Jump to content

Talk:List of How I Met Your Mother episodes

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

Summaries = Screenshots

[edit]

If someone will add the remaining summaries to season 1, I will add the screenshots. For legal reasons, it's best to have the summaries first. - Peregrinefisher 01:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Episode Pages

[edit]

I am adding wikipedia pages for each individual episode, with 3 so far. if others would like to help with this, just make sure that they are in the same format as the original three. Thanks - Eldude611 March 10, 2007

Sounds good, but I added some info to The Pineapple Incident that you may want to add to each ep as you go. I added an image, external links to the episode at TV.com and Imdb, and I created a category for these pages and added it. I also broke the plot summary into three paragraphs. I would recommend you do these things to all the eps. Cheers. - Peregrine Fisher 18:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i think we should disamb all the episodes, that way they are easier to keep track of... ie have them "Episode name" (HIMYM Episode) or "Episode Name" (HIMYM)... -Xornok 19:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was a giant fight over this issue a couple of months ago, and only disambiguate when necessary was the result. You can read about it at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television). - Peregrine Fisher 19:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i know, i took part in it, but still, its just easier to disamb so that if another tv show has the same episode name, we dont have to go back and disambiguate and do all the redirects... it also makes organizing the pages easier cause they are all consistent. i didn't agree with the outcome of that "fight" anyways... -Xornok 23:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I've been doing, and I changed the disambiguation so that it is easier for people to tell. - Eldude611

The episode 15 of season 4 has already been broadcast which is incorrectly shown as to be broadcast on 2 march 2009...

Screenshots

[edit]

Did i miss something why do screenshots no longer appear in the episode columns ?

Deletion of Episode Pages

[edit]

Has there been any change in the policy for HIMYM episode pages? The new episodes from season 3 are either being considered for deletion or redirect to the episode list.

Vellayappan (talk) 07:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HIMYM dose deserve to be listed, I have seen a couple of episodes on Sky a few months ago.--86.29.248.175 (talk) 07:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

[edit]

Hi, folks. I see that the episode articles which have ambiguous titles (like "Pilot" and "Matchmaker") are currently disambiguated by the phrase (How I Met Your Mother episode). Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) recommends that when such disambiguation is necessary, all that's required is the name of the series (unless that itself is ambiguous, in cases like Serenity (Firefly episode), since Serenity (Firefly) would be ambiguous.

This is a heads-up that in the next few days I'll probably be moving these articles to the disambiguation (How I Met Your Mother) — so, for example, Pilot (How I Met Your Mother episode) will move to Pilot (How I Met Your Mother). The old titles will remain as redirects, so it won't be necessary to change all the links. (See also WP:R#NOTBROKEN.)

This is just a minor stylistic matter, so shouldn't be controversial. While I'm doing it, I'll also check to make sure that there are links to the articles on the appropriate disambiguation pages (I noticed that there is no link to the HIMYM episode "Matchmaker" at Matchmaker, for example — there should be, and I'll add one after I move the page.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date at Top

[edit]

Do we really need the date at the top of the article? I mean, people haven't come to this page to see what the date is. If anything, the date should not automatically update and it should me manually updated every time a new episode airs, so it really is accurate. With the current system, if nobody updates that counter the date given portrays it as though the counter has been updated. Yally (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Season 2 region 2 release date

[edit]

Does anyone have an actual source on the release date for Season two in region two format? It says October 1, 2008, but believe me I have trawled shops and the internet and have yet to find a Region two DVD for Season Two.78.105.240.23 (talk) 09:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting Problems

[edit]

Just thought I'd let everyone know that the external links, etc that normally show at the end of the article are stuck above the Season 4 information table. I looked in the code and they were in the correct order there...maybe some line of formatting that I didn't understand threw them off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.218.3 (talk) 03:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Sections

[edit]

I've been looking through some of the individual episodes recently and noticed that almost every "Errors" section has been removed. I even added an errors section to the Season 4 episode "Sorry, Bro", but it has been removed. Why are people removing these sections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JDVirgil (talk • contribs) 14:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is me. I've been removing them because they all fail WP:TRIVIA as unsourced and unimportant. All of that exists elsewhere, anyway. This is Wikipedia, not IMDB. That doesn't belong here. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 04:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One issue I have with this is that a major facet of How I Met Your Mother's specific comedy is how it uses continuity-based callbacks and callforwards, which is something that was lost in this trivia purge. Rwiggum has stated these are 'unimportant'; I'd actually claim that they are a very important aspect of How I Met Your Mother's unique style as a television show (and use of comedy in television). Is there any way to preserve discussion (and perhaps examples) of this style in a way that conforms to notability guidelines? 76.68.143.197 (talk) 06:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

why can i not revert?

[edit]

Since there have obviously not been 283 episodes aired to date, I have been trying to revert the count at the top of the page back to "83" and am getting a browser error every single time I submit the correction...this is happening in chrome, IE7, Firefox, and Opera. I have had absolutely no problem making any other revisions, even to this page...only to revising the episode count. Is anyone else having this problem or can someone else PLEASE change the episode count to 83? It's driving me nuts...(maybe because 83 is Barney's go-to fictional statistic number...who knows?)ocrasaroon (talk) 05:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind the above issue. It was a problem with the template formula, but it's all better now. Enjoy 83, folks...84 will be here shortly:) ocrasaroon (talk)

Episode notability

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved
 – Episodes kept

I am proposing merging most or all individual episodes to this page. From what I've seen, almost all of them fail the general notability guidelines as completely unsourced. Most of them only consist of plot summaries and a description of what music appeared in the episode. Now BEFORE YOU RESPOND, please keep in mind that this isn't about whether or not you like the articles. Arguments like "People find them useful" or "they're TV episodes, of course they're notable" are not valid, since Wikipedia notability guidelines are based on sourced notability, not how many people use the articles. Of course, there may be some that can be kept if they are in some way notable, but we can deal with that on an episode-by-episode basis. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 14:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support merging of episodes that do not have content beyond the basic plot, guest cast and other in-universe info. However I've observed that keeping track of all the episode articles so that any editor (anon or otherwise) does not revert these mergers is a rather tedious task. LeaveSleaves 14:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't the first step to put notability tags on the pages to give people the chance to establish notability before we talk about a merge, so until that is done I Oppose the merge.Tej68 (talk) 01:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In terms of reception, you can couple of reviews for almost every episode. Additionally there is information available on television ratings for first airing. But the question is: is that information sufficient enough? I feel the primary information in the episode article (excluding plot) should be regarding its production. LeaveSleaves 02:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the risk of being drawn into another notability war, I agree with the proposal - although some individual episodes (especially the pilot episode) may meet the notability criteria, most of the episode articles appear to be nothing more than a long plot description (which violates WP:PLOT), and some 'in-universe' trivia (which violates WP:TRIVIA). These doesn't meet the general notability criteria (WP:N), or the general fiction guidelines at WP:FICT in terms of establishing 'real world' notability. I know this is always a contentious area, and a lot of people have put time and effort into constructing the articles, but some guidelines have to be followed or WP will just turn into a TV listings site. CultureDrone (talk) 07:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support merging most or all of the episode articles to this main list. While there is some potential for them, HIMYM obviously doesn't have the following in WP to make all of these high-quality. All of the episode summaries in this list, however, need to be lengthened first. One or two sentences is not enough. Reywas92Talk 13:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose the merge. First, just to respond to CultureDrone, the term "non- blockbuster" gives itself to a lot of subjectivity, and How I Met Your Mother has consistently gathered 9-10 million viewers. I'm a bit new to editing, but after reading the general notability guidelines that Rwiggum suggested, I'm a little unclear on how it doesn't meet the guidlines. For significant coverage, television episodes are rarely individually reviewed in the press or online, so it seems like you're saying we should merge most if not all tv episode summaries. For reliability, most television episodes have TV Guide and Nielsen ratings coverage posted on a regular basis. Would it simply be a matter of citing those sources? Also, what differentiates one show from another?. For independence, I don't think any of the material posted is from CBS, but do you have proof otherwise?

himymfan (talk) 09:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reviews aren't enough to prove notability. There needs to be actual coverage of the episode. Also, while 9-10 million viewers seems like a lot, it isn't enough to make each episode notable. To give you an idea, look at List of Friends episodes. Friends was one of the most successful sitcoms of the last few decades, if not of all time, and even IT doesn't have individual episode pages. Sorry, but there just isn't anything to suggest that these episodes would be notable on their own. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 15:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Responding to himymfan's comment above - "so it seems like you're saying we should merge most if not all tv episode summaries" - actually, yes that's true as all series are subject to the same criteria as we're discussing here. However, the 'removal' of articles about every episode of a TV series has always started a war amongst those in favour of keeping them, and those in favour of merging them - hence my original comment about being drawn into another notability war - and as soon as they're merged, someone unmerges/rewrites them - and round and round we go until someone gives up or gets reported for 3RR/edit warring. I support the merging of the non-notable episodes of any series - but I'm also realistic enough to know that, unless the pages are protected, or an admin/crat steps in, or the guidelines are made more specific, that individual articles are likely to creep back in over time - but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try in the first place. I also suggest people have a look at Wikipedia:Television episodes, and its associated talk page. CultureDrone (talk) 08:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also oppose the merge. Consider the fact that on the list of the List of The Big Bang Theory episodes, the episodes have two-paragraph plot summaries. The plot summaries of How I Met Your Mother episodes are several paragraphs longer, which certainly means the possibility of individual articles would create more space. Furthermore, many episodes have "Cultural References", "Continuity/Errors", and "External Links". This makes four sections, enough for the automatic table of contents to appear. Angelica K (talk) 01:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should point out that two of the sections you mentioned, "Cultural References" and "Continuity/Errors" are unsourced in almost each article, is considered trivia and mostly added there as fancruft. As for the plot description, they can be succinctly explained through summary style as is done in this article. Remember
  • I oppose the merge. The Wikipedia pages are informative not only in plot but in other details. Wikipedia pages make them easily accessible - most viewers do not go to the individual pages to read the plot summary in my experience. Since How I Met Your Mother makes ample pop culture references and extreme continuity is present throughout the series, I think that an individual page for each HIMYM episode is fitting. Such details could not fit into one episode page index.

WP:NOT#PLOT. LeaveSleaves 01:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support As with all shows, most episodes should not have their own article. The exception being particularly notable episodes (say series finales, significant outside discussion or controversy, historical significance, etc). Any article that does not meet notability should be merged —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.34.219 (talk) 02:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. In principle individual episodes might not be notable, but notability is a very fudgy issue so I'm uncomfortable with any argument derived solely from it. The notion that plot summaries of TV episodes are unsourced is a bit silly; referencing television shows is something done quite frequently in academia, and quite a few style guides have well-developed guidelines for citing television shows. Most of these plot summaries could easily be cited and sourced; likewise with the music and cultural references. If it's verifiable, I say we err on the side of inclusion -- these articles are not doing any harm. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not merely a generalist encyclopaedia; its scope encompasses all fields. I don't see a reason why we can't be an encyclopaedia of pop culture, as banal as it sometimes is. Johnleemk | Talk 03:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose the merger, for the same reasons as hnc197. Wikipedia has the possibility to have multiple subpages under the primary page. It is a seldom used feature which would be ideal in this case. In this way we could have a list of episodes under /List_of_How_I_Met_Your_Mother_episodes and each episode under /List_of_How_I_Met_Your_Mother_episodes/Episode_Name. Webhat (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't see the justification in merging. The policy does not seem consistently applied, with many other series having individual episode pages (such as M*A*S*H). It appears that this is tinkering for the sake of tinkering - there are plenty of areas of Wikipedia requiring more attention than this. 203.221.201.182 (talk) 04:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. It seems to be a broader WP policy question. Should TV episodes have articles? I'm pretty sure not. A list with a 2 line summary for each epi should be enough. So here as for all of WP, I support a merge. Whoever wants can find plot summaries on twenty other web-site. Joe407 (talk) 05:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I'm not much of a WikiPedia expert so I'll give my opinion on this from a user perspective. It is an interesting debate what should be an article in wikipedia and what shouldn't. I think wikipedia has become much more than a regular encyclopedia, and from that perspective I believe that it's not a real problem to let each episode have it's own article. Besides this list is handy when you want to skim though them to find the name of one of the episodes quickly. I think the article would become way to big when merged and it would not contribute to the "searchability" of information. - Jip Fransen 13.20, 22 September 2009 (GMT+1)
  • Strong oppose What harm do these articles do? None! Why would anyone want to delete something, that is useful and brings causes harm? Unsourced? What kind of sources do you want for such articles? A plot summary from another website? How would improve dependability? Sitcom ITSELF is the best source for nearly everything in those articles. And it is used as source. Friends don't have article for each episode only because no one cared enough to create them.--Tired time (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly you don't understand how Wikipedia works. The prime criterion for inclusion isn't "It doesn't do any harm." The fact that you even admit the difficulty of providing sources is proof positive that these articles aren't notable enough to be included. Also, most of the Friends episodes DID have articles, but they were deleted for the same reasons I'm proposing these articles are. And the show itself can be sourced to verify information, but it cannot be sourced to provide notability. External sources are needed for that. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 21:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, by your logic, I should be able to create an article for the band I was in in high school, since it "wouldn't hurt anybody." Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 21:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not admit difficulty of providing sources, I said there is no need to search for sources other than the sitcom itself when you write a plot summary (and that's what all those articles basically are). I can provide you with sources that prove notability. Lets take any episode. For example Showdown (How I Met Your Mother) (the one with the lowest ratings). There is no problem of finding secondary sources about it: [1], [2], [3], [4]... I do understand how wikipedia works, but I think that people often overemphasize notability requirements. Look at those Notability guidelines: first four of them are only concerned with independent of the subject sources, because it is not possible to write a verifiable, neutral article without them. The problems with you witting about your high school band are stated in WP:AB and WP:PROMOTION - it would hurt readers because probably it would not be neutral. The only problem I see about somebody else writing about your high school band is that you couldn't know if all that information is true, because there would be no independent of the subject sources, which I could use to check it.--Tired time (talk) 07:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The show is ongoing with a contract requesting 110 episodes to be made. I'd just be repeating the above reasons but your proposal needs to at least specify which if any episodes qualify as notable. Your proposal seems to be keep the Pilot episode and merge all the rest. How I Met Your Mother may have lots of small episode pages but it does not have a sprawl of minor character pages or character lists like other shows have, and I think it is less contrived to have episodes articles rather than a few overly complicated pages for fictional characters. If you think this is messy any merge would just push enthusiastic editors to contribute to the pages that do exist and would make things more messy than they are now. -- Horkana (talk) 23:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Improving the episode articles

[edit]

It is great that so many people want to keep the articles. Unfortunately there are plenty of editors who don't and are cutting the articles down to size very quickly, deleting all kinds of things in the articles they don't like. The articles do have a lot of trivia but a lot of it could be saved if it was better organised and not just lumped under the Trivia heading and it should be possible to find sources for it given a bit of time but editors are just deleting it from the article so you will have to dig through the article histories to find a lot of it. If you have the series on DVD and can add references to the episode commentaries that would go a long way to providing the necessary sources, and keeping the episode summaries at a quality level where deletion is very hard to justify.
I've been adding References sections to any of the episode articles I've edited, hopefully we can add plenty of references. It would really help improve the quality of the articles and give us many potential sources of references if they had a "Critical response" section. The AV Club has a category full of reviews of How I Met Your Mother. There are more thing that need to be done to improve the articles than I could possibly do on my own and plenty of editors deleting which takes them a lot less time than it does for me to find sources or even dig through the article histories nad then go to the Wayback machine at the Internet Archive and find archived copies of old sources.
Please help, if all of those who expressed interest here in keeping the article alive could pick one episode and add one bit of properly cited information or find a citation for content has been deleted, it would quickly make the quality of the articles much much better. -- Horkana (talk) 00:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the trivia being used would be more appropriate on the How I Met Your Mother Wiki which could really use more contributors with the enthusiasm here. — JediRogue (talk) 00:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Automated date

[edit]

No offense meant, but that automated date thing is the dumbest thing I've ever seen. What could possibly be the point? If it's always going to say today's date, then you can just eschew the "As of [today]" altogether and say "There are 88 episodes aired." I mean, wow. I'm removing it. Propaniac (talk) 12:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The automated date feature is there because print and mirrored versions of the page would became inaccurate as soon as a new episode is aired unless it specifically says when it was last accurate. See Wikipedia:Age calculation templates.
But if it's automated to say "as of today" (replace today with whatever the current date is) then by it's nature it's inaccurate as soon as a new episode airs until someone updates the article. It should require the person updating the episode count to also change the date 98.203.174.254 (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No plot summary anymore ?

[edit]

Is there a reason why there are no plot summary anymore, as in this revision ? I found them useful for a quick preview of what the episode was about... I know there's a page for every single episode, but it's a pain to click on each link to see the plot. Metoule (talk) 15:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The summaries are at the season pages (like How I Met Your Mother (season 1)) as is standard for most TV programs with more than one season, see List of Lost episodes. With over a hundred episodes the page was far too long. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Took me a minute to realise where the summaries had gone too but this is a good move. Anyone wanting to just get the episode names and dates can now do so without getting any accidental plot or guest star spoilers (and far too many people abuse the spoiler policy just to be jerks and inflict grief). The extra space means we can be a little bit more detailed in our summaries too. I also think a lot of these summaries could be re-used in the articles themselves to give a brief overview in the intro/lead of an article but there are so many articles that need* references and citations I'll be kept too busy with that to do much else. -- Horkana (talk) 02:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Darrenhusted, thanks for the explanation! Metoule (talk) 10:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barney's blog

[edit]

I've been trawling through the Internet Archive for old versions of Barney's blog (and occasionally http://www.legen-waitforit.com/barney/ ). The CBS website isn't particular well structured and all of Barney's blog entries are presented on one page. Perhaps when the Internet Archive releases the pages they have logged since 2008 we will be able to make better links but for now that Season 5 has finished I have used WebCite to created an archived copy of the Barney's blog page which should make it a bit more reliable as the page continues to change. I will be using the long transparent link from WebCite (and there is also a short link but I will not be using that, I prefer the more detailed link) to preemptively backup Barney's blog entries from Season 5. I previously used WebCite to archive a few of the blog posts for the episodes at the start of the season, it is preferable to use those links so that the relevant text will be at the top of the page, and not require readers to scroll down. Pity the headings don't have any anchors set. -- Horkana (talk) 05:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong 6th season premiere date

[edit]

I checked the source for the premiere date and it actually says Septmber 20th, not 27th, as was mistakenly reported on the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.41.235.20 (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Series Overview

[edit]

Is that (plus the cast list) really necessary here? --82.10.203.103 (talk) 13:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article follows the template of other TV articles, if you have a suggestion then take it to the TV project. --Darrenhusted (talk) 12:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Robin Sparkles"

[edit]

For some reason, when I click on the link for the Season 2 episode "Robin Sparkles" (which the title should also be changed to "Slap Bet"), it goes to Robin's character profile instead of the correct episode summary, which I had to look for since it isn't easily found on this page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slap_Bet

Since I'm a total noob when it comes to editing Wikipedia pages (and this is my first time posting here), please make the necessary changes.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.148.148 (talk) 11:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Season 7

[edit]

What happened to the season 7 section of this article?--A9l8e7n (talk) 06:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to know what happened. It seems pretty radical to remove an entire season for "vandalism". 72.80.121.199 (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Last Forever" Episode Info

[edit]

Currently, there's a summary for "Last Forever", but it's not cited, and I'm not sure it's official. I mean, it's technically correct (unless the show pulls something in the last episode), but it might not be the official CBS release, especially considering that The End of the Aisle has no summary yet. Celarix (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Summaries for both can be found here and here though I have removed the one from "Last Forever" as a WP:COPYVIO --Jnorton7558 (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have now referenced and attempted to re-word the summaries for the final four episodes. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I've noticed multiple upon multiple times, and I've only corrected a few of them, that there are numerous bad links within many episode descriptions. In other words, whoever posted the plots for any of the episodes, they inputted links to nonexistent Wikipedia articles. Simply put, they show up as red links. Who wants to clean these up? Because I'm certainly not going to do all of them. Aidensdaddy2k9 (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of How I Met Your Mother episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 05:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of How I Met Your Mother episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 13:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_How_I_Met_Your_Mother_episodes&oldid=1208247600"