and when things such as the consensus of reception says the book gets off to a slow start, we can't exclude that because it "misrepresents" our opinion of the book.

Again, I apologize for sounding rude, but I find that sometimes the best way to understand the problems which we are having with one article, is to go ahead and work on other ones. For right now, I would suggest exploring another children's literature article and immersing yourself into another part of Wikipedia, such as WP:GA nominees, to better understand exactly how these policies play out in different contexts. Your hyper-focus on this content and your clear background and passion for it is admirable, but I think you are missing the substance of some of our arguments because the lack of breadth of experience. I find I write the best work when I have no interest in it besides my general appreciation for it, such as Agnes Grey which I have worked on recently has allowed me to cover the content of a book from a WP:NPOV, Sadads (talk) 13:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Sadads, many thanks for the message above and the one you left on my talk page. Apology accepted, thank-you. There certainly is a considerable amount to do on Wikipedia, with the quality of pages varying considerably. Sounds like you are working very hard to bring articles up to a creditable standard. It isn't easy for inexperienced users to apply Wiki policy, as it does seem to be ambiguous in important areas. The extract I referred to above from the Verifiable Sources guide, says - “Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available, such as in history, medicine, and science, but they are not the only reliable sources in such areas. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers”. To my mind I have been complying with the 'essence' of this principal, but is seems wider appreciation in the application of Wikipedia policy is required. Your mentoring is a real asset in imparting that knowledge. Just to clarify at no stage did I request the removal of the 'slow start' criticism contained in reviews - only that the reviews be balanced in both respects, and this section is now much improved on the earlier versions. I appreciate your caution regarding the use of sources with a vested interest in book sales. However, I think this point may well display a miscommunication that could in part have contributed to the dispute. Perhaps I didn't explain myself fully - the Amazon.jp link that I have referred to is merely to show the release of the Manga edition in Japan. I did not use the Amazon source for any other reason. Amazon is already listed 6 times in this current article as the source to verify the release of a number of editions in other countries. This is the same as I have tried do in including the Manga edition - especially as it sold so well in Japan. The Manga style cover art would also be interesting for readers; more so than the current 4 sources all showing essentially the same Tunnels cover and the 6 sources used to verify the 2 Audiobook formats released. There does seems to be a misunderstanding here, so perhaps you can also understand where my frustrations stem from. On a different note, I have removed quite a few instances of vandalism on here, largely by unregistered users. I did wonder if/when you may be able to semi-protect a page if the vandalism continues. Finally, I must thank-you for the cup of Wiki Tea you posted on my talk page. Perhaps Wikipedia could introduce a slice of cake to accompany the tea - the sentiment is appreciated and I have felt a little bruised from my time on here. I'm glad you liked the TunnelsDeeper fansite, the other admins have done an incredible job creating the site and the members are enthusiastic and creative in the fansite discussion forum. If there is anything on these Tunnels pages I can help with by all means let me know. (Lifesawhirl (talk) 21:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC))

User Susanne2009NYC is banned

Given the discussions above, which have centred around the actions of Susanne2009NYC, I feel it appropriate and relevant to record notice of the following:

The user Susanne2009NYC is a sock puppet account for 'ItsLassietime'. This person has been found to hold 29 other user accounts! They have blatantly contravened Licensing/Copyright policy, with articles full of plagiarism. Consequently, they have been banned from making any edits on Wikipedia. (source: User talk:MuZemike). I only came across this when I noticed that Tunnels co-author Brian Williams' Wikipedia page had been deleted - this was created by Susanne2009NYC. Much of this users work appears to have been deleted by Wikipedia administrators. (Lifesawhirl (talk) 16:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC))

Lifesawhirl, I've only just seen this post regarding Susanne2009NYC. It astounds me that a registered user like this can worm their way into the site, receiving so much support from other users, and even accolades, along the way. Maybe now the Highfield Mole merger should be dropped, as you have tabled, and some of the previous verifiable content could be reinstated to the Tunnels page? Tantrumi (talk) 13:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I will do some work on the Highfield Mole page this week. It needs additional source material, some of which is now available on the internet. I will then feel it appropriate to remove the merger tab on Tunnels. Given the above notice I don't see why some of my original content cannot be included in the Tunnels page - minor amendments, but relevant nontheless. And yes the fiasco with Susanne2009NYC or whoever they were was infuriating to say the least! Thanks for your reply (Lifesawhirl (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC))

Merger with The Highfield Mole

Active Banana - The Highfield Mole page has been lacking significant citation and Wikipedia conformity in every way for the best part of 6 months. I have spent many hours today improving the article and citation in general, so it can act as a stand alone page. However, within hours you undo much of this - some of which I do agree with as the page now just reflects Highfield Mole content. If you are watching my activities, it would have been prudent to let me know before I put in all this work today. And the merger has been proposed for over 6 months - long enough time wouldn't you think for these notices to be removed! There were at least 2 parties originally against the merger! And might I add that much of the previous opposition to this was by a user who has subsequently been revealed as a serial Sock Puppet Master. Just how much longer do you plan on having this unnecessary notice posted here? And why is it that my view continues to be dis-regarded? Perhaps if you do have time on your hands you could approach me in a positive and pro-active manner in helping me carry out the much needed work on the Highfield Mole page!! (Lifesawhirl (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC))

Without talking directly about the moving, I would like to note that while Sussane was indeed a sockpuppet, she was not blocked for vandalism or disruption. Instead it was for copyright infringements. If it were for some kind of disruption, I understand that her opinion should be ignored, but in this type of situation I feel that her opinion should still count for something. Thanks. Derild4921Review Me! 01:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a discussion Talk:Tunnels_(novel)#Merger_proposal that was artificially closed. and a second discussion Talk:Tunnels_(novel)#Second_merger_proposal and "I worked hard" is not a reason to have a stand alone article. The work you did is likely still appropriate for a section within this article. Active Banana (^bananaphone 23:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Your comments do nothing to encourage or update the much needed improvement of wider Wikipedia pages. My reference to "I worked hard" is relevant if you go ahead in a bull-dozer fashion and expunge that work which provides an accurate and comprehensive addition to Wikipedia. The page took effort because there is a considerable amount of information on there, including photo's that cannot be easily located on the internet, let alone read in a single location - as here. Do you know enough about this series to know if the content is relevant? - I do, and so have others! I have certainly not taken premature action - the merger proposition has been on here for 6 months, without comment!! If anyone else disputes this can you speak up and state your reasons. Otherwise if there is silence, I will remove this in 3 months - as Wikipedia policy allows me to do. I'm still not sure why this page has attracted your 'special' attention. It's a shame Wikipedia admins weren't so involved when a 20+ account Sock Puppett master was re-writing the Tunnels page, in a bid to win more accolades. (Lifesawhirl (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC))

The Highfield Mole merge

As far as I can tell, everyone seems to agree that the pages should be merged, with the exception of one editor who is firmly against it. I'm taking that as rough consensus and BOLDly performing the merger, since the tags have been up for two years and I doubt a unanimous decision will ever be reached. It does make sense, as far as I'm concerned, to have all this information in one article; its original run as The Highfield Mole is part of the publication history of Tunnels, and it's more useful to the reader for it to be presented as such. I've trimmed some of the stuff about signed copies and special editions purely because I can't see how it would fit into this article (and it's unreferenced), but the information's still there in The Highfield Mole page history if anyone wants to add it. DoctorKubla (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Tunnels (novel). 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/20090107001236/http://arts.independent.co.uk/books/news/article2643028.ece to http://arts.independent.co.uk/books/news/article2643028.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090206154622/http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/edition/?isbn=0439871778 to http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/edition/?isbn=0439871778
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://catalog.dclibrary.org/vufind/Record/ocn123539243/Reviews
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716054200/http://www.recordedbooks.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=rb.show_prod&book_id=78110&prod_id=CR731&consumer to http://www.recordedbooks.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=rb.show_prod&book_id=78110&prod_id=CR731&consumer
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120825232200/http://www.relativitymediallc.com/News.aspx?pid=3d395c45-a48e-4cef-84e4-9d21012f05c3 to http://www.relativitymediallc.com/News.aspx?pid=3d395c45-a48e-4cef-84e4-9d21012f05c3

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) 21:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)