Jump to content

Talk:Dynasty (1981 TV series)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Congrats to the writers

I've got absolutely no interest in Dynasty, and I won't bore you with the story of how I ended up here. But I really enjoyed reading that, and felt much more informed at the end of it. Good work. --bodnotbod 13:59, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

Catfight

Didn't Krystle and Alexis also have a catfight in a burning cabin? Mike H 17:14, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Yes.--JamesB3 01:06, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't know when it happened. Can you add it in the right order to the Krystle and Alexis section? Mike H 02:36, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
I have added some info on this incident... There was no cat fight in the cabin. The scene was an end-of-year cliffhanger. Typed anonymous notes invited both Krystle and Alexis to Steven's cabin one night. When Krystle and Alexis saw one another each assumed the other had typed the invitations. Due to their history a verbal confrontation erupted. Meanwhile someone locked the doors and poured petrol around the cabin. They set the cabin alight and the episode ended with Krystle and Alexis trapped in the flames. No catfight. Following year Mark Jennings appeared to pull the women from the flames. Soon afterwards butler Joseph, fearing that Alexis would blackmail him, admitted he had set the fire and committed suicide. MinorEdit July 2, 2005 04:50 (UTC)
It's a small correction, but just in case someone decides to edit the article at some point to reflect these notes, Alexis and Krystle were not summoned to the cabin with anonymous typewritten notes. Alexis telephoned Krystle and invited her there to meet with Steven (Alexis's son) to discuss custody of his child. (The mother was Krystle's niece.) The invite was a ruse, and Alexis intended to use the meeting to bribe Krystle into leaving Denver. There was, as has been said, no catfight. Just a heated exchange of words. (Whoby 03:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC))
The were anonymous invitations. They were written by the person who set the blaze in an attenpt to kill Alexis. Some weeks later it was revealed to have been Joseph, Kirby's father. It seems like two different cabin meetings are being discussed here. Format 19:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Chewed?

chewed her way through the scripts

What does that actually mean? -- Tarquin 07:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm guessing it means absorbing what was given to her and making the character more bitchy than anyone knew possible? Mike H 15:04, May 23, 2005 (UTC)--
Yes, that's what it means. Being over the top, campy, and spirited. --JamesB3 23:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
I actually wrote that line <hehe> ... chewing the scenery or chewing through scripts is actor slang for a performance which is so over-the-top that it dominates the screen. (Whoby 03:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC))

"You bitch!"

I remember this line being thrown around a lot, especially between Krystle and Alexis. Wasn't this one of the first shows on network television that allowed the use of "bitch" in this context, and could it possibly find its way into the article? Mike H 22:09, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

I also remember Alexis frequently tossing the line "You trashy little tramp!" to Sammy Jo, which became more and more hilarious and enjoyable with each repetition. I also remember Joan Collins being interviewed on a British TV chatshow in the 80s and saying that she had often put the line in even when it wasn't in the script, as she and Heather Locklear found it highly amusing!

Major characters?

I'm not sure if I would classify Prince (Michael Praed was barely on the show a full season and was forgotten soon after his departure) or Ben Carrington's daughter (Terri Garber) as major characters. I don't want to remove someone else's work without asking, so I will ask here to see if anyone agrees with me. --JamesB3 10:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Rather than delete them I would either (A) make it clear in their description how long they were in the series, and mention they were written out and forgotten in later storylines (and by being down at the bottom of the list it seems to imply they weren't that important), or (B) make a new section for less-important characters and put them there. One other thing, I would really like to see mention of which seasons characters were in for. Though I watched the show in the 1980s I've forgotten precisely which seasons some things happened in. As it is the characters are all lumped into the same list but it gives little idea of when in the series they roughly appeared, and that many characters never even met other characters that appeared in different seasons. MinorEdit 10:55, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestions. I was concerned about adding a lot more because of the space limitations, but I can make some changes. I may change the wording from "major" to "memorable", since some of them (Carress) were memorable but not very important. --JamesB3 11:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Cast Longevity - Adding Error

I've tidied the wording of the following: "Linda Evans is the runner-up in terms of the number of episodes an actor appeared in. She appeared in almost every episode from 1981-1989, having missed just two episodes prior to the ninth season. She left the series during the ninth season, and so was absent for sixteen episodes that season. Evans appeared in a total of 204 of the 220 episodes."

However the numbers don't add up. Shouldn't she have appeared in 202 of 220 episodes if there was a 16 episode absence and prior to that 2 missed episodes. Or are the other numbers wrong? Asa01 06:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Dallas

I am surprised that Dallas (TV series) is not mentioned at all in the article. Both were very prominent primetime soap operas in the 1980s, and I thought there was a fierce competition between the two, for viewers and advertiser money. Somebody must have some figures comparing the two... --Austrian 21:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the reason why we avoid the comparison to Dallas, in terms of "fighting for viewers," was because technically, they didn't. The two shows were on different nights (Dynasty was on Wednesdays, I believe, and Dallas was always a Friday fixture). Sure, they were soaps, and some liked one and some liked the other, but they never really battled in the sense you describe. Mike H. That's hot 16:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the point though is that Dallas came first, and Dynasty was created to try to recreate the success of Dallas. They're both soap operas about wealthy oil families.

Article trims, move characters to separate article?

Hi ... this seems long and unwieldy. Also, I would challenge the list of "pivotal" characters? Pivotal? The names listed there are supporting characters. Perhipheral, perhaps. Certainly not pivotal.

Can I suggest moving the list of characters, tidied, into a new article called List of Dynasty characters? The main article could then just retain a truncated summary of the main characters, leaving the List of ... article to run through them in more detail.

Any thoughts? (203.26.177.2 05:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC))

I agree with your suggestions; I'm not sure if anyone else may chime in. --JamesB3 06:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Peer review

This article is a great candidate for peer review. It is definitely not up to Wikipedia standards of NPOV and so forth. Moncrief 20:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Removal of unsourced paragraph

Could we please not re-insert this frankly idiotic paragraph?

>>Many believe that the show was a creation perfect for the Ronald Reagan era and could never have outlived his Presidency.<<

First of all, the show did "outlive" his presidency. It went off the air in May 1989. Reagan left office in January 1989. Second of all, who are these "many" who believe this? How do television ratings and schedules get coordinated with presidential terms? This is bad history and just thoroughly beneath Wikipedia's standards. It's not as if materialism and wealth and vapidity -- and interest in such things -- suddenly disappeared from the American landscape the moment Reagan left office. Moncrief 20:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


Soap opera format?

This section is SO STUPID, and so cliche, it feels very POV but maybe someone else thinks it's valuable? I really reel like this should be deleted, like, yesterday, but what does the "group" think? I actually work on a daytime soap, and as dumb as it is, I don't think any of this crud applies to Dynasty. TAnthony 07:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree with you. Dynasty hardly derived its style from any daytime soap opera. For a start it was a filmed, single-camera production, so it didn't even look like a daytime serial. Style of Dynasty was closer to melodrama feature films, maybe like those of Douglas Sirk (especially when Rock Hudson showed-up on Dynasty.) I most recently saw the opening episodes in a rerun: those huge, wide-angle, shots of hills and fields and rivers do not recall a daytime soap for me! The entire section seems like creative conjecture (original research) on the part of that editor.) Format 09:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I've removed this section from the article, until someone can justify why it should stay in. This is totally contributor analysis, and not even good (TAnthony 04:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)):
Though many primetime dramas are often referred to as "soap operas", Dynasty embodied some elements that characterizes a daytime soap. Many of the visual devices of the daytime soap opera were incorporated into the primetime context of Dynasty. Both daytime soaps and Dynasty are quintessential melodramas, with acting often verging on hammy and exaggerated emotions. They also both share the same devices used to end a scene or an episode. After the last line has been delivered, the music swells as the camera focuses on the face of the character for a few seconds before it goes to dark. Dynastys famous cliffhangers are also characteristic of daytime soap operas, though on a much more powerful scale. Being a primetime drama, Dynasty had the summer break between seasons and the customary week break between episodes to contend with. The shelf life of a daytime soap cliffhanger is, at most, the two day weekend (since in general all soaps air every weekday for the entire year). Thus, the conclusion of a daytime soap usually includes a mini-cliffhanger, though usually not to the scale of something like Dynasty's Moldavian Massacre.

Removal of apocryphal character names

I have removed the false "middle" names of Alexis Carrington ("Marissa"), Fallon Carrington (also "Marissa") and Amanda Carrington ("Kimberly"). The names have no basis of truth in the context of the show (that is, they were never used on screen, or in any official documentation published by the producers, or mentioned by the creators of the show in an interview or in public) and there is no evidence on the internet which supports them.

They originate with a posting into a discussion forum on the show [[1]], in which someone who claimed a staffmember in the production office had revealed them to the author of the posting while researching a project. With no coroborrating evidence to support them, they hardly warrant inclusion.

At best, they are non-canon (or even fanon), at worst, they are simply apocryphal. They could be included as a trivia note perhaps, but even then with no proper sourcing on the web I would think they fail to meet Wikipedia's rules on original research. (203.26.177.2 05:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC))

I got into a mini revert battle with User:Jboy2525 over this today, and after hearing him out (see my my talk archive) have added information regarding the names to the commercial tie-ins section with as much citation as possible.
Also, in looking through my copy of The Authorized Biography from 1984 (none of the questionable middle names are there, by the way), it did mention Jeff's middle name as Broderick and Claudia's maiden name as Barrows; I'm assuming these were used on the show but my memory escapes me (I know Adam Alexander and Steven Daniel were). My point is, if Broderick and Barrows are just from the book, they should be mentioned in that section of this article, not in the Character section. TAnthony 03:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
No worries. It's good to include it, it's just not appropriate to include it in the actual character information. The problem is that the author of the book and Jboy2525 both presuppose that simply because a production office (or writing staff) employee had them pencilled on the wall, they are writ in stone. The fact is most television productions explore dozens of permutations of characters, names and stories and the "canon/non-canon/fanon" vs "expanded universe" standard (e.g. Star Trek, Star Wars) is that unless it actually takes place on air during the episode, it is not considered canon information. Fallon, for example, might have had a middle name on a bit of paper in the writer's room, but in an episode she made specific reference to the fact that she didn't have a middle name, because it had always bothered her. Alexis, also, was originally to be called Madelaine - that doesn't make Madelaine anything more than an abandoned thread. Anyway, good to see it's sorted. (203.26.177.2 06:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC))
Oh, and one PS. Regarding, The Authorized Biography of the Carringtons. Because it was published by the studio, and has the imprimatur of the show's creator Esther Shapiro, I think anything in it can, and should be assumed to be canon. Much in the same way The Star Trek Encyclopaedia, published by Paramount and written by the show's technical consultants, while just a tie-in book, is considered a definitive resource on information about that show. (203.26.177.2 06:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC))

LGBT

OK, perhaps categorizing the show was LGBT-related is overstating it, but main character Steven being gay (and subsequent storylines) was a TV milestone. It was significant to the community. Melrose Place is also tagged as LGBT, is this inappropriate as well? TAnthony 02:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It isn't that much of a milestone. There had already been Soap (TV series). Of course in Australia it had happened much earlier, in Number 96 (TV series) and The Box (TV series). Format 07:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
And yet Soap isn't tagged as LGBT either. There is some discussion about shows not being "gay enough" to be tagged at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies; while I agree having one gay-themed episode or a minor character be gay isn't notable, in the case of Dynasty it was a major character with ongoing storylines related to his sexuality. And it was definitely a milestone in America as one of the first times homosexuality was explored in a serious way on primetime television. TAnthony 20:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Performer years vs. episode spans

I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but not only are years the standard for TV and performer articles, they provide necessary real-world context. Episode numbers mean nothing to the casual reader. As I've asserted in the edit summary of my reverts, epsiode information is already noted in the individual character articles, and with more detail. The main article does not need to contain every bit of trivial info, that's why articles have been split off of it in the first place. Thanks. — TAnthonyTalk 21:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Character stuff

So I just reverted a series of edits to the character sections, but for the sake of fairness I am opening the issue up for discussion. The characters are currently arranged essentially in order of importance in the series overall, with the notables like Krystle, Blake, Alexis and their children under "Main," other contract players of lesser importance/short runs (Matthew Blaisdel, Michael Culhane) under "Pivotal" and the rest (Mrs. Gunnerson) under "Recurring." It particular, the term "pivotal" was the object of discussion. In any case, I wasn't a part of setting it up this way, and some reordering and section renaming may be in order, but in general I agree with this type of grouping.

The edits I reverted were attempting to put every character who had been part of the opening sequence in chronological order. I'm a Dynasty purist too, and my instinct is to see a chronological cast list as well; however, this is an encyclopedia article; as with journalism, more important information is placed toward the top of a section/paragraph and flows down. The casual reader loses interest as they move down a section. The article discusses the series as a whole, the reader should not have to go through minor characters from season 1 (Walter Lankershim) before coming to Alexis. I almost feel like "minor" characters should be part of a separate List and have only the most important noted in this main article. — TAnthonyTalk 02:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

How about creating a separate List of Dynasty (TV series) characters for your chronological list? I suggest you format it like List of One Life to Live cast members (table) or List of One Life to Live characters (list), making sure actor names and character names are clearly delineated. — TAnthonyTalk 08:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Alexis the third party candidate?

I assumed that Alexis was the third party candidate. Blake ran as a democrat and lost to the Republican with Alexis being an independent because she entered the race last.167.206.75.157 (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The making of a guilty pleasure

Now that "Dynasty: The making of a guilty pleasure" has its own page, why keeping the picture and a long summary about it on the main Dynasty page?

Semi-protection

Can this page be semi-protected due to repeated attacks by Felipe Garcia impersonators? --58.178.138.100 (talk) 08:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I made the request here; Carrington family was recently protected for the same reason. — TAnthonyTalk 22:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
The evidence was: keeps on inserting false information that the Carrington family are Mexican rather than American, and on the main page that is of Mexican origin rather than American in the same manner. Also, these impersonators of Felipe Garcia inserted pro-Mexican/pro-Zapatista/anti-racist remarks/comments on their user/user talk pages. Time for improvements, maybe? --203.134.129.221 (talk) 10:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Here's the evidence:
Also least of these users changing the tag images to the image of the Mexican flag on their user talk pages:
58.178.105.125 [2]
58.178.150.64 [3]
202.67.101.170 [4]
And also most of these users in the Australia IP range 58.178.1xx.xxx and other IP ranges inserted pro-Mexican/pro-Zapatista/anti-racist comments/remarks on their user/user talk pages:
58.178.105.125 [5] pro-ACLU [6]
58.178.150.64 [7] [8]
58.178.149.68 [9] [10] [11]
58.178.137.25 [12] [13] [14]
202.67.101.170 [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]

--203.134.129.221 (talk) 10:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Nice one! ^_^ --125.245.208.194 (talk) 11:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Joseph?

"Joseph's daughter" is the first mention of this character in the article. Need to fix this. 4.249.15.6 (talk) 18:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed. Good catch, thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 20:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Main picture

Why has the main picture been changed? The most iconic picture is the title card and it should be reinstated instead of this dvd cover which is nothing special. If, cut off the dvd details part, but really I think it should be the most recognizable and that is the title card like it is for most tv shows on the site, or the cast picture which would be even more appropriate than the dvd. The dvd cover should be moved to the DVD releases section.Dollvalley (talk) 12:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The article originally featured several photos (and the DVD one was in the DVD section), and was reduced to its current state for fair use reasons. While I agree that the title card is iconic, the Blake-Krystle-Alexis trio seems more so, and is definitely more identifiable with the series to the mainstream reader. I would hate to have to trade actual cast photos with static graphics.— TAnthonyTalk 00:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 18 August 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page not moved: Australian series a minor one of little note Ground Zero | t 01:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


Dynasty (TV series) → Dynasty (U.S. TV series) – There's another Dynasty (Australian TV series) so the current name should redirect to the disambiguation page Dynasty (disambiguation), and this should acquire additional disambiguation so as to not be ambiguous, per WP:NCTV; -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

WP:NCTV Use the following when there are two or more television productions of the same name. Prefix the country of broadcast – (U.S. TV series), (Canadian TV series)

this would require U.S., however suggest leaving Special:WhatLinksHere/Dynasty_(TV_series)&limit=500 Dynasty (TV series) redirecting, otherwise will be hell to fix. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Common sense says, why make everything more complicated, when the more notable series (by far) is Dynasty (TV series). Instead, a hatnote at the top of the article directing interested parties to the Australian series (the article for which is a stub, by the way) creates an extra step for just those few looking for the Austalian version and not the masses looking for Joan Collins. Seriously, WP:NCTV is presuming that there is at least a comparable level of notability and I would argue that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies and therefore per WP:2DABS we should just attach a hatnote here that points to the stub.— TAnthonyTalk 14:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
    • There are no "2DABS" situation here, the disambiguation page Dynasty (disambiguation) clearly has more than 2 entries. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not apply, as the article is not called Dynasty, and therefore is not a primary topic. The article carries disambiguation, by definition it is not a primary topic. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Users familiar with WP naming conventions and anticipating disambiguation on common words will naturally search for topics like Dune (novel) or in this case, Dynasty (TV series). I get that technically we want to disambiguate "by the rule", but we are seriously talking about 5 people looking for a 13-episode series stub from 1970 as opposed to the bulk of searchers looking for the US series. It makes more sense to leave it as-is and include a hatnote referring to the other series. If we MUST disambiguate because otherwise the world will end, then Dynasty (TV series) should still redirect to Dynasty (U.S. TV series) with a hatnote. Otherwise you are forcing an extra step on 99% of users. I get where this argument is coming from but this is a drastic case of well-known vs unknown and disambiguating for the sake of it.— TAnthonyTalk 01:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose; we would be trading a more concise title for one less concise, relative to the clearly primary TV series by this name. bd2412 T 02:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I don't understand the logic of those who oppose: how can a topic be primary if it's already disambiguated? Since it's already disambiguated with parentheses and all, what difference does it make when 2 additional letters can make it more precise? I don't disagree with TAnthony's suggestion to redirect Dynasty (TV series) to the US series though. Timmyshin (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, obviously; this is a totally routine move. There's no such thing as an already-disambiguated title that's "primary"; at that point, there's just a poorly disambiguated title that's still ambiguous, or a well-disambiguated title. Primary is what external reliable sources tell us in the aggregate, and they do not use WP's internal disambiguations!  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I have no way on how to have the article about the Aussie show deleted, especially at a condition like this. To be honest, there haven't been home releases on the series. It's most likely a lost series, like other shows in pre-1980s. Does someone here have enough spare time to improve the article about the Aussie series? That aside, we dealt with WP:PDAB, which was a failed guideline to begin with. The "(TV series)" belongs to the American soap opera obviously. Otherwise, "(TV series)" should be a redirect to the American series. --George Ho (talk) 05:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. while I generally support WP:PDAB, in that any partially disambiguated title should be fully disambiguated, this case is so extreme, Dynasty (TV series) overwhelming Dynasty (Australian TV series) by any measure, I can't agree. The second is so insignificant I can't bring myself to add a hatnote to it. Disclaimer: I have never watched either. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose obvious primary topic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.65.196.20 (talk) 16:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
    • It's clearly not the primary topic, because it isn't residing at Dynasty, therefore a de jure and de facto determination it isn't the primary topic. Any article that carries parenthetical disambiguation is clearly not a primary topic. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, as per User:In ictu oculi. There is no such thing as a primary disambiguated title, and WP:NCTV clearly states Use the following when there are two or more television productions of the same name. Prefix the country of broadcast – (U.S. TV series), (Canadian TV series). Zarcadia (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move reverted, but the reboot

I reverted this move to Dynasty (U.S. TV series) because of the previous move discussion above, which concluded that the notability of Dynasty (Australian TV series) is way overshadowed by this article. Keep in mind though that yesterday's pickup of the reboot will likely necessitate a move to Dynasty (1981 TV series) or Dynasty (1981 U.S. TV series). A new article has been created at Dynasty (2017 TV series) but may need to be moved to Dynasty (2017 U.S. TV series).— TAnthonyTalk 14:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC).

The "U.S." isn't needed there, TAnthony. The only time you would need both a year and a country would be in the highly unlikely situation where you had something like "Dynasty (2020 U.S. TV series)" and "Dynasty (2020 Indian TV series)". (This is pretty much straight from WP:NCTV.) This is very unlikely to ever be necessary... Anyway, the Requested move discussion for this article is now below. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dynasty (1981 TV series). 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 23:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Checked OK.— TAnthonyTalk 23:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dynasty (1981 TV series). 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 07:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Checked OK.— TAnthonyTalk 13:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 12 May 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved with Dynasty (TV series) redirecting to Dynasty (disambiguation)#Media per WP:INCOMPDAB. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Dynasty (TV series) → Dynasty (1981 TV series) – There is no question now that this article needs additional disambiguation, as per WP:NCTV, from both Dynasty (2017 TV series) and Dynasty (Australian TV series). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

FYI, I already have an AWB settings file set up to convert all links (a number of which are template transclusions anyway) should this move occur.— TAnthonyTalk 21:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dynasty (1981 TV series). 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 09:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Checked OK.— TAnthonyTalk 15:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dynasty_(1981_TV_series)/Archive_1&oldid=1075131169"