This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Cruiser article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There is an interesting difference in the comparison between U.S. and U.K. versions of English.
In this section, the writer refers to Farragut-class vessels as "frigates". The designator for the class "DL" or "DLG" labels these as Destroyer Leaders, the purpose of which was to act as squadron flagship for a deployed destroyer squadron. In that they were built slightly larger, they had staff accommodations. Even the Royal Navy in WWII had vessels in a class designed specifically to act in this capacity. Smaller vessels (in particular DE and DEG) were Destroyer Escorts, designed with convoy escort duty in mind (and were only slightly larger than most WWII "frigates" (PF)). The larger DLG's were better equipped for Anti-aircraft Warfare (AAW), so were naturals for re-designation to CG/CGN (especially the nuclear vessels, who could keep up with the CV). The smaller DL/DLG vessels had lesser AAW weaponry and were really just destroyers. The MISSION determines the classification, not size. The Ticonderogas were designed, from the keel up, as cruisers. Their size was determined by the limitations of the Aegis radar deployment, and designation by the retirement of other older vessels. The Kidd-class destroyers (destined for Iran before the coup) were the only odd ducks hard to really classify - they were Spruance-class hulls with double launchers like the DLG's (that were re-designated as CG's). Which brings us to the Spruance-class Destroyers (DD). They were as large as many WWII cruisers, but were DD because of the better Antisubmarine Warfare (ASW) equipment installed.
I, also, find it interesting that the only two references quoted for this page are written by Brits. The portion of this section dealing with U.S. motives and reasons have not been attributed to any U.S. source. --CDR Tom Mischke USN(Ret.) 16:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Before the 1975 redesignation certain classes of vessels were designated frigates and designated DL, DLG, and DLGN. It proved to be a bad idea as no other Navy followed suit with the designation. In 1975 the frigates were redesignated as destroyers or cruisers. Examples: The DLG-6 class "Coontz class" were redesignated the DDG-37 class. The DLG-16 "Leahy class" were redesignated guided missile cruisers, CG-16 class. Two way time ( talk) 20:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Please clarify the difference between cruiser and battlecruiser, to help translation from foreign languages. mikka (t) 17:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Forgive me if I'm being dense, but it seems to me that in the last paragraph of the 'Later 20th Century' section, it's not entirely clear what name is being misapplied.
The result of the debate was move. — Nightst a llion (?) 11:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Cruiser (warship) → Cruiser – the article was moved last month without first gathering a group consensus; of the 676 articles linking to Cruiser (warship), only 50 link directly to the current name and 500 of them link via the Cruiser page's redirect
The following were moved here from Talk:Cruiser (disambiguation) by me. -- Kralizec! | talk 18:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
We have two explainations as to the origin of the name Cruiser - one in the intro, and one at the start of the following History section. Can we either put both in the same area and list them as both possible origins, or examine which is actually correct?
I'd like to propose a layout for the article, broadly similar to that used at battleship, which presents the material roughly in a chronological order, with shipbuilding, strategic considerations, and operations all considered for each type in roughly the same place. There is no reason at all why this cannot be an FA.
What I suggest is:
... what d'you reckon? The Land 17:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The articles for Cruiser and Destroyer both claim that "At the beginning of the 21st century, [destroyers/cruisers] are the heaviest surface combatant ships in general use, with only four nations (the United States, Russia, France and Peru) operating [these/cruisers ]..." -Greg (forgot my wikipedia username), 10:20am PST, June 18, 2007
I would like to suggest that you guys place a section or paragraph of more recent cruiser history with the Belgrano sinking during the Falklands war. Numerous Falklands and Argentine and UK links exist, and the Cruiser page should likely reflect that. --enm, 19:00 1 Nov 2007 (UTC)
The history of cruisers is best described in the different "epochs" (for a lack of a better term) rather than a continual definition.
Epoch one: Cruisers in the age of sail (>1880)
Epoch two: Steam and steel (1880-1922)
Epoch three: The age of the Washington treaty and World war two. (1922-1945)
Epoch four: Airpower and missiles (1945-Present)
Each one of these epochs have cruisers acting in different rolls and with different design conventions. Comparing cruisers across these divisions is difficult because the technology and rolls have changed so much. 137.144.147.201 ( talk) 22:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Two way time ( talk) 20:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
The article makes no mention of the "Dupuy de l'Homme", even though that was the first protected cruiser with its 23 knots speed. A ship of just 18 knots cannot be called a cruiser, that would be ridiculous! 91.83.3.127 ( talk) 23:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
In the image text concerning HMS Caroline, I added "light" to "cruiser" in the following sentence: "the only World War One era Cruiser in exsistence[sic]", to emphasize that it is the only LIGHT WWI cruiser still out there. There are other preserved cruisers from that era, i.e. the Greek "Georgios Averof" and Russian "Aurora". (Minor changes can matter too...). JT Swe ( talk) 02:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
From the opening section: "only five nations (the United States, Russia, France, Italy and Peru) operating these at the time". That's fine. However the article on destroyer says "only four nations (the United States, Russia, France and Peru) operating cruisers". They can't both be right. Maproom ( talk) 20:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, forget it. I have now read the whole paragraph, as I should have done before writing the above. Maproom ( talk) 20:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Category:Cruiser classes is itself a category within Category:Cruisers — Robert Greer ( talk) 15:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
"At the beginning of the 21st century, cruisers were the heaviest surface combatant ships in use..." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruiser).
"At the dawn of the 21st Century, destroyers are the heaviest surface combatant ships in general use..." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destroyer) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.153.16 ( talk) 01:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Go look at the ships of the World War II era, cruiser were the heaviest. Look now at the US Cruiser. Then look at the US Arleigh_Burke_class_destroyer. And note the size difference about this class with a Flight I, Flight II, Flight IIA differences. Next go look at Atago_class_destroyer; the KDX-III Korean Destroyers. The distinction between Frigate, Destroyer and Cruiser in vastly blurred, each Nation for its own reason has different label size ideas on what to call a particular class of ships. In my mind a modern combatant ship above say above 8000 tons displacement, and greater than 50 significant size missiles (AAW or land attack, anti-ship missiles do not count is a Cruiser. I think that make NO modern European cruisers. Unsure what if any Indian or Chinese vessels become cruisers in this definition. When you read United States Navy 1975 ship reclassification and the section on the Cruiser Gap, all ships reclassified under that had crew size above 500 as another factor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.214.49.112 ( talk) 20:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
The article (and articles on various cruisers) is heavy on offensive capabilities and short on passive defensive attributes like armor plate belt armor. The people maintaining the pages on battleships don't have this weakness. This is particularly important as cruisers evolved into ships which no longer have armor plate (like USS Long Beach) in the old traditional sense. Likely weak on other similar things. 143.232.210.150 ( talk) 00:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
There is a page on Scout_cruiser that is neither mentioned nor discussed from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.50.36 ( talk) 05:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Added. RobDuch ( talk) 16:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to remove the mention about Kara-class, because whilst it was traditionally classed as 'cruiser' in the Western sources, it was called 'large anti-submarine ship' (ie. destroyer) in Soviet navy, and I've not found any Russian source which has implied that the designation has been changed. Also the ship is clearly equivalent to modern destroyers in role, armament and size. -- Mikoyan21 ( talk) 09:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed all references to the South Korean and Japanese "cruisers" from the article. I don't know the answer to whether or not these ships ( Sejong the Great-class destroyer and Atago-class destroyer) should be classified as cruisers or destroyers. However, what I do know is that Wikipedia prohibits original research and requires citations. Every major source I have come across refers to these ships as destroyers. Furthermore, when carrying out the standard Google search results test, "Sejong the Great-class cruiser" returns no results, while "Sejong the Great-class destroyer" returns 3,010 results. Again, "Atago-class cruiser" returns 3,260 results, while "Atago-class destroyer" returns 7,530 results. (Please note, many of the results for "Atago-class cruiser" are due to overlap with the Japanese cruiser Atago from World War II.)
In addition, it seems to me that any sources that are used to support the "cruiser" classification must directly refer to the ships as cruisers. In other words, merely stating that they are comparable to cruisers is not sufficient. However, it also seems that if such claims of comparison are found in reliable sources, then obviously statements to that effect may be included in the article - if they do not imply that they actually are cruisers.
Therefore, it seems to me that until a reliable source that directly refers to either of these classes as "cruisers" is found, they should not be included in the article. — Noha307 ( talk) 01:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I am the one who is making these edits. Please stop changing them. I have done proper research. If you compare the specs of the following ships:
Atago-class from the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force and the Sejong the Great-class from the Republic of Korea Navy.
The reason these ships are more like cruisers than destroyers is their difference in size and strength when compared to destroyers from other countries. You may be right with the Sejong the Great-class, but the Atago-class is more easily compared to the United State's Ticonderoga-class cruiser than other destroyer classes. That is a fact and the Atago-class was labeled as a cruiser on this website for a time being that was not done by me.
If you want proof, read the articles of each ship and you will see them mentioned as such. The same goes for the European ships. For some reason, a lot of European countries under classify what they really have. All those European "frigates" are really "destroyers" by terms of size and strength. Just read the articles for each and they're even mentioned as destroyers by the international community.
I am editing them back because I know I'm right. You gotta problem, sue me.
- Battleship Sailor ( talk) 2:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
None of the references were blogs, all were legitimate defense articles. If you've noticed, the French Navy doesn't use the term "destroyer" but rather "first-rate frigate" and marks those ships with a "D" for destroyer and not "F" for frigate. (This includes the FREMM.)
All I'm trying to do is show what these ships REALLY are. And yes, the term "frigate" will appear first because these countries have classified them as such. Many European countries prefer not to use the term "destroyer" because they feel it is too "war-like." I know we're not allowed personal experiences, but I've studied naval history for 13 years and am an officer in the United States Naval Sea Cadet Corps, so I know I'm right. Stop trying to deceive the public. These edits were up for MONTHS before you had a problem with it.
Also, you're deleted more than you think. You're undoing other edits that ARE unarguably accurate.
If you have a problem, I would say to do you're homework and see that I'm right. I'm not backing down.
- Battleship Sailor ( talk) 2:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I am working on a World War II section and plan to post it in a few days. I'm primarily highlighting surface actions in which cruisers and battlecruisers played a part. I'm also considering doing a World War I section in the next few weeks. I welcome comments. RobDuch ( talk) 04:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Cruiser. 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Cruiser article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There is an interesting difference in the comparison between U.S. and U.K. versions of English.
In this section, the writer refers to Farragut-class vessels as "frigates". The designator for the class "DL" or "DLG" labels these as Destroyer Leaders, the purpose of which was to act as squadron flagship for a deployed destroyer squadron. In that they were built slightly larger, they had staff accommodations. Even the Royal Navy in WWII had vessels in a class designed specifically to act in this capacity. Smaller vessels (in particular DE and DEG) were Destroyer Escorts, designed with convoy escort duty in mind (and were only slightly larger than most WWII "frigates" (PF)). The larger DLG's were better equipped for Anti-aircraft Warfare (AAW), so were naturals for re-designation to CG/CGN (especially the nuclear vessels, who could keep up with the CV). The smaller DL/DLG vessels had lesser AAW weaponry and were really just destroyers. The MISSION determines the classification, not size. The Ticonderogas were designed, from the keel up, as cruisers. Their size was determined by the limitations of the Aegis radar deployment, and designation by the retirement of other older vessels. The Kidd-class destroyers (destined for Iran before the coup) were the only odd ducks hard to really classify - they were Spruance-class hulls with double launchers like the DLG's (that were re-designated as CG's). Which brings us to the Spruance-class Destroyers (DD). They were as large as many WWII cruisers, but were DD because of the better Antisubmarine Warfare (ASW) equipment installed.
I, also, find it interesting that the only two references quoted for this page are written by Brits. The portion of this section dealing with U.S. motives and reasons have not been attributed to any U.S. source. --CDR Tom Mischke USN(Ret.) 16:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Before the 1975 redesignation certain classes of vessels were designated frigates and designated DL, DLG, and DLGN. It proved to be a bad idea as no other Navy followed suit with the designation. In 1975 the frigates were redesignated as destroyers or cruisers. Examples: The DLG-6 class "Coontz class" were redesignated the DDG-37 class. The DLG-16 "Leahy class" were redesignated guided missile cruisers, CG-16 class. Two way time ( talk) 20:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Please clarify the difference between cruiser and battlecruiser, to help translation from foreign languages. mikka (t) 17:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Forgive me if I'm being dense, but it seems to me that in the last paragraph of the 'Later 20th Century' section, it's not entirely clear what name is being misapplied.
The result of the debate was move. — Nightst a llion (?) 11:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Cruiser (warship) → Cruiser – the article was moved last month without first gathering a group consensus; of the 676 articles linking to Cruiser (warship), only 50 link directly to the current name and 500 of them link via the Cruiser page's redirect
The following were moved here from Talk:Cruiser (disambiguation) by me. -- Kralizec! | talk 18:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
We have two explainations as to the origin of the name Cruiser - one in the intro, and one at the start of the following History section. Can we either put both in the same area and list them as both possible origins, or examine which is actually correct?
I'd like to propose a layout for the article, broadly similar to that used at battleship, which presents the material roughly in a chronological order, with shipbuilding, strategic considerations, and operations all considered for each type in roughly the same place. There is no reason at all why this cannot be an FA.
What I suggest is:
... what d'you reckon? The Land 17:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The articles for Cruiser and Destroyer both claim that "At the beginning of the 21st century, [destroyers/cruisers] are the heaviest surface combatant ships in general use, with only four nations (the United States, Russia, France and Peru) operating [these/cruisers ]..." -Greg (forgot my wikipedia username), 10:20am PST, June 18, 2007
I would like to suggest that you guys place a section or paragraph of more recent cruiser history with the Belgrano sinking during the Falklands war. Numerous Falklands and Argentine and UK links exist, and the Cruiser page should likely reflect that. --enm, 19:00 1 Nov 2007 (UTC)
The history of cruisers is best described in the different "epochs" (for a lack of a better term) rather than a continual definition.
Epoch one: Cruisers in the age of sail (>1880)
Epoch two: Steam and steel (1880-1922)
Epoch three: The age of the Washington treaty and World war two. (1922-1945)
Epoch four: Airpower and missiles (1945-Present)
Each one of these epochs have cruisers acting in different rolls and with different design conventions. Comparing cruisers across these divisions is difficult because the technology and rolls have changed so much. 137.144.147.201 ( talk) 22:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Two way time ( talk) 20:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
The article makes no mention of the "Dupuy de l'Homme", even though that was the first protected cruiser with its 23 knots speed. A ship of just 18 knots cannot be called a cruiser, that would be ridiculous! 91.83.3.127 ( talk) 23:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
In the image text concerning HMS Caroline, I added "light" to "cruiser" in the following sentence: "the only World War One era Cruiser in exsistence[sic]", to emphasize that it is the only LIGHT WWI cruiser still out there. There are other preserved cruisers from that era, i.e. the Greek "Georgios Averof" and Russian "Aurora". (Minor changes can matter too...). JT Swe ( talk) 02:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
From the opening section: "only five nations (the United States, Russia, France, Italy and Peru) operating these at the time". That's fine. However the article on destroyer says "only four nations (the United States, Russia, France and Peru) operating cruisers". They can't both be right. Maproom ( talk) 20:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, forget it. I have now read the whole paragraph, as I should have done before writing the above. Maproom ( talk) 20:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Category:Cruiser classes is itself a category within Category:Cruisers — Robert Greer ( talk) 15:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
"At the beginning of the 21st century, cruisers were the heaviest surface combatant ships in use..." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruiser).
"At the dawn of the 21st Century, destroyers are the heaviest surface combatant ships in general use..." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destroyer) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.153.16 ( talk) 01:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Go look at the ships of the World War II era, cruiser were the heaviest. Look now at the US Cruiser. Then look at the US Arleigh_Burke_class_destroyer. And note the size difference about this class with a Flight I, Flight II, Flight IIA differences. Next go look at Atago_class_destroyer; the KDX-III Korean Destroyers. The distinction between Frigate, Destroyer and Cruiser in vastly blurred, each Nation for its own reason has different label size ideas on what to call a particular class of ships. In my mind a modern combatant ship above say above 8000 tons displacement, and greater than 50 significant size missiles (AAW or land attack, anti-ship missiles do not count is a Cruiser. I think that make NO modern European cruisers. Unsure what if any Indian or Chinese vessels become cruisers in this definition. When you read United States Navy 1975 ship reclassification and the section on the Cruiser Gap, all ships reclassified under that had crew size above 500 as another factor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.214.49.112 ( talk) 20:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
The article (and articles on various cruisers) is heavy on offensive capabilities and short on passive defensive attributes like armor plate belt armor. The people maintaining the pages on battleships don't have this weakness. This is particularly important as cruisers evolved into ships which no longer have armor plate (like USS Long Beach) in the old traditional sense. Likely weak on other similar things. 143.232.210.150 ( talk) 00:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
There is a page on Scout_cruiser that is neither mentioned nor discussed from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.50.36 ( talk) 05:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Added. RobDuch ( talk) 16:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to remove the mention about Kara-class, because whilst it was traditionally classed as 'cruiser' in the Western sources, it was called 'large anti-submarine ship' (ie. destroyer) in Soviet navy, and I've not found any Russian source which has implied that the designation has been changed. Also the ship is clearly equivalent to modern destroyers in role, armament and size. -- Mikoyan21 ( talk) 09:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed all references to the South Korean and Japanese "cruisers" from the article. I don't know the answer to whether or not these ships ( Sejong the Great-class destroyer and Atago-class destroyer) should be classified as cruisers or destroyers. However, what I do know is that Wikipedia prohibits original research and requires citations. Every major source I have come across refers to these ships as destroyers. Furthermore, when carrying out the standard Google search results test, "Sejong the Great-class cruiser" returns no results, while "Sejong the Great-class destroyer" returns 3,010 results. Again, "Atago-class cruiser" returns 3,260 results, while "Atago-class destroyer" returns 7,530 results. (Please note, many of the results for "Atago-class cruiser" are due to overlap with the Japanese cruiser Atago from World War II.)
In addition, it seems to me that any sources that are used to support the "cruiser" classification must directly refer to the ships as cruisers. In other words, merely stating that they are comparable to cruisers is not sufficient. However, it also seems that if such claims of comparison are found in reliable sources, then obviously statements to that effect may be included in the article - if they do not imply that they actually are cruisers.
Therefore, it seems to me that until a reliable source that directly refers to either of these classes as "cruisers" is found, they should not be included in the article. — Noha307 ( talk) 01:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I am the one who is making these edits. Please stop changing them. I have done proper research. If you compare the specs of the following ships:
Atago-class from the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force and the Sejong the Great-class from the Republic of Korea Navy.
The reason these ships are more like cruisers than destroyers is their difference in size and strength when compared to destroyers from other countries. You may be right with the Sejong the Great-class, but the Atago-class is more easily compared to the United State's Ticonderoga-class cruiser than other destroyer classes. That is a fact and the Atago-class was labeled as a cruiser on this website for a time being that was not done by me.
If you want proof, read the articles of each ship and you will see them mentioned as such. The same goes for the European ships. For some reason, a lot of European countries under classify what they really have. All those European "frigates" are really "destroyers" by terms of size and strength. Just read the articles for each and they're even mentioned as destroyers by the international community.
I am editing them back because I know I'm right. You gotta problem, sue me.
- Battleship Sailor ( talk) 2:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
None of the references were blogs, all were legitimate defense articles. If you've noticed, the French Navy doesn't use the term "destroyer" but rather "first-rate frigate" and marks those ships with a "D" for destroyer and not "F" for frigate. (This includes the FREMM.)
All I'm trying to do is show what these ships REALLY are. And yes, the term "frigate" will appear first because these countries have classified them as such. Many European countries prefer not to use the term "destroyer" because they feel it is too "war-like." I know we're not allowed personal experiences, but I've studied naval history for 13 years and am an officer in the United States Naval Sea Cadet Corps, so I know I'm right. Stop trying to deceive the public. These edits were up for MONTHS before you had a problem with it.
Also, you're deleted more than you think. You're undoing other edits that ARE unarguably accurate.
If you have a problem, I would say to do you're homework and see that I'm right. I'm not backing down.
- Battleship Sailor ( talk) 2:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I am working on a World War II section and plan to post it in a few days. I'm primarily highlighting surface actions in which cruisers and battlecruisers played a part. I'm also considering doing a World War I section in the next few weeks. I welcome comments. RobDuch ( talk) 04:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Cruiser. 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)