Talk:Bridge to Terabithia (novel)

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

Spoiler at the beginning[edit]

In the initial information part, before the spoiler warning, it states: " a tragedy happens. So Jesse uses the courage that Leslie gave him to cope with the tragedy." This line,heyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy 

appearing before the spoiler suggestion, strongly implies Leslie's fate, atleast it seems that way to me, and since this stuff about the tragedy is stated again, and in more detail, later on, and past the spoiler warning, I think this little bit should be removed from the begining info at the top of the article. If no one has any objections, I'll take that info out of the introduction a few days from now, unless someone disagree's, and then we can discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riphal (talk • contribs) 06:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


THE MOVIE the movie need's to have it's own page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majikstudios (talk • contribs) 20:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NO. It states quite clearly Leslie does NOT drown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.28.194 (talk) 05:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie's End[edit]

I read the book as a child and the thing that I remeber the most is that Leslie dies in that bridge incident I dont understand why that very important piece has been edited out, that needs to be mentioned — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.5.174 (talk) 05:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terabithia the band[edit]

There was a fairly short-lived band in the 1990s called Terabithiacite (for which there is not yet an article), but Terabithia merely redirects to this article. Could we have a little "For the musical group, see Terabithia (band)" line at the beginning? I ask before placing it, so as to head off any potential edit-war over the issue. skoosh ]]User_talk:Skoosh|(háblame)]] 04:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC) wow —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.134.132.138 (talk) 22:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terebithia/Terabithia[edit]

OK, I have to admit, I was impressed that by typing in "Terebithia" in the search bar, I got directed here. But in the section under "Controversy", which is titled "Terebithia", I got a little confused. It refers to Terebinthia, but send a link to Terebithia. I'm confused. FruitMart07 01:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy[edit]

It's been many years since I read the book, but I find it hard to believe that its place in libraries has been widely challenged on the various bases suggested here. (The reference link only establishes that it has been challenged, not why.) In fact, as I recall, the book is explicitly Christian in blah, blah blah!its consideration of Easter. I think that it's more likely that it has been challenged for its Christian content (in non-sectarian, public libraries) than for "secular humanism" or "satanism". Could someone supply references here?

  • I remember being forced to read this absurd bit of trash as a child, and I suspect that if it's ever been banned, it's because the book is possibly one of the worst novels ever, and the publically stated reasons are just a pretext. The book is so terrible as to have become legendary in my family as the archetype of bad fiction. I may personally vehemenently oppose censorship, but if I had no moral problems with censorship and were in a position to ban that book, I certainly would do so, regardless of what excuse I could come up with. JDS2005 07:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I'd like to beg your pardon. This novel is beautifully written by Katherine Paterson, with a true heart and understanding of children, families, friendships, and relationships. Not only does her novel delve into these issues, but its lessons of values such as courage, death, grieving, socioeconomic status, gender roles... are thoroughly linked throughout the story. The author's ability to bring these intense political, religious, and personal beliefs and questions alive through her use of personification, metaphors, and symbolism shows literary genius. It need not matter what religion one is to know that death is inevitable, and the grieving process is real, and the guilt and anger one feels is true. Leslie teaches us all a lesson of risk, and guides scaredy-cat Jess over this symbolic bridge, from one place to another, whether into the land of Terabithia or our own world. Leslie helps to foster Jess's creativity, ability to risk and love, and to help guide him to be a better person. In turn, Jess will pass this on, as we all should. Jennifer Ferrara Educator

  • The above two comments are not relevant and have no place on Wikipedia, discussion page or not. Anyway, according to deletecensorship.org, this book has been removed from libraries due to "profanity, disrespect of adults, and an elaborate fantasy world that might lead to confusion." (http://www.deletecensorship.org/bridge_to_terabithia.html). I wasn't sure how to work this into the section as it stands, so I'll leave that to someone more experienced, but thought I would provide the source. Thestorm042 11:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those above banning citations are nothing more than code for "this book calls into question teachings about Jesus and Christianity." At one point, Leslie, who had never been to church yet attends Easter service with Jess and his family, freely opines, "You have to believe [the story of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection], but you hate it. I don't have to believe it, and I think it's beautiful." May Belle retorts, "You gotta believe the Bible, Leslie," who genuinely asks, "Why?" Much later in the book after Leslie's death, the controversy should be settled when Jesse's Dad consoles his grief stating, "Lord, boy, don't be a fool. God ain't gonna send any little girls to hell." Jeff kuta (talk) 04:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This book has also been challenged due to themes of magic and violence. An article from the Hartford Courant discusses the 2002 incident, in which two parents wanted Bridge to Terabithia and The Witch of Blackbird Pond banned. Residents Bridget Flanagan and Andrea Eigner believed the information was "satanic, a danger to our children." LRegan (talk) 14:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone I mean like cry?

  • Every time I see the movie or read the book. Jeff kuta (talk) 04:56, 22 April 2098 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering where the controversial sexual content in this book was... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.74.14.227 (talk) 16:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or, the profanity... Harjasusi (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is a bit of...childlike infatuations, I suppose, but it's really more sweet and innocent than anything..."Controversial sexual content", though...not so much. Anyway, have a great day! ^_^ Celestialwarden11 (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the book is subject to formal public controversy that is named in the Wiki article, a summary of that controversy should appear in the article. Doesn't that seem right? The reference quoted by Thestorm042 above reads:
"Bridge to Terabithia" by Katherine Paterson, winner of a Newbery Award, has been removed from classrooms and libraries due to "profanity, disrespect of adults, and an elaborate fantasy world that might lead to confusion."
That doesn't seem to be quite sufficient, since it includes WP:WEASEL words. Could someone please summarize both sides of the argument in the article? (Neutral, but factual statements of positions?) Thanks! 98.210.208.107 (talk) 09:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Origin[edit]

Why did the Origin stuff get deleted in the first place? It was interesting. Wassupwestcoast 04:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate copy of Bridge To Terabithia[edit]

Removed external link as it seriously violates WP's policy on copyright. You can always borrow a copy at the library. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 04:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Wassupwestcoast 04:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added References to Controversy Section[edit]

I added references for the controversy section but can find nothing about the death as being a reason for banning the book. Still looking though. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 04:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was quick. Found several references. Cheers~ Wassupwestcoast 05:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Origin[edit]

Does anyone have a source citation for the new info? It's interesting but would have to be deleted as unverifiable according to WP policy. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 20:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did some looking and found good (and interesting) reference. An on-line newspaper called The Takoma Voice has a June 2005 article called "Lisa Hill and the Bridge to Terabithia by Diana Kohn" at "Our History:Takoma Archives". Unfortunately, the article does not seem to be accesible (attempted to retrieve 14 Feb 2007). However, the Internet Archive link does work "Lisa Hill and the Bridge to Terabithia by Diana Kohn". Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 00:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am convinced that Lisa Hill's death probably had something to do with some evil, supernatural force. I mean, come on, lightning doesn't just strike out of nowhere on hot sunny days24.29.74.132 21:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps...but let God punish all those who would slay the innocent. Arnasorb22 (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the Plot[edit]

Does May Belle really become the "Queen" of Terabithia? or the Princess?

In the last scene Jess says he is the king and that she is his princess. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 12:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in the book, May Belle is crowned 'Queen', in the new movie, Jess make her 'Princess. Glad to help! Tini 8 01:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last line of the book Jesse speaks to May Belle, "There's word going around that the beautiful girl arriving today might be the queen they've been waiting for." Jeff kuta (talk) 08:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was posted by 207.108.244.155[edit]

Note: Original material is against WP policy (see Wikipedia:Attribution#No original research.

We are having a Literary Presentation on the book Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine Paterson. So, one of the things we are going to do is a rap on the book. Here it is:

There once was a guy named Jesse (Jesse) And then he met a girl named Leslie (Leslie) Then Leslie had a big idea ('dea) But then Jess had to go so he's like See Ya (See Ya!) Then at school they were being all bullied (bullied) And Jess kept getting all drooly (drooly) Over his teacher cuz he thought she was all cooly (cooly) So when they got home, Leslie had a plan They decided to make a new land So, that's why they created Terabithia, A place where no one else could be (so a few months later, his teacher took him to the museum of art, where he felt some love through his tiny heart) So when Jesse came back Everyone cried, Cuz they told him Leslie Burke had died, (Boo Hoo)

This was the rap. We hope it goes well and we hoped you liked it! See Ya!

Note: above is from User talk:207.108.244.155. I didn't want to delete it outright 'cause it's clever. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 20:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section Heading Change[edit]

I changed the name of the section which deals with the similarities between the names Terabithia and Terabinthia to from "Terabithia" to "Naming", as I feel this more accurately describes what this section is about. Any objections?

S. Luke 05:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 11:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bewitchin' Pool[edit]

This story also sounds very similar to an earlier Twilight Zone episode, The Bewitchin' Pool. Though I think Wikipedia policy would oppose making the connection without some literary reference to cite, perhaps someone can turn up a reference with a more careful search. 204.186.19.115 11:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free to Be… You and Me[edit]

I remember that song as being in Bridge to Terabithia, but the only mention I found in the (2000s) movie of said song was an allusion (said in response to the school bully with the Hermione Granger hairdo (well, first "Harry Potter" movie) not being at the door to charge a buck to urinate), "Free to pee!" What gives? Copyright trouble? 68.36.214.143 03:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Novel vs movie[edit]

Just a note to everyone useing Wikipedia as a source to write your book reports, the book is not the same as the movie. Some contributing editors have been updating the plot summary with reference to the movie. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Queen of Terabithia[edit]

The last sentence of the novel (Paterson, Katherine. Bridge to Terabithia Movie Tie-in Edition. HarperEntertainment. ISBN 0-06-122728-5.

"Shhh, yes. There's a rumor going around that the beautiful girl arriving today might be the queen they've been waiting for."

Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jesse_Aarons_(2nd_nomination)[edit]

Also: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Leslie_Burke_(2nd_nomination) Ikip (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Narnia[edit]

The Oxford Companion to Children's Literature (1999) by Carpenter and Prichard, makes a stronger claim for the role of Narnia. The current free trial at Questia is the first page of each section, such as 'N', page 370.[1]

Narnia [quote the last paragraph with spelling error]
"Katharine PATERSON'S novel Bridge to Terabitha ( 1978), which won the NEWBERY MEDAL, is about two children who are inspired by the Narnia books to invent their own magic kingdom."

--P64 (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

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: no move: no consensus in 57 days; only one message in the last 3 weeks Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge to Terabithia (novel) → Bridge to Terabithia – The novel is the primary topic. The other two article are adaptations of this novel.--Relisted. --Mdann52talk to me! 09:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC) Corvoe (speak to me) 19:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per general consensus that source media is usually the primary topic. (The DAB page needs to be moved as well if consensus is in favor of the nom's proposal). Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 00:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Over the last 90 days the 2007 film has had over twice as many views as the book. 42907 vs. 95945. This fails the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC requirement with respect to usage. AFAIAA there is no general consensus that the source material is the primary topic but that each case is assessed on its merits. So you have other similarly disambiguated examples such as Jaws (film) based on Jaws (novel). Or even cases where the adaptation is primary e.g The Godfather/The Godfather (novel) or Midnight Cowboy/Midnight Cowboy (novel). Tassedethe (talk) 03:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose general consensus is that source media is usually the primary topic. However, this is a children's book, there's no particular benefit to anyone from ambiguating it. On a mobile phone the jpg which is an important part of search results does look like a book rather than a film, but still (novel) is only helping everyone. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You know we really have to do something about dab pages have the same broken image picture on a mobile as an infobox-less article. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This might be something for WP:VPT. At least that might identify at what level the fix should apply. Also @In ictu oculi: composers do not have infoboxes does this problem affect them? Smartphone-less techphobe talking :). (See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infobox debates and e.g. Beethoven). Tassedethe (talk) 04:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Tassedethe, my mistake; No connection. Android picks up any jpg whether in an infobox or not, a composer produces a search pic even with no infobox. However 60-80% of composers prior to 1800 have no image anyway, neither do most living composers, so unless there's a jpg an empty infobox does nothing for mobile users. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I have tagged the current dab as a WP:DABCONCEPT because the titles are not unrelated, but are merely different media conveying the exact same story. Unlike titles using common nouns like jaws and godfather, there is no topic other than the story to compete for primacy. Furthermore, unlike the films named above (Jaws (film), The Godfather, and Midnight Cowboy), neither film adaptation of the book appears to be significant beyond being an adaptation of the book, as compared to films that won multiple academy awards and have been well-cited as influencing the future direction of film-making. In this case, the primary topic of the term is a story of a fictional world presented in various formats, where two childhood friends play out fantasies of a magical kingdom, and one of them dies, leaving the other to deal with the loss. Since the story itself originates and is best developed in the book, this will inherently tend be the most historically important media in which the work was presented, all other examples being adaptations of the book, and therefore evidencing the primary importance of the book. bd2412 T 13:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There's two criteria for primary topic and in this case the film meets the usage criterion and the book meets the importance criterion. In cases like these, where the results from the two criteria disagree, it is almost always better to have a disambiguation page at the base title. BD2412's suggestion of a concept dab seems a bit bizarre to me on the face of it, I struggle to think of any other situations where we would even have a concept dab for something like this, but I'm prepared to be proven wrong... Jenks24 (talk) 07:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Star Wars, Star Trek, The Muppets, Jurassic Park, and The Fast and the Furious are all articles about the franchise rather than any specific eponymous installment, which effectively makes them conceptdabs for those franchises (since they cover everything with a coinciding name). This has fewer installments/adaptations, but the principle is the same. Frankly, I don't see why we need separate articles at all for a book and two moderately notable films adapted from it. bd2412 T 14:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, I get what you're saying now – I wouldn't normally consider a franchise article to be a concept dab (are any of those pages you linked tagged as such?). Again, in my experience franchise articles are only written for very well known ones, never for one book and two films. And I do understand you sentiment that separate articles aren't really merited, but that is the standard practice and I'm not sure it's worthwhile making this one an outlier. Jenks24 (talk) 10:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think a broader question here is whether we need a disambiguation page at all. A disambiguation page is merely a navigational device, and is not needed at all if the appropriate aids to navigation can be provided without one. Here, a person who types in Bridge to Terabithia may be looking for one of three topics, but typing in that name takes them to none of these topics. If the novel was at this title, then readers would be taken to a topic that is either the exact topic they are seeking, or which is closely related to that topic, with the topic they are seeing being discussed in the lede of the article. bd2412 T 15:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • If the novel is moved to the base location, then I agree a dab page would be unnecessary because a hatnote can easily cover two articles. I just don't see the novel as actually being a concept dab, note in all the examples you gave above there is the franchise/concept dab article and then there is always a separate article for the original product (in this case, the novel). If we want a concept dab at the base location, that's fine – but moving the novel article there does not achieve that. Jenks24 (talk) 03:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • If the dab page is unnecessary, then the dab page is unnecessary. Remember, disambiguation pages are merely a stripped-down navigational device. If navigation can be accomplished in a hatnote, then there is no need for a disambiguation page at all (which is why we have WP:TWODABS, and could have WP:THREEDABS). bd2412 T 15:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support or dabconcept. Red Slash 02:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - People look for the film more than the novel currently. Why forcing readers to read the novel article inconveniently? --George Ho (talk) 05:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why force readers to go to a disambiguation page, which is at least equally inconvenient, and more inconvenient for those looking for the novel (or merely wanting to know the story being told, which is on the page for the novel)? bd2412 T 16:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Look, propose to convert the page into set index page. Making the novel the primary topic won't do any good. I looked at the article, and I don't see a prominent international status. It's just an American juvenile book ever made. --George Ho (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • How would a set index page be any more helpful than just having the original source of the story at the title of the story? bd2412 T 19:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • You've previously converted a few dab pages into set indexes... Well, I did it too. --George Ho (talk) 20:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm persuaded by BD2412's WP:CONCEPTDAB argument. Virtually without exception, everyone searching for "Bridge to Terabithia" is looking for information on this franchise, and this article on the novel is the natural place to discuss adaptations of itself.--Cúchullain t/c 19:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only ones in the "franchise" are the novel, the telefilm, and the Disney film. Despite similar story, the new generation became more aware of the Disney film than the novel. Also, BD's "concept" argument would not persuade readers into rather reading the plot of the novel. Instead, they would read either the plot, the production notes, box office gross, or something else related to the Disney adaptation. --George Ho (talk) 05:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't understand your comment. Everyone searching for "Bridge to Terabithia" is looking for, well, Bridge to Terabithia. The novel article already serves the function of a WP:CONCEPTDAB containing information on the novel and its adaptations; directing readers there delivers information on on all Bridge to Terabithia topics and also provides links to those topics. A dab page only does the latter.--Cúchullain t/c 19:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. The disambiguation page basically duplicates content already on the page for the original work (the novel) and then strips out all the detail. It's one thing to have a disambiguation page where there are dozens of meanings, and any possible primary topic page is lengthy and involved, but in a case like this it serves no purpose but to add an extra step in the search process. bd2412 T 20:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of disambiguation page would be detrimental to readers. That's the case for Resident Evil (disambiguation) and A Nightmare on Elm Street (disambiguation). Deleting this page in favor of the novel, or merging it into parent article, would force readers into reading prose one by one in order to search for either telefilm or the Disney film. New generation is not aware of the novel, unless they read the credits (or Wikipedia). Instead, they associate the title with Disney film. I wasn't fully aware of the novel until now; I knew only Disney film's existence. --George Ho (talk) 03:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hardly think that it is a detriment to "force readers into reading prose". In any case, unlike Resident Evil (disambiguation) and A Nightmare on Elm Street (disambiguation), the number of options for this term is small enough to fit both in a hatnote, and in the lede of the article. bd2412 T 12:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not advocating deleting the dab page necessarily, but including the other two uses in a hate note would serve exactly the same purpose as a dab page, while still getting readers to actual article content describing all the uses (instead of just a dab page, which is a dead end). And I don't think that one editor's personal ignorance of the subject implies that all of "new generation" is unaware.--Cúchullain t/c 13:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support BD2412's argument, in keeping with the notion that an encyclopedia exists for scholarly purposes, and is not best optimised as a google addon. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support SmokeyJoe's support of BD2412's argument. As long as the films are faithful to the book then the proposals work. Gregkaye (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Musical stage adaptation[edit]

We mention the musical stage adaptation by Paterson and Stephanie Tolan, another children's writer --now at the end of section 5, Adaptations. With relocation I changed the description from 'theatrical work' to 'musical stage adaptation ("supported by a lyrical score")' but someone else will be able to do better.

What is Tolan's role and how significant? For what it's worth, Library of Congress Catalog includes for Tolan three adaptations credited primarily to Steve Liebman (librettist?). I don't know how to read these confidently concerning the stageplay per se (by Tolan, i think), lyrics, and music. And I wouldn't be sure how we should describe the work anyway.

--P64 (talk) 00:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(bullet points annotated now)
I posted shorter notices at Talk:Stephanie S. Tolan#Adaptations, whose list of works includes the Terabithia adaptation, and Talk:The Tale of Jemima Puddle-Duck#Adaptation, which article covers contemporary Merchandising but no Adaptations.
Jemima Puddle-Duck is catalogued as a children's play. Also "book and lyrics by Katherine Paterson and Stephanie Tolan". I guess that all three are children's plays and that Paterson and Tolan jointly adapted the two Paterson novels as well as Jemima Puddle-Duck.
--P64 (talk) 16:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Bridge to Terabithia (novel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bridge to Terabithia (novel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bridge_to_Terabithia_(novel)&oldid=1200947661"