Talk:Wilmslow Road bus corridor

Route map

Discusions on whether and how a route map can be included should be on this talk page.
Discusions on specifics of the map used are on its talk page - Template talk:Wilmslow Road bus corridor
Yaris678 (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Comparison to tabular format

The table that was in the Wilmslow Road article was large, but I think it was superior to the non-tabular format currently used for the following reasons:

• It is easy to see where each bit of information is. Where the bus starts, what the bus frequency is etc..
• It contained links to the relevant timetables.
• It was made it clear where the bus corridor was used in the route.

It may be possible to rectify this by using a standard format for each section. Alternatively, the table could be transferred from the old Wilmslow Road article[1] and the extra information in the non-tabular system could be provided below it in an ‘’Additional notes’’ section. Yaris678 (talk) 12:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The non-tabular format is in keeping with the style that is used on other bus corridor pages:

• West Midlands Coventry Road bus corridor
• West Midlands Bristol Road bus corridor
• West Midlands Soho Road bus corridor
• West Midlands Hagley Road bus corridor
• West Midlands Dudley Road bus corridor
• West Midlands Alcester Road bus corridor
• West Midlands Birmingham to Sutton Coldfield bus corridor

Jenuk1985 | Talk 12:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I've looked at those and they are not exactly consistent with each other. There also seems to be lots of information that I don't think is that important, such as the model of bus used on each route. I think information on bus frequency is more important. Remember that there is this idea that it is the busiest bus corridor in Europe so documenting bus frequency will go some way towards verifying or otherwise this claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaris678 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The bus models can differ on buses (for example, Stagecoach service 42 uses at least two different kinds of bus, while 42 Finglands uses about 5 last I checked.) The bus models are not necessary. If you want to convert it back to a table, feel free to. I personally feel that it is easier to write about in prose form, rather than a list. Majorly talk 21:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the full table as it appeared on the Wilmslow Road article, but I've had a go at a slimmed down version showing the Mon-Fri daytime frequency in User:Divy/Sandbox. Reason being that the corridor is often quoted as being the busiest in the country, yet we never have any numbers to back it up. There appears to be on average a bus every minute between Withington and the city centre. Hopefully we can use this table (which should not need huge amounts of maintenance) along with a textual description of the main services. Divy (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Bus corridor map

Since we have a whole page devoted to the bus corridor now, it might be a good idea to have a bigger map. It could show the different turn-offs used by the different routes. I think this should be in the main body of the article, rather than replacing the small map in the infobox. Yaris678 (talk) 12:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Remember that this is not a travel guide, its not necessary to cater for every single route that uses Wilmslow Road at every point, just the services that regularly use the majority of the corridor, with a note giving a few details regarding extra services that run along smaller parts of the corridor. Jenuk1985 | Talk 12:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I've heard this "not a travel guide" statement before. I don't think that is a reason for including or excluding anything. Unless, of course, you can come up with a statement of what it is, rather than what it is not. Preferably a statement I agree with.  :-) Yaris678 (talk) 15:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Divy has added stuff to the map as I suggested. Only he has done it to the original map rather than creating a new one. It's actually smaller than I expected so there is no need to separate it. Nice one Divy! I especially like the use of Christie hospital on both Wilmslow and Palatine Road! Yaris678 (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Yaris. It's reasonably small size yet still clear, but it is making the pictures bunch up a little, so we may need to look at changing that. Divy (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Oxford Street

How busy is London's Oxford Street bus corridor in comparison? best, 194.80.106.134 (talk) 14:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

An interesting question. I wouldn't consider Oxford Street to be a bus corridor as such – its usage is more as a city centre "terminus" and the access road to it. As such, it'd be more comparable with Portland Street and Piccadilly Gardens in Manchester, which would include additional services that are not detailed in this article. The stretch of Wilmslow Road between the University and Withington (with its one bus every minute) is outside Manchester city centre, a route calling at several suburbs along the way. A better comparison therefore would be with a radial route out of the centre of London – Bayswater Road or Kensington Road for example?

Just out of interest though: a rough calculation of off-peak Monday to Friday routes running along the 0.75 miles of Oxford Street between Selfridges and Oxford Circus [2]: 6 (10); 7 (8); 10 (8); 13 (8); 15 (8); 15H (4); 23 (10); 30 (6); 73 (10); 94 (12); 98 (10); 113 (6); 137 (10); 139 (8); 159 (10); 189 (8); 274 (8); 390 (8) = 152 buses per hour. Divy (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the article could do with a brief mention of the aggregate frequency as you calculated above - it doesn't appear anywhere. BTW, I make that 2.53 buses per minute for Oxford Street! best, 194.80.106.134 (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Divy did do a calculation for this: User:Divy/Sandbox#Wilmslow Road summary

That gives 62 buses per minute at peak time on the 4 miles from Withington to Piccadilly Gardens (more on later sections). I think this needs to be mentioned in the article. Perhaps the calculation can also be given its own page that can be referenced by the article. Something like main article:Wilmslow Road bus corridor frequency

I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't the busiest bus corridor in Europe. Although you can find plenty of claims that this is the case, I have yet to see a definitive survey. This is why, when I came across the claim on Wikipedia I changed it to say reputedly the busiest in Europe. Divy's calculation is the one half of that survey, the other half is doing the same calculation for all other bus corridors in Europe!

Yaris678 (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Table merged from the frequency article

This now needs to be cut down into more of a summary paragraph, if even needed at all. At the moment it is certainly not encyclopaedic and doesn't really add anything to the article. I'll give it a few days before I have a go at it myself Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It adds to the article because it shows that there is a bus at least every minute between Manchester and Withington, on what is claimed to be Europe's busiest bus corridor. I'm open to ideas on how this information can be displayed in other ways, but the table seems like the best way to me. Perhaps cut it down to City centre, University, Withington, West Didsbury and Parrs Wood, removing services that aren't direct from Manchester or that do not operate as far as Withington. Would that simplify things enough? Divy (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I have moved the offending table from the main article to the talk page pending further discussion to generate consensus. Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

We agreed consensus that it wasn't suitable for a seperate article, not that it shouldn't appear on this article. I posted a link to a prototype on my sandbox on 8 May and had very little feedback, let alone consensus for removal (or rather that it shouldn't be added in the first place). Anyway. Please could you reply to my suggestions above? Ta. Divy (talk) 17:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

My issues:

1. The claim is already sourced, so doesn't need to be "proven", which leads on to the next point..
2. It is original research
3. It duplicates information already given in the article.
4. It is difficult to read
5. It is unnecessarily colour coded
6. To a large extent, its irrelevant

Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

1. The only notability this article has (in contrast to many of the other UK bus route articles which I'd argue have no notability at all) is that it is claimed by the UK government to be the busiest bus corridor in Europe. At the very heart of this claim is that it has the most buses running along it. Therefore, it does not seem to be excessive to state how many buses that actually consists of. After all, you did add a frequency parameter to the Template:Infobox UK Bus Route. I haven't attempted to detail all possible frequency permutations at any time of the day/week, just daytime Monday to Friday during university term.
2. The only bit of original research is that I've included a "total" column at the bottom of the table.
3. Nowhere in the article does it mention how many buses there are along the busiest bus route in Europe. I'd argue that the individual route sections need to be simplified anyhow, given that they do not have enough notability to stand on their own feet as individual articles. Perhaps grouped by destination, with some of the minor routes relegated.
4. I've proposed making simplifications to make it more readable - "Perhaps cut it down to City centre, University, Withington, West Didsbury and [East Didsbury], removing services that aren't direct from Manchester or that do not operate as far as Withington. Would that simplify things enough?"
5. I could remove the colour coding, or at least use the discrete colour coding as used on the Reading Transport article.
6. It isn't irrelevant knowing how many buses per hour operate along a corridor that is claimed to have the most number of buses operating along it in Europe.

Ta. Divy (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The table can be summed up in one short sentence: "There are 112 buses per hour travelling along the route."{{cn}} The table is overkill. Nev1 (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see my revised table below, addressing issues that User:Jenuk1985 raised. Easier to read, more clarity. I am trying to be constructive and take your points on board, as I do believe a simple summary table will enhance the article. Putting base frequencies is no worse than detailing which route numbers operates along Wilmslow Road, as both are equally liable to change. Divy (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It's still overkill. Your main point for including the table was illustrating that it is the busiest bus corridor in Europe, but it can be better conveyed in a single sentence. Nev1 (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is my take on this whole thing:

• If collating information from other places into a new form counts as original research then the whole of Wikipedia is original research.
• Putting the table in Wilmslow Road bus corridor is offputting.
• Putting the table in a separate article (e.g. Wilmslow Road bus corridor frequency) makes much more sense. Although it would help if this article was linked to, which isn't currently the case.
• Articles which are mostly a big table are fairly common on Wikipedia so I don't see why people don't like that article. For example, see Turnpike trusts in Greater Manchester.
• The old colour coding was a bit intrusive, but the new coding is fine.
• Perhaps "RNCM" should be added to the revised table. In contrast I think it is right to keep "City Centre" out.

Yaris678 (talk) 12:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Summary of Wilmslow Road services

The table below has been collated from timetable information available on the internet and is correct as of 25 May 2009.

Service	Operator	From	To	Buses per hour, Monday to Friday daytime during university term
				City centre	RNCM	University	Fallowfield	Withington	West Didsbury	Didsbury	East Didsbury
				Mileage:	0.5 miles	0.8 miles	2.5 miles	3.3 miles	3.8 miles	4.4 miles	5.3 miles
15	Stagecoach	Manchester	Flixton	4	4	4
16	Arriva	Manchester	Altrincham	2	2	2
23/23A	Stagecoach	Trafford Centre	Stockport							4	4
41	Finglands	Manchester	Sale	3	3	3	3	3	3
41	Stagecoach	Manchester	Altrincham	2	2	2	2	2	2
42	Finglands	Manchester	East Didsbury	12	12	12	12	12	-	12	12
42	Stagecoach	Manchester	Stockport	4	4	4	4	4	-	4	4
42A	Stagecoach	Manchester	Reddish	2	2	2	2	2	-	2	2
43	Stagecoach	Manchester	Airport	6	6	6	6	6	6
44	Haytons	Manchester	Gatley	1	1	1	1
46/47	Magic Bus	Manchester	Southern Cemetery	4	4	2	2	2	2
48	Finglands	Manchester	Northenden	3	3	3	3	3	3
85	Stagecoach	Manchester	Chorlton	6	6
86	Stagecoach	Manchester	Chorlton	10	10
111	Stagecoach	Manchester	Southern Cemetery	6	6	6
140	Finglands	Manchester	West Didsbury	2	2	2	2	2	2
142	Magic Bus	Manchester	East Didsbury	12	12	12	12	12	-	12	12
143	Magic Bus	Manchester	West Didsbury	12	12	12	12	12	12
147	Bullocks	Manchester	Royal Infirmary	6	6	6
197	Stagecoach	Manchester	Stockport	3	3	3
250	Stagecoach	Manchester	Trafford Centre	4	4
263	Arriva	Manchester	Altrincham	6	6
370	Stagecoach	Altrincham	Stockport							2	2
X57	Stagecoach	Manchester	Woodford	2	2	2	2	2	-	2	2
Total				112	112	84	63	62	30	32 (+6)	32 (+6)

Revised table

	Service	Operator	From	To	Buses per hour, Monday to Friday daytime during university term
					City centre	University	Withington	West Didsbury	East Didsbury
					Mileage:	0.8 miles	3.3 miles	3.8 miles	5.3 miles
	15	Stagecoach	Manchester	Flixton	4	4
	16	Arriva	Manchester	Altrincham	2	2
	41	Finglands	Manchester	Sale	3	3	3	3
	41	Stagecoach	Manchester	Altrincham	2	2	2	2
	42	Finglands	Manchester	East Didsbury	12	12	12	-	12
	42	Stagecoach	Manchester	Stockport	4	4	4	-	4
	42A	Stagecoach	Manchester	Reddish	2	2	2	-	2
	43	Stagecoach	Manchester	Airport	6	6	6	6
	44	Haytons	Manchester	Gatley	1	1
	46/47	Magic Bus	Manchester	Southern Cemetery	4	2	2	2
	48	Finglands	Manchester	Northenden	3	3	3	3
	111	Stagecoach	Manchester	Southern Cemetery	6	6
	140	Finglands	Manchester	West Didsbury	2	2	2	2
	142	Magic Bus	Manchester	East Didsbury	12	12	12	-	12
	143	Magic Bus	Manchester	West Didsbury	12	12	12	12
	147	Bullocks	Manchester	Royal Infirmary	6	6
	197	Stagecoach	Manchester	Stockport	3	3
	X57	Stagecoach	Manchester	Woodford	2	2	2	-	2
Total					84	84	62	30	32

Busiest in Europe ?!

Curious, how come a meager one bus per minute in a small town of half-a-million claim to be "busiest in Europe"? Perhaps, limiting it to UK will be more appropriate. NVO (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Manchester isn't a small town of half a million, it's the UK's third biggest city. And it isn't one bus per minute either. Majorly talk 23:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth. And certainly not opinion. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, 3 million, that's closer. But the text says "sees an average of at least one bus per minute" - how many it is actually at rush hour? ten? twenty a minute? Hell, some five years ago when I lived "in the country" I used to wake up and see literally hundreds of buses storming the highway on-ramp... every morning... never again. All trying to squeeze some 200 thousands passengers through a three-lane ramp. NVO (talk)

Is there any point to that comment?! Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Buried beneath "literally hundreds of buses", I think the point is how many buses are there per hour at peak times? I could be wrong though. Anyway, the statement that the route is reputedly the busiest in Europe is sourced, so I don't see there's much else we can do. We don't need to quantify the statement with number of buses. Nev1 (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed you don't, consider removing "at least one bus per minute". NVO (talk) 03:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Jenuk1985: actually, yes. I checked the supplied data tables and it appears that Winslow route schedule does not stand out at all. So perhaps the peak capacity, buried in the tables, is indeed high; this, and not the low average rate, should be demonstrated. As I suggested to Nev1, either provide convincing and easily comprehensible data (better be over 20 per minute peak) or remove the number at all, leaving cited superlatives. NVO (talk) 04:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The reference for the lead para <ref>House of Commons Transport Committee, p.213</ref> is useless. Does anyone know the date or URL for it? - Pointillist (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a policy that says that references must be on the internet? Jenuk1985 | Talk 18:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

A date would be nice. No library could find it as it stands, so nobody can refer to it. Mr Stephen (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not useless. It's quite clear in the bibliography - the "House of Commons Transport Committee, p.213" refers to the book authored by that committee - therefore, it's referring to this. The information is freely available on Google books (where I found the information in the first place). Here is the direct link. Majorly talk 18:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want an online ref, a copy of the text is here. Majorly talk 18:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• @User:Jenuk1985. Hi, I entirely agree there's no policy that references should be on the Internet. It is just that because pretty much everything from the UK Parliament can be found online at either http://hansard.millbanksystems.com or http://www.parliament.uk/, that would be the default way of making a reference to recent parliamentary business, and (I imagined) might be why there was no date. In fact I'd already found it but couldn't confirm the match.
• @User:Majorly. Thanks for your quick response: I didn't make the connection, I'm afraid. Per WP:CITESHORT the normal way to do that is footnotes->references, not references->bibliography. Anyway, as you will have seen from the referenced quote I added, I found the same statement online in the usual place, just without the mysterious "page 213"!
• @Everyone. As it turns out, this source is only written (i.e. unchallenged) evidence to the committee by a local Manchester transport lobbying group. It's a reasonably good source for the quote about local conditions, but it isn't adequate for "often claimed to be the busiest bus corridor in Europe", so I've marked that as {{by whom}} until we can find a more reliable statistic. - Pointillist (talk) 21:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Rather dated, I'm afraid, but: Clouston, Erlend (12 December 1991). "Driving force in Wilmslow Road corridor: Erlend Clouston rides the No 42 along one of the country's most gruelling bus routes". The Guardian. Over a 12-hour period, 10 different companies dispatch 1,650 buses ... Mr Stephen (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that, it is however as you say rather dated - it's mostly Stagecoach and Finglands now, so I think the level of traffic isn't as bad as it once was. Majorly talk 21:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think proving this claim is worth a lot of effort. Just kill the "often^{[by whom?]}" bit and you have a well sourced article that make a really interesting point about the effects of deregulation. Anyway, if you look too hard, you might find that places like London's Oxford Street and Buckingham Palace Road are busier nowadays. Happy editing - Pointillist (talk) 22:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry; see my previous Guardian link, Helen Pidd, "It is often said that the main route from the south of Manchester into town, from Fallowfield along Wilmslow Road and Oxford Road, is the busiest bus lane in Europe." Mr Stephen (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, but it doesn't read like a very positive source, it was a light piece for Guardian G2, the point wasn't central to the article, Helen Pidd was still a junior feature writer then, she'd probably spent the day talking to local transport sources, it uses unsourced passive voice etc. As I said earlier, it might be true, but you could waste a lot of time trying to prove it. - Pointillist (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it - are you trying to say that the claim is incorrect? Do you have a source to suggest Oxford Street or Buckingham Palace Road are busier? Majorly talk 22:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

What I was thinking was that though I can believe the claim, I could also believe it of Oxford Street, and if you include inter-city coaches I could believe it of Buckingham Palace Road, and if you allow trams the approach to the central terminus in Amsterdam gets quite busy, and so on. Wilmslow Road's claim isn't unlikely, but it is a big claim, and it needs a source that is credible on the subject of European bus traffic. Written evidence from a local lobbying group and a lightweight article comparing cycling (not buses) in Manchester and Birmingham etc., well, they just don't come near the level that would convince anyone from outside England. I'm trying to keep this friendly but I think you good people may have a bit of a WP:COI on this one. Imagine that an article about Berlin or Amsterdam was making the same claim. Assuming no language barrier, what sorts of source would you demand before relinquishing Manchester's claim? Cheers - Pointillist (talk) 23:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the article says "WR is the busiest bus corridor in Europe", which would be a big ask; what it says is "WR is reputed/often claimed to be ..." which is certainly true—here's a couple of instances of other people saying the same thing. Is it the busiest? I have no idea. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, just kill the word "often" (and my tag) and you have a nice little article. Why go for more? - Pointillist (talk) 23:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC) (zzzz for me now)

I'm not entirely sure what the problem with the word "often" is. Would you be happy with "sometimes"? I think the fact that the claim/reputation exists is worth noting, but maybe we should also note that no definitive survey can be found to prove this.Yaris678 (talk) 18:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I also think that if a definitive survey was done, the results would probably depend on how long something would have to be to count as a corridor. For example Oxford Street is only 1.2 miles long.Yaris678 (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The OED website says "often" means 1. frequently; 2. in many instances. Currently the claim has two sources at most (the Guardian source has defects), which is not "in many instances". "Reputedly" is probably an acceptable alternative in this case (as used in the May 11th DYK) though some people <grin> might say it's a weasel word. If we were trying to compare two "bus corridors" that term would need to be better defined: in Dublin it seems to be about preferential treatment for buses, but by analogy with Air corridors like West Berlin Air Corridor it also implies some funneling into a restricted route. Oxford Street probably passes both those tests, even though it is relatively short as you say. Anyway, I first got involved in this because I saw the "often" claim and I thought "how fascinating—I'll check the reference for more info", and sources are really all I'm interested in here. Beyond that I've no skin in this game and I wish you all well. - Pointillist (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Doing a Google search on busiest bus europe "wilmslow road" OR "oxford road" gives 5,140 hits. OK so the first two are from Wikipedia and some of them say things like "one of the busiest", but most of them are the sort of thing we are talking about. I think that counts as often. Of course, they could all be talking rubbish, but it is the fact that the claim/reputation exists that we are reporting, not that it is true. Since we have a whole section devoted to the claim/reputation in the article, maybe it would be worth going over some "health warnings" relating to the claim. Yaris678 (talk) 10:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Those pictures ...

While I'm here, did anyone else notice that not one of all those pictures of buses was taken on Wilmslow Road? Do we really need so many? I would have thought a picture of a stack of the things outside the University Union with a queue of students would have been more informative. Mr Stephen (talk) 00:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

They're either of ones from Commons or Flickr. I suppose I could go down and take some pics myself, but my photos are usually quite poor. There may well be too many, but it's intended they illustrate the different routes and types of buses. PS The image of Piccadilly bus station looks a little too small and grainy for my liking - that could quite easily be fixed. Majorly talk 00:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Something like this would be good? Majorly talk 00:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That's the idea, yes. Mr Stephen (talk) 06:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I tried taking some photos at the weekend but left the house without an SD card. Whoops. As a stop-gap measure, the Piccadilly Gardens picture shows a bit of variety (for these are the bus stops for Wilmslow Road) but I agree it should be replaced in the medium term. I've added a commonscat. Divy (talk) 09:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

We are allowed to include picture from flikr, aren't we? That one suggested by Majorly is spot on. Yaris678 (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

That particular picture is "all rights reserved", so we certainly can't help ourselves to it. The photographer might be amenable to an approach, of course. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

46,47 and 84

Some keen editor has pointed out the end of 46 and 47 (must say that one passed me by!) Does this article contain obsolete services or does that section need removing.

By the same measure, presumably the 84 now needs adding to the list, as it joins withington at Burton road and continues up Wilmslow Road until Parrs Wood.

I haven't fully read this: [3] so there might be more.

Incidentally, when did they become "Transport for Manchester"? -- Fursday 16:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Wilmslow Road bus corridor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070820100628/http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk:80/ewm/00features/422.html to http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/ewm/00features/422.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)