Talk:1859 in the United Kingdom
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1859 in the United Kingdom. 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/20070817165102/http://www.icons.org.uk/theicons/icons-timeline/1840-1860 to http://www.icons.org.uk/theicons/icons-timeline/1840-1860
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) 10:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Citation needed
edit@Camboxer: per WP:DOYCITE and WP:V, please provide a citation for the assertion you have added. Since 2017, we have required year-based and date-based articles to conform with the verifiability policy. It is a simple thing. The article has a source, copy it into this article. Elizium23 (talk) 13:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- On second thought, I have located a citation, which required some work, because no citation was in the source article at all so I don't want to hear from people that Wikipedia articles are a reliable source for WP:DOYCITE compliance. Elizium23 (talk) 13:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- WP:DOYCITE applies to Days of the Year articles. This is not a Days of the Year article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Camboxer (talk • contribs) 07:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, excuse me then! Please go on to violate WP:V anywhere but days of the year articles! But pleased to read Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year/Archive 13 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#RFC: remove all uncited information. I will continue to request citations and I will continue to find out where editors like you are playing with unverified information. Elizium23 (talk) 14:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- WP:DOYCITE applies to Days of the Year articles. This is not a Days of the Year article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Camboxer (talk • contribs) 07:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)