Talk:Dabangg

Meaning of hindi word dabang/dabangg

The official English released title of the movie may be fearless, though that is not the appropriate translation of the hindi word. Dabangg would translate to something like spunk with arrogance. Pls someone figure a way out to address this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.102.161.210 (talk) 02:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Removed The claim "the promo is the most watched video in internet"

It is not realistic that a bollywood movie trailor will become the most watched video in "internet", just 9 hours after it got publishged. The source in reference (thaindian.com) does not seem to be a valid one. Also, the article itself suggests it is the most watched video "in a popular web portal", without suggesting a name.Viswamchn (talk) 09:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Plot

The plot has been copied from a news article. Can someone please re-write the plot in their own words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sansari13 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Any help would be appreciated regarding the plot. For those who have seen the film, please write a concise summary in a neutral tone. Please see WP:PLOTSUM for details. — Managerarc^[Talk] 21:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

At the moment there is absolutely nothing that even says what this movie is about... even a 3 line plot summary would be great for a start... 84.196.55.232 (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Dear lord, this plot summary is horrendously written. If I'd seen the movie, I might even fix it myself. As it stands, it's terrible. (Why is this the case with so many Indian movie articles? Right, because nobody editing the English Wikipedia knows much about them :/) --V2Blast (talk) 06:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with V2Blast. It was worse than horrendous. I saw the film and re-wrote the plot, in a neutral tone and as accurately as possible. But, if I have made any grammatical mistake or have misspelled a word, anyone is welcome to correct them. Halemane (talk) 17:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Halemane, thanks a lot.. I appreciate your efforts. Managerarc^[talk] 14:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Please add this table to the article

Global Box Office Tally
Territory	Screens	Screen %	Gross (₹ crore) (35-day total)	Gross %	Trade Note
Mumbai		%	49.5	35%	Hit
Delhi / UP		%	30.5	21%	Hit
East Punjab		%	13.8	10%	Hit
Rest of India		%	47.6	34%	Hit
Domestic Total	1,400	100%	141.4	100%	-
UAE		%	5	%	Hit
USA	62	%	3	%	Hit
UK	41	%	2	%	Hit
Rest of the World		%		%	Hit
Overseas Total	400	100%	0	100%	-
Global Total	1,800	100%	0	100%	-

it is sucessfull in box office.

Adding this table gives a clear picture of the film's performance in several markets.

Proposal to create a separate article for the awards conferred on the film

Should a separate article be created for the awards received by the film like Taare Zameen Par? Secret of success (Talk) 12:30 2 June 2011.

Comments

I see the article is a GAN - I actually started overlooking it on my watchlist but I'm happy with the expansion. I do not have enough time to review it for GA myself, but there are several points which must be taken care of as it's definitely not GA quality yet:

• The references are not properly formatted - with dates and authors missing all throughout.
• The critical response section has one hell of a block containing a long quote from Nikhat Kazmi - should be shortened as I believe such boxes are mostly used to have short, memorable and to-the-point quotes rather than long, detailed reviews. Actually Kazmi's other quote which appears in the body text is more suitable for a box, IMO.
• Speaking of reviews, what about Shobhaa De's critical review which created so much controversy?
• "Awards and nominations" can still have a short summary of awards and nominations, and of course mention of music awards, which the film got so many of.
• I do not quite see the need for a "Character map of remakes" - which seems to contain trivial info which is not as relevant on this article. Mentioning it in prose is more than enough. And btw, the entire section of "Remakes" could be incorporated into the previous one ("Sequel") to have one decent section called "Remakes and Sequel".
• In the lead I can already spot some problems:
  • Arbaaz Khan is linked twice in one paragraph! "Eid" is not linked.
  • Is Malaika Arora's item number that essential in the lead? And the trailer? I don't think so.
  • Critical reception not mentioned.
  • The film's story must be mentioned at least in short. "The film is set in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh and revolves around a cop named Chulbul Pandey" is not enough.

More later. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I have patched up some of these. References are good enough if they contain the title, url, publisher and access date. All of them now satisfy that. Author and date are optional, and not mandatory. The quote from Nikhat Kazmi has been replaced with one from the Statesman. The critical review from Shobaa Dee is not compulsory for GA criteria i.e broad coverage but not comprehensive at the call. Awards and nominations have a separate article, its again optional to have a summary here, but still the article is linked and that is good enough. Character map of remakes is present in quite a lot of films which have been remade into two or more languages. Its arbitrary but no harm in having it. It gives details about what role has been essayed by whom. Arora's item number is necessary. Looking at films like Ra.One, which have details of cameos and guest appearances in the same, this one is no different. Critical acclaim has been added and the story in one line is summarizing the entire plot. The lead is already a tad too long and increasing it more is not going to be of any advantage. Regards. X.One ^SOS 08:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Well no, author and date fields should be included if the info is available and they should not be avoided just because it is not technically "mandatory". This is essential and that's the proper way in which the sources should be formatted. For further info, please see WP:CITEHOW.
• There's no such thing as "compulsory" as far as critics' reviews are concerned, nothing is compulsory as such anyway, but it should not be ignored if it's mentioned and suggested on the talk page. Here's the link.
• "Character map of remakes is present in quite a lot of films" - now let me refer you to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The fact that such trivial tables exist in other articles does not mean it should be here. I find that it has little relevance on the article. It's also quite puzzling that you say "no harm in having it" while not addressing more important points such as citation format and addition of more reviews, justifying that it's not a must, while insisting to have this insignificant table.
• The other quote added into the box is in my view even less suitable, considering it is less an analysis of the film and more about perception of Indian cinema as a whole and discussion of other filmmakers which does not contribure much to the article. I would add the Nikhat Kazmi quote which appears in the body text ("For anybody who wants to know what is..."), which is a more appropriate summary of what the reviewer thinks about the film, and would be quite effective as a representative quote.
• I disagree about the suggested importance of Arora's cameo, and I can't see how it can be possibly seen as "necessary" in what should essentially be a summary of the article (WP:LEAD). Removing it would, in turn, shorten the lead. Once again, the fact that it cameos are mentioned in other articles does not necessarily make it essential in this one, unless there was more discussion of her item number.
• I think a short mention of awards the film won would only make the reading experience better. Nowhere in the article is it mentioned that the film was awarded "Best Film" honours at popular award functions, and that Salman received some for his performance. The awards page stands on its own after all, and that's why it's called "Main article".
• Please remember that it's not the length of the lead which matters, but the content.
• Too much weight is given to its performance at the box office. Mentioning the overall performance would be more than enough - top day grosser, week grosser, weekend grosser, are just too much detail for the lead and belong in the body. See, "The film broke many records at the box office within the first week of its release. It also received a lot of critical acclaim and went on to become a commercial success."
  • "many" is subjective.
  • "a lot of critical acclaim" - a lot? Does not sound objective or encyclopedic in any way.
  • "and went on to become a commercial success" - this is just repeating what the previous sentence just said. No need to emphasise its commercial success.
  • Too many "also" take away from the quality of the prose.
  • My suggestion for the first senctence "The film opened to generally positive reviews and broke several box-office records upon release".

I may end up reviewing the article for GA, but there are too many problems there, and as I said it is not Ga quality as of yet. The article is in need of a thorough copyedit. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, first of all WP:CITEHOW itself says that it is not imperious to include all fields. I just thought of implementing a consistency in the references so that it is paltrier to identify. Kindly enumerate the section in which you would like the controversy to be added in. I removed the table, but still I see no proper induction for that. The quote box has been addressed. It has been ousted with Nikhat Kazmi's quote from TOI. There has been sufficient dope about the item number and it is a part of the main cast. An item number receiving a notice from almost all critics makes it worthy of inclusion. I added a small bit about the awards, just enough to keep it on border. The rest of it can be obtained from the main article. If any specific problem is there regarding the lead, let me know. I guess you took care of the rest of the lead issues. And finally, your issues which have not been addressed do not go against the article receiving a GA status. If you can, please go through the GA criteria and look through all the points given. Thanks. X.One ^SOS 08:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I am perfectly aware of the GA criteria, and have reviewed several articles for GA in the past (and contributed to several GAs as well). Mind you, what I present here is not a GA review (probably as of yet, depends on how much time I happen to have), these are suggestions to improve the article (which are quite friendly, by the way).

I'm happy you've addressed some of the issues, the article looks much better. Well done.

The review of Shobha De would be relevant in the "Critical response" section, unless you'd want to have the controversy itself mentioned.

I don't want to turn it into an argument of sorts, I don't mind taking it to another board (and after all I'm saying it just to have a better article). WP:CITEHOW says "Citations for World Wide Web pages typically include the name of the author(s), the title of the article (within quotation marks), the name of the website, the date of publication (if known)..." - I think the more the better, if you do not have enough time for that, it's understandeable, but it's not just that: some of the sources (49) lack accessdates, newspaper names should appear in italics (WP:MOS) - the entire list of references should be properly formatted. Consistency is good but why not be consistently good?

A thorough copyedit is still in need. I'll see if I can do it later in the day or ask someone else. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. The denial of author and date of publication does not drive the article away from GA status because the guildeline itself says that it is not mandatory. The same applies for the controversial reaction of a critic. And please point out the sections which need a copy-edit, if any. I see a little necessity for it. X.One ^SOS 10:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I mentioned a couple of sentences about Dee in the controversy section. 14:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Nowhere in the guideline is it said that it's not mandatory. Adding a reception section is not mandatory either, having sections of remakes and controversies are not mandotory either. You could just have two lines to establish general notability and that's it. Does it mean you should just avoid everything that's not "mandatory"? I don't think so. If you want to have a good article you have to work a little harder (I'm not referring to you in particular). If dates and authors are available then it's definitely worth adding. If you still disagree, then maybe a third party would be a good way to go.

Also, having controversy sections is problematic to avoid WP:UNDUE, and they are generally deprecated (WP:CRIT). It's better to incorporate relevant info into the rest of the article. Coming to Shobhaa De's review, it could easily be shifted to the reception section as one of the comments.

Which brings me to the next point, and it is the suggested bias of De's review. It is after all normal critique which she wrote for a leading newspaper. You can see here her full review of the film, and not even once does she mention Salman's offscreen acts as having any influence on her review. The fact that she called to boycott Dabangg is an altogether different story which can be mentioned separately but it should not be mixed with her review, which should be among all the other reviews on the article in the appropriate section. The filmmakers' angry rants can be mentioned right after that. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

To determine an article's prospect in becoming GA, the only benchmark to look at is the GA criteria. Removing sections on the basis of them not being mandatory does not remunerate the "broad coverage" requirement, and an article satisfying WP:GNG does not fundamentally have the status of exhibiting itself as a GA. Coming to the controversy section, I find no undue weightage given for any sentence contained within it and it is all presented in a neutral manner. They may be generally deprecated, but that does not make it so in all articles, and again this does not violate GA standard by any means, whatsoever. Shifting it to the reception section would create a major problem, as Shobaa Dee is not an experienced critic, and she has been in light only because of her controversial reviews. In any case, they fit better in the controversy section and also, if I am not mistaken, her review was published in the Bangalore Times, and it clearly says that TOI does not take responsibility for all such things published in it. The fact is that it is controversial, and recognized only for its status as one. Salman's off-screen acts have also been criticized by her, specifically the Mumbai blasts and some others, perhaps. The rants of the film-makers are associated with her review, and not at all with her criticism on Salman's comments regarding the event. Hence, mentioning the review in one section and the response in another section would make no sense X.One ^SOS 10:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I totally, and respectfully, disagree about De (by the way, it's De not Dee). She is a published writer, period. If she writes a certain critique for a newspaper then it counts just as much as every other review on the article, and is equally important. Taran Adarsh is also often criticised for the way he reviews films, and apart from that, you can't really tell me the cresentials and the experience of each of the reviewers appearing on the page, can you? Her comments against Mr. Khan have nothing to do with the review, and yes, they should be discussed individually, if anything (except for "boycott Dabangg" it's got nothing to do with the film at all). Stars can always hit back at reviewers for not having satisfied their expectations. Anurag Kashyap, for one, spoke publicly against almost all the reviewers who were critical of No Smoking. Now that can be mentioned, of course, but not in this way, ignoring her personal views of the film as a critic in favour of a Twitter controversy it went on to spark.

I have absolutely no problem with the Controversy section, it was just a suggestion to improve the article further.

I still have a problem, however, with the lacking format of the citations, but more on this later. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I repeat, if it turns a blind eye to the GA criteria, its worth scrutinizing. But apparently, it doesn't. X.One ^SOS 07:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, my friend, it really depends on who the reviewer is. There should be much more to an argument than "GA criteria" - there's also common sense and policy (like WP:UNDUE), which everyone must respect. For me, the problem with Shobhaa De is a major one. She wrote a published review, and it should be mentioned in an appropriate section, period. This wasn't such a major controversy, and the article implies that De was critical of the film because of Salman Khan's offscreen acts - complete violation of WP:SYNTH.

And the sources, as I said, are in need of formatting per WP:CITEHOW, which does not say it's not "mandatory".

Prose needs work. Just look at one sentence (from a quick glance into one of the setions): "In recent time, Arbaaz Khan has cast south baddie Prakash Raj as the villain in Dabangg 2 and Sonakshi Sinha continues as leading lady." - What's "recent time"? "south baddie Prakash Raj"! Huh?! Is it a magazine or what?

Please remember that this may turn out as a GA review eventually (not that it matters because every editor's rational comments should be respected and not just ignored). If you still disagree with what I'm saying, I don't mind even starting an RfC about the problems (particularly De's review), but it will just ruin the article's prospects at this point. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I fail to comprehend why "the article implies that De was critical of the film because of Salman Khan's offscreen acts" is a "complete violation of WP:SYNTH." Please go through the quote again : "Salman Khan's shocking statement about 26/11 smacks of arrogance, ignorance and plain stupidity. A lame apology won't do Sallu bhai. Boycott Dabangg." It is obvious that she said "boycott Dabangg", because of the comments. If I am mistaken, please let me know. X.One ^SOS 13:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

And WP:CITEHOW says "Citations for World Wide Web pages typically include the name of the author(s), the title of the article (within quotation marks), the name of the website, the date of publication (if known), the date you retrieved the page." That does not mean it always should include it. Its certainly optional. X.One ^SOS 13:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, there must have been a misunderstanding here regarding Miss De's comments - here's the link to the full review of Shobhaa De, which was published separately. She says, "Let’s hand it to Salman who has pulled off the stunts and pelvic thrusts. Nothing new there. But it is the naughty self-parodying, which is so camp, so out there, which delivers the biggest punch. What’s left for this guy now — all he needs is a cape."

I would also like to clarify that my comments appear here only in order to improve the article. I appreciate your work on film articles and I'm always excited about new GANs and FACs related to Indian cinema, that's why I want their quality to be as good as it gets. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Please excuse me for a couple of days. I will be back and look into those issues. Thanks for the congenial comments. X.One ^SOS 16:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

As worded, I have added De's review in the critical response section and added dates and authors wherever possible. X.One ^SOS 17:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shshshsh (talk · contribs) 19:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

All my comments can be found in the previous section (here) and most have been addressed. I'm glad problems with citations and other major concerns have been taken care of. I've taken the liberty of copyediting the article in some portions. Overall, I believe the article meets the GA criteria; it is comprehensive, well-sourced, and very well organised. I still believe it would benefit from further copyediting, as prose could only get better with more work, but otherwise it's readable and is according to me satisfactory as is. Well done. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I must say, Christ and you be thanked! You've made a large addition to the terrific moments of my memoir. X.One ^SOS 12:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

shooting began for dabangg 2

dabangg 2 shooting has began and its suprising to see theres no page on it in wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.218.68 (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Could you please provide sources for the commencement of shooting? Otherwise, the article cannot be created. Secret of success (talk) 06:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

http://entertainment.oneindia.in/bollywood/features/2012/salman-khan-dabangg-2-shooting-start-today-090312.html

http://www.indicine.com/movies/bollywood/dabangg-2-shooting-begins/

http://www.glamsham.com/movies/scoops/12/mar/09-news-dabangg-2-shooting-commences-today-031205.asp

have a look at these, and its surprising how wikipedia is sooo behind. PLZ NOW MAKE A PAGE FOR DABBANGG 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.218.68 (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think its done. Secret of success (talk) 05:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Audio File

Planning to add audio file,most perchance tittle track.Top contributors let me know. Thank You 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^{Be Calm} 07:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

chulbul pandey

please make another page for "chulbul pandey" as the charater is really famous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.221.52 (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Chulbul Pandey

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Da merge has it. Guy (Help!) 23:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

---

There's nothing in the Chulbul Pandey article to justify a separate page. (Current timestamp so the bot will not remove the RfC notice. Cunard (talk) 04:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)) Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• support merge , no indication that the character as a character has been covered by third party sources in a way that cannot be /is not already covered in this article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
• The redirect of Chulbul Pandey was contested at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 5#Chulbul Pandey. I have restored the article for review here and added an {{rfc}} tag to this discussion.

  I recommend posting a closure request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure after consensus has been reached or 30 days have passed. I am neutral

  Pinging all the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chulbul Pandey participants: User:Kailash29792, User:MichaelQSchmidt, User:TheLongTone, User:TheRedPenOfDoom, User:Northamerica1000, and User:Xania. Pinging AfD closer: User:S Marshall. Pinging opening poster: User:Justlettersandnumbers. Cunard (talk) 04:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

  • • As per before, there is still no evidence that the character as a character has been the subject of any third party discussion. the contents at the recreated stub at Chulbul Pandey suffers from the same (and even more) lack of content particularly anything encyclopedic as when it was at Chulbul Pandey (character). There is in fact, nothing even to merge. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• I closed the AfD, but I'm afraid I have no opinion as an editor.—S Marshall T/C 18:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support merge into parent article. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support merge Pointed here by the random RFC bot. The article doesnt justify itself as a separate article. It consists of two lines. AlbinoFerret 00:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support merge Chulbul Pandey has no reason to exist. Haminoon (talk) 08:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support merge: Until the creator wishes to expand it, which I don't think he will do. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• Merge After reviewing the relevant material I'm inclined to support merging the two articles. -The Gnome (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dabangg/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 18:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll finish this review by tomorrow at the latest JAGUAR  18:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Initial comments

• "with debutante Sonakshi Sinha" - what makes Sonakshi Sinha debutante? Is this referring to her as a character in the film?
• "and tells the story of Chulbul Pandey and his troubled relationship with his stepfather and half-brother" - this might read better as and tells the story of a corrupt but fearless police officer, Chulbul Pandey, and his troubled relationship with his stepfather and half-brother? Or something similar? If so, remove the short sentence "Pandey is a corrupt but fearless police officer"
• "Dabangg was released during Eid on 10 September 2010 in nearly 1800 screens worldwide" - would be worth rephrasing this to either in nearly 1800 cinemas or to nearly 1800 screens
• "Chedi takes advantage of the situation, and takes Makkhi and his father to the police station" - along with his father
• "Chulbul meets Dayal Babu (Anupam Kher), the leader of Lok Manch" - what is Lok Manch? This wasn't described before?
• " They come to an agreement to keep Chedi in control" - this didn't make sense to me, in control of what?
• "but eventually changed his mind and roped in Salman" - 'roped in' sounds a bit informal
• "Some people have alleged that it is inspired from the Pakistani song" - weasel words, I'd rephrase this to It was alleged that it was inspired from
• "It opened up across 1,800 screens in India and around 300 screens overseas" - this wasn't mentioned before, it only said that it released in 1800 screens worldwide? Should the previous statement be 2100 screens worldwide?
• "overseas.Dabangg" - missing space
• " Box Office India declared the film as a "Blockbuster" in India after its first week run" - why is blockbuster in quotes?

References

• No dead links

All done, thanks to Kailash. -- Frankie _talk 15:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

On hold

Overall a very well written and comprehensive article, I enjoyed reading it! Once they're all clarified you can have a GA. JAGUAR  16:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry FrB.TG, I have just finished the rest of the review now. Once the remaining issues are addressed this should be good to go. JAGUAR  16:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Jaguar All done. Thanks for the review. -- Frankie _talk 16:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing them! This looks good to go now, well done JAGUAR  20:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your positive review. My first GA! :) -- Frankie _talk 21:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dabangg. 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/20150509165746/http://koimoi.c2w.com/2010/09/10/dabangg-review-salman-khan-by-komal-nahta/ to http://koimoi.c2w.com/2010/09/10/dabangg-review-salman-khan-by-komal-nahta

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 23:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)