Talk:Arts on the Line

Ummm ... ?

I'm rather surprised that this passed as a DYK with so many typos, grammatical errors and unsourced statements. Let's see if some cleanup can be managed ...  Ravenswing  18:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the clean up of this page. I will be the first person to admit that my "spellign" and grammar and not the best and thank you for fixing all that was wrong in that regard. I do disagree with your statement that there were "so many" unsourced statements as I meticulously cited this article over a year of research. The only two "citations needed" you added were because of a citation that you moved up in the paragraph when it was citing the whole thing. This is what wiki is about, collaborative editing. I created the page and included the cited information and another editor came along and fixed the grammar and spelling. Obviously you have an interest in this article so please continue editing it and making it better. --Found5dollar (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Images needed

Many of the artworks at Davis, Porter, & Harvard Stations need images in the table. Lentower (talk) 10:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll keep those in mind to fill in when I'm back in Boston in the fall. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you please explain how this should be exempt from WP:NFTABLE Werieth (talk) 11:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

not exempt, merely that this article has a consensus to show the artwork in tabular format. it could also be shown as essay format. if that is your preference, then change to essay, but do not delete images, without a consensus from other editors. Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 03:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

A few users cannot choose to ignore WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8. WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFTABLE are pretty clear policies. This article cannot support 17 non-free files. Werieth (talk) 03:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Werieth is correct - our NFC policy would not allow this many pictures, table or not, on the project. One representative image would be appropriate, but not 17. --MASEM (t) 03:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

i'm not "ignoring anything" i invite you to rewrite this section in an essay format with critical commentary to support the images. if you cannot or will not, then it is proof you are a deletionist nothing more. Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 03:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually it doesnt matter what format the images are in, they cannot meet our inclusion policy with regards to non-free content in this article. Werieth (talk) 04:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

excellent validation, cannot or you can't be bothered? your non-free deletion bias is established. Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 04:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It is a matter of clear policy, just like I cannot write an article about my favorite teacher I had in school. There is absolutely zero chance that the teacher would meet our inclusion criteria. I could list another hundred examples where our policy prevents articles from being created. I dont have a deletion bias, If there are examples where there is a good defense for a particular file I will defend it. However this is like asking a lawyer to get you off scott free after you robbed a bank and where caught red handed, the cops have video, DNA, fingerprints, witnesses, and a signed confession from you. At that point the lawyer has no chance of complying with your request. This is a similar case, it is not possible to implement your request. Werieth (talk) 04:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Non-free content, per the Foundation (not just en.wiki) is required to meet specific requirements for use. On en.wiki, one of those requirements is that the images are needed to comprehend the article, and would harm the article's understanding if omitted. As this article only discusses the fact that several pieces of art along the Boston Metro, and not anything about their visual significance, the bulk of the images outright fail this. This is a bright line, not something that is flexible. --MASEM (t) 05:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I will try to respond point by point, but I may miss something as this discussion is a little messy. In general I agree that most lists of artworks should not include a fair use image of every one, but I think this article is a special case. Unlike the "List of artworks in [blank] city" pages, this is a finite number of artworks that will not grow. They were all created for the same purpose and can be looked at as total artistic endeavor instead of singular works. below are my responses to the polices stated above:

• NFCC#3 : One item of non free use would not suffice for this article as the works are spread out across miles in various subway stations. The information included in each image is part of a larger whole that comes into focus when they are all seen together. Currently most of the pictures only show a portion of each work instead of the entire thing, so 3b is already satisfied.
• NFCC#8 : The removal of these images would be detrimental to the reader comprehending this article. Each work was chosen for the Arts on the line program for a reason and without a visual representation of the work that reason may get lost. Describing hundreds of bronze gloves on an escalator does get across the same information as an image does. with out these images the reader can not understand the connections visually between the works the committee chose.
• WP:NFLISTS : This section has many points, but the major one can be summed up by. "use a picture of multiple characters in a tv show, like a cast photo, instead of individual pictures of each member." this is impossible with these artworks as they are spread out over miles. I can only think off the top of my head of two that may be able to be photographed together, and I am not even sure if that is possible. Also this page talks about referring to images on other pages if they exist. The problem with that is that most of the works do not have their own pages, at least they don't have them yet. I would be willing to remove the images of works that have their own page if there is consensus for that.
• WP:NFTABLE : this explicitly states that, "The use of non-free images arranged in a gallery or tabular format is usually unacceptable, but should be considered on a case-by-case basis," which is what we are considering right now. Arts on the Line does not violate this policy.--Found5dollar (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

  One random example, beyond the basic is X what critical commentary is there on File:AlewifeTileMural - from Commons.JPG? I see a total of 80 characters, which is a very basic description of what it is. With that little commentary how can its removal be detrimental to the article? Right now there isnt consensus for the usage of the files in this article thus it violates WP:NFTABLE. Werieth (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Well first of all, it's detrimental because you lose the visual of what the artwork looks like. These are mostly abstract works of sculpture; a full description is mostly next to impossible. But if it's "critical commentary" that you want, great, that can be provided and expanded - and that's what you should have asked for first. I'll be happy to dig up some reviews of the works, etc, though it might take me a few days.

Second, place me third on the list of editors who feel that this list is a definite exception to NFTABLE due to the specially artistic nature of the content (as opposed to, for example, discographies where the album covers are secondary to the actual music). Relevantly, both Found5dollar and I have taken and added images to the article so we're familiar with the fair use guidelines.

Third, you should have raised the issue on the talk page first, rather than removing them with a policy link and no other comment. Unannounced large-scale removal of content without discussion comes across as at least rude, if not outright hostile. Mass edits with bare policy links are okay for uncontroversial tasks like the wikidata migration, but I ask that you please not do so for actions like that that may be challenged. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually removal then discussion is standard practice, it is extremely difficult to defend an article which is in the top 0.00062282117390772% for usage of non-free media. If you can find enough sources and establish independent notability for each work of art to meed the bar to include the non-free media. It can typically stand on its own and thus a list style article wouldn't support it, while and independent article would. Werieth (talk) 14:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Huh? The popularity of an article has nothing to do with the inclusion of fair-use images in it. And who's to be the arbiter - the authors who have worked on this article and understand the context of the works, I hope? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you are misreading that statistic. I was saying that only 0.0006% of the articles on Wikipedia contain as much or more non-free media as this article. Meaning that such liberal usage of non-free content is extremely extremely rare. It has nothing to do with popularity of an article. Also those who are involved with an article may be unable to maintain neutral point of view with respect to their article and issues that it may have. Werieth (talk) 18:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

And your source for that number is...? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:DBR has a link to a report updated daily, located at Articles containing an unusually high number of non-free files which lists a total of 26 articles with 17 or more non-free files. {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} provides 4174710. Take (26/4174710)*100 and the result is 0.00062279118721726% (which is very slightly different now due to the fact that the number of articles is constantly changing) Werieth (talk) 19:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

what an amusing demonstration of Precision bias. the fact this article is a The Black Swan (Taleb book) is not an argument for or against the images remaining. i see you use that as a hit list to delete images. the policy is very clear: "should be considered on a case-by-case basis". there seems to be a consensus for them remaining, in this case. Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 19:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually I see a non-consensus being reached here. I see a lot of WP:ILIKEIT, with little policy backing it up. On the other other side I see policy, multiple discussions, and well grounded policy which clearly discourages and prohibits the usage of non-free media in these cases without extenuating circumstances. Those circumstances have not been met. Werieth (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

PS Precision bias is a red herring and doesn't apply. My statement was both precise and accurate. If you can disprove the facts that led to the 0.00062279118721726% number I will drop the enforcement requirements for this article and let someone else deal with it when/if they ever get around to it. However because I know both the facts and precision in my arguments are valid, its not going to happen. Werieth (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

does apply - "there is a significant danger that a seemingly impressive quantity of statistics may be collected even though these statistics may be of little value". arguments have been made that the photos add to the quality of the article, are you seriously arguing that they do not? what policy argument do you have? what facts? i see "i don't like it" you use betacommand tools, you may share his fate. unlike Masem you have saved 0 fair use images, so your bias is clear. Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 20:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

When necessary I do support the usage of non-free files [1] However when it does not comply with policy I cannot support those actions. Werieth (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Slowking's words are unnecessarily harsh, but he has good points. You have received persistent complaints about your deletion of all images on pages without initial discussion nor any attempt to rewrite articles that have been hurt by the removal of images. I also don't appreciate the idea that I need to be "enlightened" as though I am an inferior user. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I generally support the anti-deletion comments. The addition of photos greatly improves the article, which needs more than strictly verbal descriptions of what are primarily visual artworks. Critical commentary would be a further enhancement, but mostly useless without some kind of image of the artwork being reviewed. I really appreciate the high quality work that was contributed by the photographers, which makes the article more comprehensible. Reify-tech (talk) 05:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I support leaving the article as it has been with the present images, and adding missing images. Having a picture of each part of the collective art work is important to an encyclopedic presentation of this art work, and it's history. The images I've checked come close enough to meeting the guidelines. One of those cases, where a strict following of the guidelines hurts this encyclopedia. Lentower (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Our policy, WP:NFTABLE explicitly envisions exceptions on "a case-by-case basis." This is a ground-beaking public art project, paid for by public funds and displayed on public property, with the works spread over an entire city. There is no way to adequately write an article about the project without showing what the public money purchased. The images here are low resolution and generally only show portions of the art work. I can't think of a situation where an exception to NFTABLE is more justified. --agr (talk) 14:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Lists of public art in the United States. If we grant an exception here, it needs to apply to all of those too. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

As I have stated above, this article is different to those "List of artworks in [blank] city" pages. I agree those articles shoudl not include image of every work in a city, whereas Arts on the Line contains a finite number of artworks that will not grow. They were all created for the same purpose and can be looked at as total artistic endeavor instead of singular works. This alone separates it from the "list of artworks" pages and places it in a different sphere.--Found5dollar (talk) 01:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, I don't agree. The question here isn't the nature, but the overt use. If you allow it here, it really should be on those others as well. There's no reason not to. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

All of those lists are lists of works in a geographic area, with no set focus or qualifications for inclusion. Arts on the Line was a specific program with a finite set of artworks, that were chosen from mostly established artists to be centerpieces - in other words, significant enough to merit a fair-use image. I'll be working on digging up artistic criticism and other sources that establish more than sufficient context for the individual images. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• I realize you're trying to carve out a special case such that it would be easier to grant an exception just for this one article than all of those. I'm sorry, I still disagree. That said, I don't see a problem with having non-free images on any of those articles. Given the overflowing abundance of non-free content all over the project, restricting list of arts articles is an extremist position. There are plenty of other articles and types of articles where we all allow lots and lots of non-free content. Nobody bats an eyelash with History of BBC television idents having 25 non-free images or Internet Explorer with 15. And before anyone tries to claim this is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, it isn't. I am describing common, accepted practice. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

straw man argument, not what's being argued here case by case which is in strict accordance with policy. if you want no exceptions then change the policy. if public art troubles you, we'll just fork it, to "wikipublic art" and go to a reasonable fair use policy, based on the AU code of best practices [2]. wikipaintings is already going there. why wikipedia should want to reinvent the wheel of fair use policy is beyond me. Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 14:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• Anyone is welcome to fork from this project. It's been done on multiple occasions. Wikia has been the recipient of quite a number of editors from here who have become very disenchanted with how Wikipedia operates. Public art does not trouble me at all. Please understand; I find no reason to prohibit the use of non-free images on this article as it is currently used. Notionally, the WP:NFCC policy is intended to keep the project a free license project in as much as possible. Thus, "fair use" has little meaning here. With regards to fair use law, Wikipedia as an educational resource has very wide latitude with regards to how much non-free material it can use. In this specific case, that means the progenitors of the artworks displayed on this article would have a very difficult time trying to prevent the use of the images here based on fair use law in the U.S. The rub is the WP:NFCC policy, which has failed on multiple fronts. There is an enormous gulf between what is regarded as common practice on this project and what WP:NFCC would have us believe is to be done. There is nothing wrong on this article, but for its lack of adherence to a guideline (WP:NFTABLE) which is ignored in common practice. An unenforced guideline is no guideline at all. WP:NFTABLE should be marked as historical or removed from WP:NFC entirely. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

a guideline with written exceptions which are not allowed, is no guideline at all. either argue on the merits on a case by case basis, or strike the case by case basis in the guideline. Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 16:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Images removed

Given that it is clear that the current tabulated images fail multiple policies and guidelines, I have removed them all. I would suggest that editors of the article work to justify the inclusion of a few images (the more "iconic" ones, perhaps) as examples; but there is clearly no justification for 17 non-free images. Black Kite (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

You appear to be unwilling to read the lengthy discussion above in which multiple editors justify the use of the multiple images. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Multiple editors can talk all they wish, but that does not override non-free image policy. Black Kite (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

no, editors can discuss on a case by case basis, in strict accordance with the policy. if you want to 3RR, you should expect more drama, and perhaps a block. Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 19:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Slowking, I suggest you remember the old adage about hiney and vinegar. Just because you disagree with Black Kite doesn't mean you need to be accusatory. While I disagree with their removal of the images, it sure isn't a blockable behavior. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Especially as removal of non-free images in line with policy is an exemption from 3RR. (Wikipedia:3RR#3RR_exemptions point 4). Black Kite (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

"Unquestionably" violates the policy. Given that there has been serious question by myself and others over whether this qualifies as an exception to NFTABLE, I do not believe this is allowed as a 3RR exemption. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

There's absolutely no doubt that it fails WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8, though. Black Kite (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Huh? #3a says "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." One item does not convey equivalent information. If the artworks were all in the same style, then one perhaps could - a single Andy Warhol print, for example, can demonstrate a huge part of his style. But an image of the granite blocks at Alewife conveys no information about the installation of hanging neon tubes, or the curved wooden benches. My point, and that of others above, is also very plainly that of #8: " Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." These are often unusual artworks, for which a prose description cannot completely explain the form of the form. There is no freely usable content that can substitute that understanding (these are primarily US-based artists, without equivalent works in FOP countries). This is in no way a 3RR exemption, regardless of the semantics. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI: We may be seeing input from users at Wikipedia:WikiProject Public Art or WP:VAMOS as I posted a question there about naming conventions for articles on the individual artworks. (Multiple artists with multiple untitled works makes naming difficult at best). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Second thread

Then unless NFTABLE is striked (which, as Hammersoft noted above, might not be a bad thing) then I guess I'll go through and rewrite the article in traditional encyclopedia format (not a list). The table is a useful way to organize it, but prose might be worthwhile for more complete discussion. So that I can avoid violating it, what rule will you wish to use to strike the images which the article is a) entirely in prose form with b) independent discussion of each artwork? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

i wouldn't do that, they'll just delete the images because there's not enough "critical commentary". better to add referenced discussion about each piece of art. Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 19:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Which would almost certainly fail NFCC as well. This is exactly the same concept as, for instance, discographies. We do not have non-free album covers in discographies (except in very rare circumstances) because in general those items are notable enough to have their own articles (where the single non-free image would reside). If they aren't, then they have no image. This is no different. If the artworks are notable enough to have their own articles then a nonfree image woud be reasonable for identification; however here there is no indication that they do. As I said above, a small number of iconic images may be reasonable; an image for nearly every artwork is not, and will never be. Black Kite (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you clarify why the use in list/table articles is specifically prohibited? The justification given on the NFCC page pretty much seems to be "because we said it is" which makes it very difficult to argue why something should be an exception.

Can you also please clarify what you would consider a reasonable number of images, if the article eventually contains significant description of each artwork but they're not considered notable enough to have their own articles? There's no way to choose certain artworks to represent the entire set, as it was intentionally a wide mix of media. Even dividing the article up by station and choosing one per station would be problematic because there is no common theme per station. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, the policy says "minimal". That would, of course, be zero for most articles. I do not think, however, it would be difficult to write a rationale for at least one, and perhaps more, image(s) to be included if it were (for example) to show examples of how the artworks were installed in the railway network. The devil is in the detail, as always with NFCC. Black Kite (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• I started an ANI discussion due to the mess that is the revert warring. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 02:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

i changed my mind, about the untabled image presentation. i userified a paragraph section here [3]. if there are no complaints, i propose to replace the table with this. Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 01:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The usage was unacceptable in user space, and would violate WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3, and WP:NFCC#8 in article space. Inserting that again after the edit-war you were just blocked for would result in a reinstatement of the block.—Kww(talk) 02:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

i see your objection. would your care to elaborate on your statement, or is it a violation because you say so. Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 02:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a violation because there is no way that the description of an art program requires an image of every individual work of art selected.—Kww(talk) 02:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the basic gist. That was not explained by the editors who originally removed the images, but once it was articulated during the ANI, I changed my opinion. Perhaps half of the artworks are independently notable and those will in time get articles. There's no particular need to hurry; the deleting admin will likely be open to undelete requests for well-written articles with clear notability. Trying to argue for the images on the Arts on the Line page is beating a dead horse at this point. And Kww is entirely right - fair use images are NOT allowed in userspace. Some parts of the NFCC policy are ambiguous; that is explicitly not.

Kww, since you have access to the protected page, could you please link The End of the Red Line and Sculpture with a D from the table? Both works appear to be among those that are notable; a quick google search reveals a sufficient number of sources available. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll wait a day or two until I'm confident that everyone will refrain from reinserting the images, and will just unprotect the page unless Penwhale has a strong objection. If he objects to unprotecting, I'll go ahead. I don't edit through protection except in dire circumstances.—Kww(talk) 06:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Gotcha, fair enough. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Kww: You have my blessing to proceed as you see fit. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 10:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Reduced protection. I'm still watching, though.—Kww(talk) 15:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

crisis over oh really, what crisis? the crisis of policy hypocrisy? on what fact do you base your confidence that everyone will refrain from reinserting the images. it's a fundamentally flawed criteria. Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 15:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I base it on my confidence that you are well aware that your next block over this issue will be an indefinite one, ending only when you agree to stop intentional violations of policy.—Kww(talk) 15:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

what makes you think i don't want an indefinite block? i asked for a 6 month one. just to be clear, i don't have a problem with a fair use policy per se: have no fair use; have all fair use; have some fair use. but don't say you will include fair use on a case by case basis, and then peremptorially declare "unambiguous violation". fair use is not a copyright vio, nor libel, and therefore does not require immediate action. the repeated pattern of missuse of tools is incompetant. why would i want to stick around this crap shoot? Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 16:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Which images to use in article

It seems to me the article could include one or two image examples, preferably ones that are not in other articles. I'd suggest File:Omphalos.JPG as a possibility.--agr (talk) 17:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Non-free content should always be minimal extent - i.e, the fewest copyrighted images needed. Thus, using an image that's already used on one of the individual artwork articles will be preferable. Omphalos is probably notable enough to get its own artwork anyway. And don't flatter me - there's a lot better photogrpahs of it available anyway. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Omphalos

Looks like "Omphalos" may be in trouble: "Crumbling hopes for Harvard Square sculpture". Probably worth at least a mention here, though that may well be enough to split it out on notability. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Arts on the Line. 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/20110721034510/http://www2.cambridgema.gov/cac/public_art_tour/map_01_alwife.html to http://www.cambridgema.gov/cac/public_art_tour/map_01_alwife.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721034520/http://www2.cambridgema.gov/cac/public_art_tour/map_04_porter.html to http://www.cambridgema.gov/cac/public_art_tour/map_04_porter.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721034529/http://www2.cambridgema.gov/cac/public_art_tour/map_05_harvard.html to http://www.cambridgema.gov/cac/public_art_tour/map_05_harvard.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: 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) 02:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)