Talk:52 (comics)

Archives

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1 June 2006 to January 2007

Say, should this be added?

I was wondering if the fact that the story was recently retconned to explain how the Superboy cult could be called the cult of Conner without giving away Supermans identity should be added somewhere here, or maybe in Superboy's article.--Mullon 21:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Was it retconned?--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 00:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was. At least, someone explained why they were calling the cult that name.--68.163.216.178 05:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

If you can cite an article where DC admits to making the mistake of referring to it as the Cult of Connor, I say do it; otherwise, we can only assume it's not a ret-con since it was both initiated and resolved within the context of 52. --Squashua 19:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I went back and re-read where Cassie and Ralph talk, and she says something to the effect of 'Gee I'm glad I only called it the Cult of Conner between you and me!' So yes, it was CoC, but no, it wasn't publicized ICly. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 17:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

New Format

I have to say that I really dislike the new layout. The info involving the actual comic should come before back-up stories at the end. It may be a long article, but it just makes more sense. To make the article as a whole make more sense, perhaps we could shorten down the summary to a very condensed version and then (since it's going to be so long) make a table for each individual issue. Rather like we do for tv shows and their individual episodes. Anyone think that's even remotely a good idea? (Oh, not to nit pick but shouldn't back-up story be a header with history of the DCU and Secret Origins as subsections? Because that's not really how it is right now.Jupiterzguy 02:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The format you're suggesting can already be found at one of Wikipedia's sister sites: http://www.dcdatabaseproject.com/Main_Page.--SilentJustice 23:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's a better link to use: http://www.dcdatabaseproject.com/Comics_52--SilentJustice 23:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No table for individual issues. See WP:CMC/EG. I will condense again. I have been lax for the past several weeks and have not been condensing and maintaining the plot as I have since the first week. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 00:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

ChrisGriswold, given the revelations this week, I'm thinking we should totally redo the pm to fold in how Boosternova was doing what he did. I was gonna be more vague about it, but spoilers end when an issue is released. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 15:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Discussion of plot should include the structure of the plot. To treat events as if they happened in realtime is not reflective of the text.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 15:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is that the way the Booster and Supernova paragraph/sections are split, you end up reading this in 'real time'. You get Booster, up to his death, and then it's not till near the end you find out he's alive. Should we re-summarize Booster, to state from the beginning that he's been parading about as Supernova? -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 15:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I see. Yes, I actually came to the same comclusion and moved it back up. I keep having to decide what's relevent to the series overall and deleting details that are no longer important. I have placed the Steel section before the end of the Booster/Supernova thing because it gives context to the Everyman Project, so that it makes sense with regard to what Luthor does on New Year's Eve.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 16:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

More fun with the blackboard _ Time Masters, Time Servants, Diana Prince

Time Masters was a 1990 miniseries starring Rip Hunter that was intended to explain the laws of time in the post-Crisis DCU; the new laws were effectively "cancelled" by a bunch of time travel stories that failed to follow them within a few months after the mini ended. No clue whether Time Masters is still in continuity.

Time Servants could be a reference to the Linear Men, of which Rip Hunter and Waverider are (were?) both members.

"Who Is Diana Prince?" is a play on the "Who Is Donna Troy?" story/plotline from New Teen Titans and later series, as well as a play into the new WW ongoing. Also, WW got one of the big retcons from IC: she's a founding member of the JLA again after losing founding member status in a CoIE retcon.

Better late than never, I guess. --141.158.200.41 18:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

List of backups

Do we really need this? What does this tell us about the subject? Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 00:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need it at all. Maybe a list page, if we must, but it shouldn't be on the 52 page. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 14:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

blackboard biz

I disgree with removing the information from the blackboard list. I don't see this as OR or conjecture, and it's certainly not worded that way. This is information about the series and the DC Universe that relates to the phrase marked. It's not speculating about any of it. Perhaps a re-wording of the intro? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

What it comes down to is that we aren't interpreting, we're just giving related info. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

"Secret Message"

I know people were anxious to get this out in the open and all, but really, could we put another warning right before it is revealed? I have read every issue and thus didn't think anything of breezing through the initial spoiler warning while reading the article. However the "Secret Code" is not something the casual reader would pick up and thus I feel should have a separate "spoiler alert".--Paul 22:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the casual reader might not know this; it's printed in the DC Nation Column in a section that is pretty clearly a code. It's part of the text of the series. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 08:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a code that you have to sit there and figure out. That's hardly what I'd call out in the open.Paul 16:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw the code immediately. Starting a word with X pretty much gave it away, not to mention the strange and wordy language used. The column even indicated it was a clue. What it comes down to is you had the information; you just chose not to look at it. But this article is about all of the information in the series. There is a spoiler warning at the top of the article. We don't need another one. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 08:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Given the significance of this particular spoiler I have two comments: one, is it really necessary for it to be in all capitals? This makes it difficult to avoid looking at. Two: surely there's a better way to spoiler something than to put a warnings before and after. That means you have to at least skim the spoiler material to see when it's okay to start reading again. Is there no system to black stuff out, or make it only appear when you click a link? If there isn't, I would argue that there should be. -- SamSim 10:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Summary idea

Regarding the overall summary of the plot, perhaps it might be worth breaking it into sections (equivalent of, say, a month's worth or three months worth of issues)? As it is, it tends to jump from one thing to another thing and then back again, so it's a bit awkward to read, and it'd probably be easier to summarise each character's developing story over shorter periods rather than doing it all in one massive block. Just a thought... --Joseph Q Publique 13:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I feel that to break the summary into sections will only make it bigger because this is the intertwining story of all of these characters, and so each section will need to repeat information. Additionally, subsectioning things like this tends to lead to the additiong of many, many unneeded details. The smaller the summary, the better, and this one has maintained a similar size for months. As the story goes on, I remove details that have so far proven unimportant, such as Super Chief. If for some reason, Super Chief plays an important role in a future issue, the pertinent details concerning him with regard to that important role will be added to the summary.

As for the sequence of the plot summary, I have tried to keep characters' story details contained to their own sections, but I have also tried to keep in mind what information needs to be introduced about certain details before referring to it in another section. If you have specific concerns regarding the sequence, please post them here, and we can work on that. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 08:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

SamSim (talk · contribs) put in some really great edits recently that I think helped to clear up any confusing aspects. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Glad you think so. I still need to clarify Intergang's religion-of-crime/Crime-Bible/conquer-Gotham arc and other bits. -- SamSim 10:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

True. With the most recent issue, that has come to the fore again. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 11:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I added a number of missing significant portions such as the introduction of Sobek, the Mr. Mind cocoon and references to Sivana and T.O. Morrow, all of which are significant storylines within 52. I will also add a paragraph on the returned spaceborne heroes and the travels of Red Tornado. --Squashua 19:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sivana, Mr. Mind, Morrow, and the space people are not important. Please stop adding to the summary that we are constantly trying to shorten. How have any of those characters really affected any of the major storylines of 52? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Seriously. Please stop re-adding info to this. Nobody here has ever said the summary was not long enough. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm obviously not the only one who has been adding that info in, so it seems to be important to people beyond yourself. --Squashua 21:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, hold off with reverting it; I'm going to do some minimizing cleanup... ah crap, a bunch MORE stuff got added - I tried to keep my stuff concise. Cleanup ahoy. --Squashua 22:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, DrTofu and I added a lot of it. And during the year, I and others have been weeding it out as it becomes apparent that it is not important. ---Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

When I was minimizing text to try and reduce wordcount - Mtdeeley - added a ton of stuff. :( --Squashua 22:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You are right; I apologize. I incorrectly attributed the reverts to you. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

As I attempted last week, but was sidelined by Mtdeeley, I will again attempt to clean up the "Story so far". There are errors. I will also tighten sentence structure. --Squashua 18:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I know you might block me in wikipedia website but i got something to say you forgot to put something in the summary that the final pages in week 52 shows renee montayo fixing the bat signal showing it to kate and saying are you ready? which speculates that the batman might return and the end of the year without batman,wonder woman and superman —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martytholath2 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Drastic Changes

Squashua. Stop. Please. You are reverting a month or so's worth of edits in the plot summary section, and generally bringing down the quality of the article's language by doing things like adding extra introductory phrases and randomly using first or last names of characters. Please stop and discuss your changes. Why do you want to make these changes? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It should be clear to you, based on the talk page discussions, that more people are interested in maintaining or reducing the size of the summary. Additionally, your edit summaries saying "compaction" are a little misleading, as you keep adding. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This paragraph is effectively negated as directed towards me by comments in prior paragraph: I incorrectly attributed the reverts to you. --Squashua 18:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

So noted :) Just keeping it here for historical purposes. Removing discussions can been seen as vandalism, if it's not on your user page. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 19:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Financial Success

Shouldn't there be a section dedicated to the unprecedented financial success of the 52 project?Timon 17:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Definitely, if someone has sources. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 04:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Unprecedented in what way? Sure as a whole the series is making a lot of money but that is because a new issue comes out every week, and we're up to 41 issues. But from what I understand an issue of Civil War outsells an issue of 52 on an issue per issue basis big time. Paul 17:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Updates

Okay does any one read 52 becuase with the exception of the mogo part there hasn't been an update since week 37 while other articles have been updated with 52 information.Someone needs to update it. Parralax 22:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It is being updated weekly; new information is being added on to the appropriate parts of the plot summary, but we're really trying to keep the length down so in terms of quantity not much is added. It is all up to date though MarkSutton 22:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

COuntdown 51...

SHould the 'Countdown' event, 51 weeklies counting back from 52 to 1, be mentioned here? For those who are confused, the mid-issue spread seen in this week's releases, with the heroes all gathered around the busted up head of the statue of liberty, is the first big promo for this new crossover event. ThuranX 01:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't it'll need to be discussed that much in this article. I think it could be mentioned in the context of how 52 has lead to DC embracing the weekly format (assuming there's any information that can be used to support this - I do recall reading an article on - I think - Newsarama where one of the DC editors mentioned this), but other than that I don't think it'll need to be mentioned here unless the narrative of Countdown directly follows on from 52.--Joseph Q Publique 02:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Metagene or Exo-Gene?

Okay, as I understood it, at first it was a metagene therapy. Then there was the guy whose body rejected the metagene therapy and went into some sort of shock/coma. Suddenly, on Christmas, his body mutated, and they killed him, harvested his cells, and called that the exo-gene. Luthor ended up with both. The metagene (which Natasha disabled with the pulse from Steel's hammer) and the exo-gene, which was supposed to regenerate his powers. The text in the article is rather confusing, and now I'm not sure if I remember it right or not. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 15:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that is confusing. I don't even remember the exo-gene business; only the metagene. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

52 = Omega symbol

Should it be noted that the 52 on each cover is stylized to look like the omega symbol. The symbol which darkseid has on his forhead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.246.173.235 (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Provide a citation where it's stated explicitly this is what it's supposed to look like. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember Darkseid ever having an omega symbol on his forehead. --Hemlock Martinis 01:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Batman's demons

I just noticed we're missing that bit where he gets them cut out and Nightwing returns to Gotham ... I'd write it but I'm late for a meeting. Cam someone grab that? -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 20:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

What's the significance? I haven't seen that affect anything else in the series or in the Batman books. Remember, we're trying to keep this as short as possible. We don't want this to look like ana article about anime.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It comes back in this week. I'm not saying a lengthy bit, but maybe an update on what the big three do (Bruce retraces his journey as Batman, recreating himself with Tim and Dick, including a visit to Nanda Parbat. There he meets with Diana, who is struggling to understand the burden of her guilt, and accept the wisdom that comes with it. Meanwhile, Clark remains in Metropolis, living simply as Clark Kent, reporter and husband.' -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 23:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

As of issue 51, Batman's desert romp matters little to the story. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 16:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

True, and it belongs on the character pages :) I retract my suggestion. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 18:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You only had to go on what you knew at the time. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

When Am I?

Could that possibly refer to Rip hunter and Booster Gold traveling through time? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.163.243.99 (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Most likely, especially since we see Booster jump to the wrong time several times. -Wilfredo Martinez 14:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The meaning of 52

I think the secret of 52 is that perhaps in the multiverse there exist 52 copies of Earth , i am judging by the cover of issue 51 to arrive iquadri 16:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Week 31 reference?

"There are actually two mentions of 52 with one that involves 322 which if you made this calculation of 3 and the first 2 — it should read 52."

I took that out because it's not written very clearly, and the informal writing style kind of brings the whole article down a little. Can someone figure out what the writer was trying to say and replace it?--Yuefairchild 12:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the last issue will contain the origin of Superman iquadri 23:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Restructuring

This story of 52 needs to be restructured desperately. Right now the conclusion of the series is in the 5th paragraph, with well over ten paragraphs following it. This could be organizing everything into a linear time line, or moving Booster's story to the end of the recap, or leaving the structure as is and adding on a final paragraph that summarizes where all of the "main" characters are at the end of the year. I'm not sure which approach is best... any thoughts? AniMate 21:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I shifted everything after Booster's death to the end of the article and moved the space stuff which is pretty unconnected to the rest of the story much earlier.Aexia 21:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think linear is out, given how the stories crisscross all over the place... I'd go with adding a conclusion paragraph, and revisiting each 'character arc' section. Now that we know what was 'big' (I hesitate at using the word important), we can trim down extraneous detail and leave that for the character pages. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 21:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The list of 52 references should be whacked. Have a "Meaning of 52" paragraph. "52 identical earths altered into alternate earths blah blah". Note the hidden message and that 52 popped up in the backgrounds and dialog throughout 52 the series and other DC books. Maybe one or two examples and that's it.

Not sure what to do about the Rip Hunter lab section. Kind of seems like fancruft now. Aexia 21:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. We should keep the basic list, but dump the spec unless we know what it refers to. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that as far as the Story section goes, split it up by character. --Hemlock Martinis 04:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The character's intertwine too much for that, except for the Space Story :P -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I've made a rough attempt to do some structuring and trimming; although the stories all intertwine to some extent, the stories involving Ralph, Steel and the Space guys seem a little bit more self-contained than the others, so they all seemed okay to be summed up in a a paragraph each or so, but I couldn't seem to get the Black Adam / Question and Montoya / Will Magnus stuff to keep to it's own section. I also trimmed away a few of the more incidental bits, such as Wonder Woman in Nanda Parbat and the Nightwing stuff. It also seemed to make sense to bookend with the Booster Gold / Skeets / Hunter narrative, since that involved the 'big reveal' of the series (the multiverse), and there was that lengthy period without hearing anything about that story in the overall narrative.--Joseph Q Publique 14:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Would the plot section be satisfactory enough to remove the tag, or is more work still required?--Joseph Q Publique 05:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Concept change?

Should there be a part of the article addressing the concept change that occurred as the series went on? The writer and Didio all stated that there was a shift in priorities during the series. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Venus redscar (talk • contribs) 06:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Science Squad

I propose to merge Science Squad here because Science Squad appearance is limited to 52 and is not notable by itself. --Leocomix 14:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Merge --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 15:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - It really isn't much of an article anyway. --DavetheAvatar 21:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Note re: Infobox

Since the 'box is for the comic series, the physical comics, I've swapped out the "just the art" image for the cover of the first issue as published. - J Greb 02:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Who wrote what?

Do we have any idea how the four writers Johns, Rucka, Morrison and Waid went about writing 52? Did they do like the Countdown writers and write one whole issue each or did they divide the different parallel story-lines amongst them. For example, the whole Question story feels a bit like something Rucka would've written, and he will be writing the "sequel"-mini series Crime Bible. Does anyone know if this has been addressed in the bonus material in the TPs or somewhere on the Internet, and if it has wouldn't that be something that should be edited into this page?--Hophi 19:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Spin-Offs and Tie-Ins

It's a pretty useless section to say that spin-offs and tie-ins exist...don't they always? Can someone make a list of spin-offs with a brief description of the tie-in? --72.229.151.118 (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Move

I've requested this be moved to 52 (comics). WP:NCC clearly states "In general, when naming an article, use the name itself, without further disambiguation (e.g. Jack Kirby) unless that leads to ambiguity, in which case, follow with "(comics)" (e.g. Ralph Macchio (comics))." It only suggests using "(comic book)" when "...disambiguating between a proper name (a character name, a group name, a location, etc.), and another related eponymous work" - rst20xx (talk) 16:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=111900
  • In Jade (comics) on 2011-04-29 04:05:50, 404 Not Found
  • In 52 (comics) on 2011-06-19 20:06:27, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Croatoan Society

Croatoan Society redirects to this page and is not mentioned in this page. Either the redirect should be dropped or material about the Croatoan Society should be included in this article. — David Samuel Auer (talk) 02:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:52 (comics)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Importance reduced to "High" from "Top". At the moment this series is very important to one American publisher, but it is not clear if it will be viewed as critically important for the industry as a whole or for the history of the medium as a whole. — J Greb 14:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 16:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 06:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 52 (comics). 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/20091209073525/http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=111900 to http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=111900

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) 03:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 52 (comics). 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/20061210192827/http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=92806 to http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=92806
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061026023627/http://www.silverbulletcomics.com/news/story.php?a=1394 to http://www.silverbulletcomics.com/news/story.php?a=1394
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060811164527/http://www.ugo.com/channels/comics/features/52pickup/default.asp to http://www.ugo.com/channels/comics/features/52pickup/default.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071025071652/http://www.graphicaudio.net/c-6-dc-comics.aspx to http://www.graphicaudio.net/c-6-dc-comics.aspx

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) 17:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)