Talk:Dragon Ball: Yo! Son Goku and His Friends Return!!

Son Goku's appearances

Just to clarify, the cameo in the Dr. Slump series was not the last animated appearance of Son Goku. There was the Fuji TV Dragon Ball/One Piece crossover interactive features "Kyūtai Panic Adventure!" in 2003 seen here and "Kyūtai Panic Adventure Returns!" in 2004 seen here and the 2007 "Nippon Ijin Taisho" TV Special as seen here. Sarujo (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it True?

Can somebody please give me a link to where you found this info. Im struggling to believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.175.137 (talk) 05:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• It appeared on magazine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.202.53.218 (talk) 19:29, August 9, 2008 (UTC)

Here's a source, though I'm not clear exactly what it's saying. It seems more like it's going to be animated in September/November. It refers to it as a "short" as well, so I'm not clear on exactly what this is. The article does need more sources though. -- HiEv 00:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Canon

How canon is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.202.53.218 (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Too soon to tell at this point. But if it anything like the thirteen films, it won't fit in with the timeline other than it principal cast. Sarujo (talk) 01:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably not canon to the DB->DBZ->DBGT timeline, but since the story is being done by Toriyama, and isn't labeled as part of "Dragon Ball Z", it might fit into his DB -> DBO timeline. In fact, the little alien with the saiyan boy closely resembles the new Yardratian design Toriayam did for DBO. WtW-Suzaku (talk) 05:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not the place for questions like this, this area is for discussing improvements to the article, not for discussing the anime itself. Thanks. -- HiEv 00:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's the DB->DBZ canon, without the DBGT added in, because at this point Goku would be a kid, among other things. As for HiEv's comment, the canon-ness or lack thereof is rather relevant to the article, even though it's in-universe info. Suigetsu 01:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this one's technincally a "special" and not a movie. The specials (Bardock and History of Trunks) are usually considered canon, so this might actually be considered a part of the anime canon at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.28.213.114 (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hold up Bardock is cannon but trunks isnt, it contradicts the cannon The History of Trunks one shot chapter from the manga —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.34.148 (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It is canon, before GT,a little after Buu saga. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.178.176.128 (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

New Information

Here's something new from Daizenshuu:

21 August 2008

New DB Short's Villains, And More! VegettoEX @ 10:44 pm EST -- You probably already have read about it over on Kanzentai, but they got it from our forum, so nyah! :D

V-Jump scan

Per Tatsunoboshi Horoko's translation of the V-Jump info:

"Table and Avo & Cado, opposing enemies! You can tell that Table is a Saiyan from his tail. He's similar to a certain person in facial features, but...!? Also, Abo and Kado, in pursuit of Table, arrive on Earth!!"

That would be Tâbaru (or "Table"; yes, from "vegetable"), along with Abo and Kado (or "Avo" and "Cado"; yes, from "avocado"). So there you have it! It is confirmed that we have these three new characters in the upcoming new DB short, Ossu! Kaette Kita Son Gokû to Nakama-tachi!!" ("Yo! Son Goku and His Friends Return!!").

So, that should help out some. Sarujo (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Aka Help

I placed Aka in the Character list (as can be seen here http://www.dragonballmovieblog.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/akadbsy5.jpg). Does nobody know anything about this character? Anjru & Spanky 16:36 PST, 12 September 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.53.202 (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Problems with Kanzentai's page

It appears that the summery from Kanzentai's fan site is going to be a real problem as everybody's going take their word for it despite the fact that their claims contradict what what's been in the news. Plus the edits I reverted were simply their plot summery copied onto this article. Any thoughts? Sarujo (talk) 22:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, there seems to be some problems with romanization of character names. Dispite the fact that his name was officialy romanized as Tarbel on his design sheet as seen here, everybody wants his name to be Table because one fansite uses it. Like Toei doesn't know what their doing. Sarujo (talk) 22:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Fansites are not a valid source, nor should a fansite plot summary be used here at all. It violates WP:COPYRIGHT (irony, I know) and as the film hasn't even been released yet, its obviously of questionable accuracy. Also, photobucket images are NOT a reliable source either, and those have been removed as they also violate the same policy, as well as WP:RS. Since all the problems seem to be coming from IP, I'd apply to have the semi-protection added it back, noting that it might be good to protect until November when the film is due for release. That said, as the film hasn't even been released yet and has few details, why does it even have an article? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Dunno, but I may know of a reliable source that might cover it. Do fan magazines count as WP:RS'es? Suigetsu 01:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean like Weekly Shonen Jump or the like? Yes, that's a magazine (not a fan magazine) and considered RS. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears that, acording to this in the Anime News Network Quote:

"Weekly Shonen Jump's 32nd issue has also revealed the name of the tour's new Dragon Ball short: "Ossu! Kaette Kita Son Goku to Nakamatachi!!" (Yo! Son Goku and His Friends Return!!). It also hints that the characters will face a previously unknown and powerful enemy. The other manga to be animated in the tour are Hideaki Sorachi's Gintama, Tite Kubo's Bleach, Hiroyuki Asada's Letter Bee (Tegami-bachi), Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D's, and Blue Dragon. The tour will stop at 10 Japanese cities from September 21 to November 23."

And this states quote:

"This year's 21st issue (released on April 21) of Shueisha's Weekly Shonen Jump magazine has announced that a "Jump Super Anime Tour" will visit 10 Japanese cities this fall with new anime specials for Dragon Ball and One Piece. The tour is the eighth project that celebrates the 40th anniversary of the magazine. The magazine also hints that at least one other title will also be animated."

I guess September 21 is official release date. But still need to be cautious about the "Grand Cube Osaka" in Osaka Japan or that Tarbel is Vegeta's little brother. Sarujo (talk) 01:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems like most of it, though, is speculation at this point. And if this is a short, rather than a film, it seems like it should be in the list of OVAs, not a stand alone article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

OAV, How so? OAV means Original Animated Video, simply a production that was released exclusively on video, then later it saw a Television airing. A movie like "Return of Jafar" would qualify as an OAV. Actual, nearly all the Dragon Ball films got this treatment with "Tree of Might", for example, being shown at the Toei festival entitle "Akira Toriyama the World" in 1990. Sarujo (talk) 01:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The new Inuyasha short was considered on OVA as well, though it premiered at a festival. The second article says its a "short" not a film? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoever classified it as such doesn't know what OAV means otherwise they would make such a claim. FLCL, Shin Cutey Honey, and Scramble City are examples of OAVs as they were put out on video first. And never saw a theatrical release of any kind. The only Dragon Ball production that arguably can be called an OAV is that "Plan to Eradicate the Saiyans" and the only reason why that is desputed is because of the manor to which it was released and the confusing story behind it's production. Also, way too many people use the term short for any production that doesn't have a durration time of an hour or more. The truth is that Most Dragon Ball films don't even last an hour. But they still feature the moniker "The Movie". I Think "Broly: The Legendary Super Saiyan" has the longest duration time of a the thirteen DBZ films and that not a full hour. Sarujo (talk) 02:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Again that last revision you just removed was from Kanzentai. I don't know the mechanics of page protections but it appears that they don't work when they are in effect. Otherwise this article wouldn't be getting that double unsourced plot summery from their sight. Sarujo (talk) 07:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

First off, the name on the design sheet is Tarble, not Tarbel. Second of all, an OVA is specifically a direct-to-video release, not a theatrical film or television special. Third: The summary on Kanzentai seems to be based almost entirely on this (Japanese) review from Toyble's blog: [1], but is not completely accurate to the review (Toyble notes that he did it from memory, and has been going back and making corrections, which is probably the cause). The summary must be highlighted to be read, as it is netabare (spoilers). He also lists some of the staff from the credits, and talks about non-plot details, like animation quality, animation errors he noticed, and so on. I'm sure a quick search could turn up a lot of other Japanese-language reviews. WtW-Suzaku (talk) 04:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but in the future Suzaki could you please direct each of your statments to whoever made said comments your replying to, as you appear that your claiming that we both said the samething.

Now, the problem was that a plot summery needs to be an originally writen section with reliable sources to reinforce it. We can't use Kanzentai as they are unreliable, they are not a licened third party publication, and as you just stated, the essay was a buck from Toyble's fan blog that was writen from memory. Which make it not only an unreliable source, but also an untrustworthy one as well. We don't know how many time Toyble saw the film, their mind might have subconsciously jumbled up new stuff that didn't happen in context or didn't happen at all. So even without the guildline, we can't just build an article on claims that Kanzentai or Toyble as the truth dispite the fact that leading US fan source Daizenshuu EX and fancrufters alike are trying to tell you that it the gospel. It's nice to know that there is a little insight into the film, I'm only only going to take it with a grain of salt and wait until some news and wait to see if they were right when enevitaleble Funimation release comes out later. I had my suppisions about Tarble relation to Vegeta when I first saw him, but I refraimed from adding it to Vegeta's family tree as I didn't want the halo of OR over my head. But at least your not like the others who are insisting that the name be Table because it's Kanzentai and Daizenshuu's perfered adderessment for the character. I insist that the name remain as Toei official rominazation until we see what Funimation desides to use. Any thoughts? Sarujo (talk) 06:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Moving the article?

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus to move -- Aervanath (talk) 10:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

---

Why can't the article be moved to "Dragon Ball: Yo! The Return of Son Goku and Friends!!", the English title seen on Jumpland? Erigu (talk) 20:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

No, they have nothing to do with the anime property. The name change is whatever Funimation decides when inevitable English dub is produced. Sarujo (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

they have nothing to do with the anime property.

Er... Yeah, "nothing", except for the fact the movie was produced for the Jump Super Anime Tour and Jumpland will be streaming it in a few weeks. Are you serious about that?

The name change is whatever Funimation decides when inevitable English dub is produced.

Right now, we're using a fan-translation of the Japanese title. Could you tell me why we're using a fan-translation over the English title used on Jumpland? Erigu (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

While I agree, Jumpland's English name is not an "official" one per our guidelines, I'd always question the current name which is, as Erigu notes, and obvious fan-translation. Personally, I'm not even sure this article should even exist as there is no demonstrable notability (I can't even find an ANN entry for it). However, as per our guidelines, it would seem it should be Dragon Ball: Ossu! Kaette Kita Son Gokū to Nakama-tachi!! (the romanized name) until such time as there is an actual official English name. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Being a purist, I'm obviously all for using the romanized Japanese title, personally... but this is the English Wikipedia, right? Jumpland is an official site of Shūeisha, copyright holders of the series. I'd think that makes their English title "official". But you apparently don't consider it an "actual official English name", so I don't quite follow you, sorry. Erigu (talk) 22:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Sarujo was wrong about Jumpland having "nothing to do with the anime property" and AnmaFinotera never explained how exactly the English title used by Jumpland "is not an "official" one per our guidelines", so I'm requesting the article be moved.

Incidentally, I'd really like to know who decided to blacklist "Dragon Ball: Yo! The Return of Son Goku and Friends!!" and why... Erigu (talk) 15:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the official English title? The link in the article is a deadlink. If not source is provided, then the correct name of the article is "Dragon Ball: Ossu! Kaette Kita Son Gokū to Nakama-tachi!!". And what does it matter what Jumpland says the title is? Them streaming the movie doesn't mean they have any authority over the movie or its name. If/when Funimation (which does own the English rights to the Dragon Ball/Dragon Ball Z/Dragon Ball GT animes) releases a title that is different, we would go with that. So I Oppose the current move request as their is no evidence to support it. TJ Spyke 16:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the official English title? The link in the article is a deadlink.

They only streamed the movie for a limited period of time, so the site is now gone, indeed (and Web Archive doesn't appear to be of any help, unfortunately). It was still around when the above discussion took place though, so unless you're arguing that was a collective hallucination...

what does it matter what Jumpland says the title is? Them streaming the movie doesn't mean they have any authority over the movie or its name.

Jumpland belongs to Shūeisha, i.e. the copyright holders. It's an official site, so their English title is official.

If/when Funimation (which does own the English rights to the Dragon Ball/Dragon Ball Z/Dragon Ball GT animes) releases a title that is different, we would go with that.

Does Funimation own the rights to the particular movie we're talking about here? And do you think Jumpland would have streamed the movie for English-speaking territories (and with English subtitles) if they didn't have the right(s) to do so? Erigu (talk) 22:43, 19 April 2009 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Official names

The names on the design sheets are what the producers intended the characters to be called other wise they wouldn't have used them. I highly doubt that any character within the story was call him Combined ACa. And just where does it say that the sheets were leaked? Also Shueisha doesn't produce Dragon Ball they just distribute it, they're not the ones that give final say one what the characters are going to be in the anime. That's between Toriyama and Toei. Saying they are is like saying that Funimation made the live action Dragon Ball film, as they weren't. Until we hear something from Toei saying "we changed our minds, we're going to call the character Combined ACa and not Aka" or Funimation's dub calls him something else entirely, it should stay as Aka. Sarujo (talk) 20:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The names on the design sheets are what the producers intended the characters to be called other wise they wouldn't have used them.

These names were just there for practical purpose. They weren't meant for you and me, they were meant for the guys who worked on the animation.

where does it say that the sheets were leaked?

I'd like to ask you back: "if they weren't leaked, where do they come from, then?"

These character sheets revealed the nature of the bad guy(s) well before the Japanese media did. It's an obvious leak.

Shueisha doesn't produce Dragon Ball they just distribute it, they're not the ones that give final say one what the characters are going to be in the anime. That's between Toriyama and Toei.

You know what's generally between Toriyama and Tōei? Shūeisha.

Until we hear something from Toei saying "we changed our minds, we're going to call the character Combined ACa and not Aka"

They never said the name was spelled "Aka" in the first place. Not to us, the public, anyway. Again, these character sheets were leaked. "ACa" is the first alphabet spelling for that character that we were meant to see. Erigu (talk) 21:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a valid source claiming the character sheets are not legitimate, or are somehow incorrect spellings. Otherwise, leaked or not, they are still valid. As a note, I've posted at the project asking for additional comments. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I never said the character sheets weren't legitimate, I said they were leaked.

You're apparently arguing that they weren't leaked, so you should be able to tell/show me how/when they were officially released by Tōei/Shūeisha/Toriyama/whoever rather easily.

And the fact they're leaked changes quite a few things. There's obviously a difference between a document strictly meant for internal purpose (and definitely not meant to tell animators how to spell the characters' names...) and something released to the public. Erigu (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Being supposedly leaked (no source claiming they are leaked; being officially released is irrelevant in either case). If they are leaked or purportedly for internal use only, they are still official documents. You have no sources claiming they are leaked, and nothing claiming they were not meant to be official spellings. You are the one making the claim that they are not usable because they are "leaked" and not legitimate, so the onus is on to prove they are false and not for public use, and that the spellings on them are not intended to be official spellings. Otherwise, they exist and as they ARE official documents (internal or not), and therefore they are the authority on the official spellings for the character names, unless and until Toei themselves makes a statement backing up your claims of leaked information and their not being valid. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The character sheets were sent to the webmaster of an English-language fansite by a member of his forum. They revealed the nature of the bad guy before the movie was first shown (the Japanese media hadn't said anything about it at that point). The Japanese names of the characters contain some terrible typos. It's obviously a leak. And I'm not sure what kind of evidence you're expecting me to provide in that respect. If, on the other hand, you're arguing that's it's not a leak, that logically means you're arguing that the character sheets were officially released by Tōei (or Shūeisha, or Toriyama... a copyright holder, anyway). And that's something that can be proven. So the burden of proof is on you, right now. Can you prove that the character sheets were released rather than leaked?

Next point. If they've been leaked, if they're actually internal documents, that does change quite a few things. "Leaked or not, they're official"? Well, they're obviously the real deal, but "official" can also mean "authorized or issued authoritatively". If Tōei didn't mean those sheets and alphabet spellings to be released to the public, they're not "official" in that sense. Whereas the alphabet spellings found on Jumpland would be.

If we didn't have an authorized source (Jumpland), I would completely agree with using the spellings as found on the character sheets, leaked or not. They would be our best (only) source. But we do have an authorized source, now. Erigu (talk) 22:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not taking a side yet. But I'd like to point out: Jumpland's page is linked. Thoses character sheets are not (as far as I can see). Where are they? (WP:V) -- Goodraise (talk) 22:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

These are my copies of those sheets:

• Design sheet for Tarble.
• Design sheet for Abo
• Design sheet for Kado
• Design sheet for Aka.

Like I said earlier, There needs to be a press stament or something saying that Combined ACa was the intended name all along. Sarujo (talk) 23:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

There's the Jumpland site. It's the only authorized source we have. Erigu (talk) 23:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Yet, that still doesn't tell us whether or not it's the official names. That Toei intended to used them or not. Show a press release stating this. Sarujo (talk) 23:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. We're talking about Jumpland, an official site. I don't need to show you anything more. Why don't you show me an official press release or whatever stating their spellings are wrong? Erigu (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

(Without clicking on those links:) Photobucket is not a reliable source. It is not the place of Wikipedia editors to judge the authenticity of such documents. If they're not coming from a reliable source, they should be considered unreliable as well. Though Jumpland is not the copyright holder, nor the producer, nor the distributor, it's names are more official than a fan translation and should be used until a higher authority (IE: distributor, producer, or copyright holder) publishes names of its choosing through a reliable source. -- Goodraise (talk) 00:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Jumpland belongs to the copyright holders, actually. Erigu (talk) 00:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict)No I asked you first, Jumpland is not the authority Toei is. With that said their should be a press release where they use those names. If there's one thing I've learn about the Japanese text is that no two people, Japanese included, will translate the language the same. For all we know there might have been some mix up between Jumpland and Toei. This is the same problem I've been seeing with Japanese soundtracks. The diffence there is that the producer of these projects are the one who anounce the name change and not related companies. But these names will most likely go out the window once Funimation get a hold of this film.

Reliable or not, at least you now know the sheets are without a doubt out there online. I wasn't asking anybody to take them into consideration for this article.

No, Jumpland belongs to Shueisha not Toei. Sarujo (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No I asked you first

I'm afraid that's not how it works.

Has Tōei announced how the new characters' names should be spelled in alphabet? If you want to argue that they did by releasing the character sheets, you'll need to prove that they did release the character sheets. Good luck.

And if they haven't announced how the new characters' names should be spelled in alphabet, Jumpland/Shūeisha did. So it would only make sense to use Jumpland as a source.

For all we know there might have been some mix up between Jumpland and Toei.

Sure. But "for all we know", maybe there was no mix-up at all.

Jumpland belongs to Shueisha not Toei.

I never said it belonged to Tōei. Shūeisha are copyright holders. Erigu (talk) 01:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

WHEN WILL IT BE TRANSLATED!?

The entire movie is on youtube, but it is still in Japanese and the subtitles are in spanish (so much for that). The article is missing some key facts: 1. Will the movie be dubbed in english, and when? 2. Will the movie be subtitled in english at least, and if so when?

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.112.186 (talk) 03:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

We don't provide that kind of information. -- Goodraise (talk) 03:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Jumpland already streamed the version with official English subs. -- RattleMan 04:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dragon Ball: Yo! Son Goku and His Friends Return!!. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080806045448/http://www.jumpfesta.com:80/anime/anime-info/index.html to http://www.jumpfesta.com/anime/anime-info/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081108095656/http://www.jumpland.com:80/animetour/db/index_ja.html to http://www.jumpland.com/animetour/db/index_ja.html

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) 16:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dragon Ball: Yo! Son Goku and His Friends Return!!. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150325081958/http://www.s-manga.net/book/978-4-08-874842-9.html to http://www.s-manga.net/book/978-4-08-874842-9.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jumpfesta.com/anime/anime-info/index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jumpland.com/animetour/db/index_ja.html

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) 20:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)