Talk:Iron Bowl

Removed errant equal sign in data box

It just didn't look right. Now it's perfect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:348:380:1890:D974:10AC:EC0C:B9A9 (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Notable Games Revisions

I am trying to improve this section's quality. The descriptions of the games lacked consistency in content and grammar.

1893 -- I would like to use rolltide.com (UA's official site) and auburntigers.com (AU's official site), but I cannot find archives for Auburn. It will be balanced if we use both.

1983 -- Auburn was awarded the national championship by Billingsley, FACT*, Football Research, the NY Times, and Sagarin (ELO-Chess). These have been added to the article.

1993 -- The source citation (www.auburnfootball.com) for Auburn's other national title selections is a fan-based site. I think this violates Wikipedia's rules for [Reliable Sources]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akp1947 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that Auburn itself does not claim national championships for either 1983 or 1993. http://www.auburntigers.com/trads/02_auburn_national_championships.html. As noted above, the fan site (www.auburnfootball.com) may not satisify Wikipedia's rules for [Reliable Sources]. It may make more sense to include only those championships following Iron Bowls claimed by each institution. 63.96.7.3 (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Anon CopyVio

A recent addition by anon: User:24.136.36.173 was copied verbatim from http://www.angelfire.com/al/bamacrimsontide/ironbowlhistory.html. Reverted. Autiger

At some point user readded it. I have re-reverted it. Suggest we apply for protection. Littlerob1221 00:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

When the user readded, they claimed (in the edit comment) permission to post, which is why I let it stand at that point. The game summaries were an informative addition, (if a little slanted to Alabama) so I think they should be added back. I had intended to consolidate the summary and year-by-year results into a single table. Autiger 23:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

the alabama status as "flagship unversity" is hard to argee to when auburn has been ranked higher than alabama in the top public universities consistantly. Also the statement about Auburn students coming from smaller towns has no eveidence what so ever to back that up

"Like many intrastate rivalries between public universities in the United States, much of the animosity between the two schools stems from sociological differences between each school's fan base (alumni and other supporters). Many of the more heated in-state rivalries involve a state's perceived "flagship university" and a land-grant university. Traditionally, flagship universities educated the more urbanized and economically upscale portions of their state's population. Land-grant schools, which were specifically established to provide education in agriculture, engineering, and military science, drew heavily from rural and small-town dwellers. Although this is a gross oversimplification, and there are numerous exceptions to this rule on both sides, there is a core of truth to this divide. In the Iron Bowl, Alabama is the "flagship" school and Auburn the land-grant school"

None of this is verifiable at all

Yes, that part needs to STAY deleted

I was always told growing up, all the rich, spoiled and snobby kids went to Tuscalooser, while the intelligent and mature kids who come from RESPECTABLE families go to AU. Take a stroll through their crappy campus today and ours, and you'll see that things haven't changed. They wanna make fun of us for being a "cow college", I hope they think of that next time they're eating a burger. Besides, I'd much rather be known as a "cow college" than a coke college filled with soon to be dropouts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AUalumnus (talk • contribs) 22:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Auburn University has an established and verifiable history in the arts and pure sciences. The seal of Auburn states; "For the advancement of the sciences and the arts." In short, Auburn is more like an LSU, a flagship / land-grant hybrid, than a Mississippi State, a pure land-grant school. What makes Auburn, and therefore the state of Alabama unique, is that there is also a pure flagship university in state. Fgmoon353 (talk) 02:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Alabama is hardly unique (unless you mean only as compared to Louisiana) in that it has a landgrant university with other respected programs alongside another university that is the focus of a wider university system. Michigan comes to mind. You might fairly say, I meant among schools that think football is more important than that education crap, but then Florida comes to mind (as does Kansas, Oklahoma, and Arizona). The list multiplies depending on how loosely you define "flagship" and land grant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:25CD:80C9:B17E:8802:F890:142E (talk) 03:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Corrected Record

I corrected the overall record of the series, which currently stands at 38-31-1, not 38-32-1 as previously stated. Being an Auburn fan myself, I hope that 38-32-1 is correct this time next year, but for now it is not. Adamepling 15:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone needs to go through and fix all the scores. An anonymous user changed every score to reflect Auburn as the winner, but the user was too dumb to change the table colors and bolded type to really make that sort of inflammatory edit noticeable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.160.157.80 (talk) 05:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Alabama Football.png

The image File:Alabama Football.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

This image is also not the proper logo for the school, merely the football helmet: http://visualid.ua.edu/logos.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.178.24 (talk) 22:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

A little bias?

Honestly. Go back and read the article dispassionately (or better yet, someone who has absolutely no horse in the race do so) and tell me that there's not slant to this article.

Furthermore, it does absolutely nothing to capture the rivalry. Where's mention of media (books, shows, etc.) that have been devoted to this game? What about off-field events? Love them or hate them but you can't leave them out and still communicate what this rivalry means to many. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.178.25 (talk) 05:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The page doesn't appear to contain much in the way of bias. This is true as of today's revision, and I also checked the revision of your previous comment. The overall language is neutral. At the time, there were 2 more Alabama victories listed under "Notable Games", which is understandable given the series record. However, today this has reversed as there have been 4 additional victories added for Auburn (1983, 1957, 1983, 1986), 1 added for Alabama (1948), and 1 deleted for Alabama (1999). So there are now 2 more "Notable Games" for Auburn than Alabama, and given the record, would seem to be biased toward Auburn. I am considering at least adding back the 1999 victory for Alabama. --Bondsbw (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I question the the inclusion of the following games in the notable section:

• 83 and 84 -- these were particularly notable for what reason? Bo played in them? 82 is definitely notable both for Bo's run and being the Bear's last Iron Bowl, but the next two years were nothing really special.
• 86 -- another one that just generally was not particularly special, especially as is pointed out what happened was fairly standard practice
• 93 -- I don't really see the significance of this game either. Auburn was on a TV blackout (which is not "probation" by the way, yeah they got probation too, but probation doesn't keep you from being on TV)
• 94 -- this one is kind of borderline. Personally, I think the tie makes it a stretch, but I've never liked that dancing around with words for "unbeaten".
• 96 -- Eh, I don't like the idea of having Coach Stalling's final game listed because that opens the can of listing all of the important coach's last Iron Bowls which would both end up being unbalanced and spark a debate on who's worthy of mention and who's not (especially since by default you're going to leave off the likes of Coach Thomas on Alabama's side and Coach Jordan on Auburn's side).
• 04 -- just a generic come from behind victory
• 05 -- this goes a little toward my objection to one of the Bo Jackson games, I don't think it's necessarily wise to consider the game notable just because a series record were set, maybe SEC or NCAA record, but not just an Alabama-Auburn one, because like with the coaches, it opens the door for a plethora of categories
• 07 -- seems like if this game is included, might be worthwhile to include the 51 game which marked Alabama's 9th straight Iron Bowl win. Personally, I think in both cases if any game related to these runs is significant, they'd be the year after where the streak was broken, but I also think in the overall series, neither one is particularly significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.178.25 (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

In full disclosure, I'm an Auburn fan, I'm guessing you're a Bama fan, but that's just a guess. Some of these do seem a bit like filler, and while I think all of these games were exciting, I agree that not all are notable. '83 Bo set the rushing record, so it should stay. Along with being the cap to a signature season for Auburn, it remains fairly noteworthy to Auburn fans too. '84 Bo blocking the wrong guy doesn't seem note worthy, so I agree it should go. '86 This game was noteworthy due to the circumstances surrounding it's ending, and aftermath in the press. I believe some of the footnotes indicate this. I think it should stay. I think it's a solid second place to "punt bama punt" for crazy game endings. Reverse to Victory is also an officially named print, yade yade... '93 Noteworthy because JHS was sold out, and more than half of BDS as well. But you're right, this was because of Auburn's sanctions, due to probation, which prohibited games on TV. So it should read "due NCAA sanctions from Auburn probation" Minor edit, but it should stay. '94 Is borderline, it's a stretch, but I vote it stays. '96 yeah, just because it's a coaches last game doesn't make it noteworthy. It should go. '04 yeah, basically you're right. I guess it becomes more noteworthy for Auburn fans being a perfect season. But if you can 04' as being a generic come from behind victory, 09' should go too. '05 Totally disagree with taking this one off, and your reasoning behind it. I looked, and the NCAA record is 15 sacks, so 11 sacks, and being a series record, seems quite noteworthy. I couldn't find the SEC record, but if it's not that game, this game was close to it. I also don't see your logic about the coaches, and some slippery slope of other categories. Fgmoon353 (talk) 07:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm a fairly reasonable Bamer :p

Honestly, I think it may just be that we draw different lines at what exactly "significant" entails. This may well be tainted by my position on the rivalry, but that's part of the reason I'm not going to actually touch the article (well, and in general I don't edit articles because I'm terrible with wikimarkup). I initially talked about bias because the treatments of the Auburn victories were noticeably more in depth and (imo) seemed to be less significant from a series standpoint (i.e. to both schools and their fan bases, not just one). Not enough to cry havoc and throw a neutrality tag up or anything, but enough to notice.

Now my counterpoint to some of your points:

83--why not just have a new section for Iron Bowl records and not list the game? http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2011/11/iron_bowl_records.html has a decent list of individual series records that can be scavenged.

86--meh. Yes, that's the long and short of my counterpoint. I just can't seem to find myself impressed by any media reaction after the last three years.

93--is that the only time or hasn't something similar happened with other Iron Bowls? I seem to remember some other games being shown at BDS on the big screen and I really want to say that they were Iron Bowls, but can't remember and my searchfu is weak tonight.

94--Honestly, 99.9% of my objection to that one comes from calling it a matchup of unbeaten teams with a tie in it. If Alabama were the team that had the tie and not Auburn, I'd have taken this same tack. But I won't be heartbroken either way.

05--I honestly don't think it'd be in the top 10 or so for most sacks in a game, but unfortunately I can't prove that statement because all I can find on the sack records is the top five teams (pg. 20 of http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/2011/Collegiate.pdf ), but I add this into the idea of not listing as a significant game and just having a section for series records--if for no other reason, I think such would be more readable...ye gods after going back to try to nail down anything past those top five schools, it is a nightmare. I think I have a site in my bookmarks that might be helpful, but I can't find it for the life of me. Oh well...

09--Dohoho, I see what you did there :P '09 should stay two of the same reasons that '10 is in there: BCS berth was on the line and Richardson's 57 yard run in that game was widely considered the play that cemented his Heisman (as Cam's involvement with the comeback did the next year), which as we know was the first in Bama's history. More seriously though, if that wasn't the game that Trent's "Heisman moment" took place in, I'd have no issue with getting rid of it. Now, I do think it should be changed to reflect that the reason it's significant is the Heisman moment aspect maybe with a slight nod to the closing drive, but that run cementing the only Heisman in Alabama's storied football history? I think that's definitely significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.178.27 (talk) 05:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

New historical results format

I highly disagree with this new historical results format. The previous was easier to put into a spreadsheet for the purpose of quickly getting statistical data. I plan to change it back to a single table, and to split the scores into separate columns (although for easier readability, I'll leave the score columns next to each other). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.129.102 (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia formatting is not determined by easy translation/conversion to spreadsheets. Other websites and database exist that may serve that purpose. (See, e.g., the record table source link to College Football Data Warehouse.) Our guiding principle in formatting data tables, including college football results tables, should always be "at a glance" easy readability for our readers. If that conflicts with conversion of the table date to spreadsheets by enthusiasts, the easy readability principle trumps any of those concerns. I am more than willing to put this up for a vote on this talk page to determine consensus on the table format and whether it should be presented in two columns. I note that you have previously deleted the two-column format when another editor inserted it. You are entitled to your opinion; but you are not entitled to be a majority/consensus of one.

• Single-column, combined-score: Yes.
• Two-column layout for table: Yes.

I disagree that the 2-column format is easier to read. In a single-column format, I know immediately that 1974 is farther down than 1973. In the dual-column format, I have to find where the break is and determine which column to read, and then determine where it is in that column. Then comparing the years on the break (the 1970s) is more difficult because I can't see them at the same time.

And excuse me, but I reverted to the original format of the article. It should be left that way pending discussion on this talk page. --76.27.129.102 (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Please cast your vote and let's see what our fellow Wikipedia editors think. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but I want to point out what you said:

I note that you have previously deleted the two-column format when another editor inserted it.

You are implying that you are unbiased, but you in fact were the author in question who changed it initially. So please don't change the page back until this has been talked through.--76.27.129.102 (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Please cast your vote and let's see what our fellow Wikipedia editors think. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't vote (I'm 76.27.129.102); it says I need a named account, but voting doesn't allow people who created a named account since discussion started to vote.--Bondsbw (talk) 16:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

flagged for a reassessment

I flagged this for a reassessment b/c it is rated Low Importance and should be at least a mid per the importance scale as a rivalry game. There is a case for ranking the game as a high too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.82.68.160 (talk) 02:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

notable games

I've restored the list of "Notable Games" [1]. However, I do agree to a large extent with the person who removed it in that there's a whole lotta OR in that section. Basically I think it should be trimmed down to the most notable games, ones for which we can actually find a source which explicitly states something like "this was a notable Iron Bowl".  Volunteer Marek  14:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the Notable Games section is a trainwreck in general.

1. There are way too many games listed. Notable is a somewhat subjective term and people are including using a broad definition to include just about every game under the sun.

2. There are very few citations. Half of the game nicknames were clearly just made up on the spot, as were the game descriptions.

3. There's a ton of recency bias as well.

I seriously think scrapping it and starting completely over would be best. There have clearly been a handful of notable games over the years but right now 33 games are listed which is about half of all games played Zaqwert (talk) 03:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The more the merrier. Here are some more notable games - all fourth quarter comebacks: 1970 (Auburn 33-28), 1979 (Alabama 25-18), 1986 (Auburn 21-17) and 1996 (Alabama 24-23).Topcat777 19:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

2013 Notable game

So far I've seen "The Prayer in Jordan-Hare" and "The Happiest Return" among others. We should probably chill before we put it in. And wait for all the commentators to chill too. Volunteer Marek  03:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

notable games

I'm going to toss my 2 cents in and say the notable games section is incredibly biased as well.

1.) Many of the game "nicknames" are frankly made up. Some are well known to the fans "Punt Bama Punt" and "the Run in the Mud" being two examples of such, but many aren't. I say scrap them all together and use the description to define why the game is "notable," not just the fact that the fans have a nickname for the game. 2.) Some of the more recent games have a sentence describing every scoring drive...it's too much. 3.) I would be in favor of significantly trimming this section and making a separate "notable moments" section...most of these aren't notable games, per se, but notable moments. The first game, the resumption of the series, the first televised game, the first night game, 315, etc are all notable games though perhaps nothing notable happened in the game, while the 72, 82, 85, etc games had notable moments at the end of the game while nobody remembers much else about those individual games.

CH52584 (talk)

We can check the sources. If they use nicknames, so should we. Volunteer Marek  15:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. They should be removed until you find them in the sources. CH52584 (talk) 09:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Some sources might be difficult to find. For example, the 2008 game "Beatdown in T-Town" comes from the Birmingham New's headline from the following day. It is not an "official" nickname (if there is such a thing) for that game and as far as I'm aware, the only 2 places where that term has been used is in the Birmingham News and in this wikipedia article. The "Honk if you sacked Brodie" from the 2005 game is a reference to a bumper sticker made for Auburn fans after the game that year. Again, I don't think you'll find that reference anywhere else other than a bumper sticker or this wikipedia page. Instead of putting it in bold and separating it from the rest of the description, I suggest including the term in the description and explaining it's source. For example: "2008: #1 Alabama defeated Auburn 36–0 in Tommy Tuberville's last game as Auburn's head coach, in what the Birmingham News would later refer to as 'The Beatdown in T-Town'," or "2005: Auburn set a new school and series record by sacking Alabama quarterback Brodie Croyle 11 times. Seven different Auburn players recorded at least half a sack in the game, leading Auburn to a 28–18 victory. This game is sometimes known by the bumper sticker it would inspire, 'Honk if you sacked Brodie'." CH52584 (talk) 12:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Addendum:

I searched the wikipedia pages for the top 15 college football rivalries as determined by NFL.com , and have found that of those 15 pages, 7 of 15 have an equivalent "notable games" section.

Oregon-Oregon State: Lists 15 games out of 118 total meetings (13% of total games), no "nicknames" listed

Ole Miss-Mississippi State: Lists 30 games out of 111 total meetings (27%). 12 of 30 games listed have nicknames.

FSU-Miami: Lists 10 games out of 60 total meetings (17%). All have nicknames.

Florida-Florida State: Lists 12 games out of 59 total meetings (20%). All have nicknames.

Cal-Stanford: Lists 12 games out of 117 total meetings (10%). Only one has a nickname (The Play)

Army-Navy: Lists 5 games out of 115 total meetings (4%). No nicknames.

By comparison, this article currently has 25 games out of 79 total meetings (31%) and all had nicknames before my last edit. In addition, 15 (60%) of those games listed have occurred since 1984.

I think this section needs significant improvement, or needs to be removed all together. Also, there are some areas of improvement in other articles as well.

CH52584 (talk)

That list sort of indicates that nicknaming rivalry games is a SEC/southern thing. Volunteer Marek  15:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Not really. If anything it indicates that the "notable games" section is not a commonly used section in these articles, and most articled don't use nicknames. Yes, the Egg Bowl, UF-FSU and FSU-Miami all have nicknames, but MOST don't have the "notable games" section to begin with...Alabama-Tennessee, Florida-Tennessee, Georgia-Florida, Auburn-Georgia, South Carolina-Clemson, Alabama-LSU, LSU-Arkansas, Tennessee-Vanderbilt, etc...And nicknaming games being an SEC might be valid, but doesn't make these particular nicknames any less made up or unsourced. CH52584 (talk) 09:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Editorializing the notable games section

"Auburn came into the game as heavy underdogs but jumped out to a 14–0 lead, thanks to a 67-yard TD run by Terrell Zachary and 1-yard pass TD pass to Eric Smith from Chris Todd. Alabama responded with a Colin Peek 33-yard touchdown catch and a 2-yard TD run by Trent Richardson, tying the game at halftime. Todd set a new Auburn single-season passing TD record with a 72-yard strike to Darvin Adams. Leigh Tiffin cut the advantage to 21–20 with a pair of field goals, setting up the final drive. Auburn had one final chance, but a Hail Mary pass was knocked down in the end zone by Rolando McClain as time expired. Mark Ingram was held to 30 yards on 16 carries but still managed to win the 2009 Heisman Trophy."

This is a section I deleted from the 2009 game. It is a full paragraph game recap. The "notable games" section has been progressively lengthened by the addition of new games of questionable notability and summaries such as this. What makes the game notable is the game winning drive by Alabama at the end of the game that kept their national title hopes alive; that can be explained in one sentence or less and does not need a full game summary.

The statement about Mark Ingram "still managing" is editorialized. Instead of reporting a fact (i.e. "2009 Heisman Trophy winner Mark Ingram was held to 30 yards rushing on 16 carries"), the wording has a negative connotation, suggests the author's opinion was that he shouldn't have won the Heisman based on that performance. And frankly, it's not relevant to the notability of the game, anyway.

As for the deleted years,

1974- not a specifically memorable game as compared with several other games that decade

1994- I was at this game and couldn't remember the specifics of how the game ended until I looked it up

1997- The game ended on a game winning FG, but beyond that, how memorable was it for Auburn to beat a really bad Bama team?

This goes to my point above. Why is the "notable games" section even needed? What constitutes "notable?" All it really takes is for one fan to come to wikipedia and add a given year, and it becomes notable. At some point, decisions will have to be made about what constitutes "notable." I suggest that we agree upon general "notability" guidelines. Until then, we are going to continue deleting and re-adding games. This has been an ongoing discussion on this page for years.

CH52584 (talk) 09:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Dividing the "notable games" section

I went ahead and divided the section like I suggested above. In reading the old section, some games listed are notable because of firsts...for example, first game, first game after resuming the series, first game in Auburn, first game in Tuscaloosa, etc. The notability of those games have nothing to do with any specific occurrence during the game, but a significance of the game itself. Games that are notable due to a specific thing that happened during the game have been moved to a "notable moments" section. I think this is a good first step in evaluating and framing the discussion on the notability of each of these games/moments. CH52584 (talk) 12:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Iron Bowl. 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/20081119155128/http://www.1122productions.com/brandon/ftbstats/2000/week10-2000.html to http://www.1122productions.com/brandon/ftbstats/2000/week10-2000.html
• Added archive https://timetravel.mementoweb.org/memento/2010/http://www.rolltide.com/archive_files/files/football/2007/mediaguide/176-181.pdf to http://www.rolltide.com/archive_files/files/football/2007/mediaguide/176-181.pdf

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) 22:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iron Bowl. 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/20110710010929/http://www.rolltide.com/sports/m-footbl/media-guide.html to http://www.rolltide.com/sports/m-footbl/media-guide.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) 18:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)