This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the
project page for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Melanesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Melanesia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MelanesiaWikipedia:WikiProject MelanesiaTemplate:WikiProject MelanesiaMelanesia articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the
project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
" on the island of Guadalcanal, a village of then-43 people saw only 5 survivors" - I'd rewrite this a tad to "on the island of Guadalcanal, then a village of 43 people, only had 5 survivors."
"Overall, schools, buildings, electricity, water supplies, roads, communication systems, forests, and agriculture sustained widespread damage." - where? If Solomons, you should reinforce that somewhere in the 3rd lede paragraph.
"On May 15, 1986, the Fiji Meteorological Service's Nadi Tropical Cyclone Warning Center" - as with other articles I've read, this is way too long to begin the MH. Just say "the Fiji Meteorological Service". In the Atlantic, we only say "the National Hurricane Center". No need to go into such detail that it's a TCWC right away. Add a note if you feel it's necessary, but that's too much right away.
I disagree that its too much straight off the bat and feel that it is better to get the abbreviation out straight away rather than leave readers confused. What you use in the Atlantic is not really relevant here.
Jason Rees (
talk)
20:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)reply
It is relevant. They're both warning centers. It works much better in the Atlantic only mentioning the name, and keeping it as short as possible. No need to frontload the amount of information. You can add a note to explain the information, but in prose, it's too long as it is now. --♫
Hurricanehink (
talk)
20:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)reply
I feel that using the FMS NADI TCWC isnt that long and works a lot better than using just the Fiji Meteorological service if you dont like that then perhaps you need to remember that you supported me using the Fiji Meteorological Services Tropical cyclone Warning centre in Nadi Fiji.
Jason Rees (
talk)
21:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)reply
I'd be fine with that. Check out the Google hits for
TCWC Nadi (mostly Wikipedia links, perhaps we should have a discussion about changing this?) versus
FMS. BTW,
Fiji Meteorological Service even abbreviates it as FMS. And if someone's gonna complain that they're not referring to their warning center, they call it
"RSMC Nadi-TCC". I realize that's the department for naming tropical cyclones, but we don't have similar specificity for
JMA. ♫
Hurricanehink (
talk)
13:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)reply
I dont see why you are trying to compare the hits for TCWC Nadi and FMS, since the TCWC designation was removed in 1995 well before the internet really took off.
Jason Rees (
talk)
15:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)reply
I never said it wasnt FMS in the 80s - i prefer to use TCWC Nadi since it flows better in my opinon and just because the JMA is styled the JMA it doesnt mean that we should do the same for the South Pacific.
Jason Rees (
talk)
16:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Well, YE is the GA nominator, so it's partly up to him, and I brought up a discussion on the project talk page, since I strongly feel that FMS works better (being 3 characters versus 9 for TCWC Nadi). ♫
Hurricanehink (
talk)
17:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)reply
I majorly disagree it flows better, FYI. There is no point in calling it TCWC Nadi. I don't want this GAN to fail becuase of something like this.
YEPacificHurricane17:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)reply
I would like to remind Hurricanehink that this is my GAN as well even though i do not feel that the article was not ready for a GAN as not enough research to cover the major aspects has been done. This includes the damage total which keeps getting messed around with and the fact that one of the reports is duplicated several times and contains a better estimate of the death toll than many of the
While you did do the MH and nobody
own's articles, as of this writing, I officially nominated this GAN, so this is my GAN. No, plenty of research had been done. It's slightly longer than the 2 SPAC FA's. While Namu is more important than both the 2 others FA, this is GAN not FAC, so the article does not have to be as comprehensive as a FAC. It is 29 kb, which in my opinion is plentifully given that SPAC storms as a whole are non-notable (it only affected 170,000 people after all). This is the second longest SPAC storm article that I know off (after Evan, which was much costlier and extremely recent). Wikipedia articles are not expected to include everything, it is suppose to just be summary. If you think this is short, how long do you expect it to be? And, if it is short, why don't you be
bold and expand it if you consider it "your GAN". And no, the damage total is not being messed around, we don't include economical losses for articles in any basin. While I am somewhat open to using EMDAT damage total, it's 20 million, but even that seems a bit low; I think it is one of those instances where EMDAT damage total is a bit low. And the death total is fine IMO, I have seen plenty of sources that go with 150 deaths. We could arguably use EMDAT which goes with 101 deaths, but given the info on exactly how they died, more than 101 people died during the storm. It's not like people come back to life after all :P
YEPacificHurricane04:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)reply
YE the best death toll i could come up using just what is located within the article was 62, even though you could use the details in reference 1 to expand out how many died and in what situation. I have my doubts about if 150 is right since
this by the same authors as ref 1 but not used in the article, researched all of the deaths and came up with a death toll of about 111. I dont expect miracles with the length of the article and do not care about how many kb it is but i do expect to be able to justify the death toll and that takes a lot more research and yes i will help expand it more as long as i am treated with a little bit of respect and not like a piece of chewing gum on the sole of your foot.
Jason Rees (
talk)
11:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)reply
"started to monitor a tropical depression that had developed within the monsoon trough in association with Typhoon Lola about 90 km (55 mi) to the north of the Solomon Island: Malaita" - cut "had", add comma after trough, and fix the ending, that's awkward. I'd say "north of Malaita in the Solomon Islands."
I seriously doubt that it matters that it ambiguously refers to one island at the top of the archipelago. I also dont see why i have to stick to the Solomon Islands when the Solomon Island is just as valid and you dont use the official name of the states (ie: USA).
Jason Rees (
talk)
21:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)reply
I don't see why you're bringing in USA in. That's an abbreviation. You're changing the name of the country. You should refer to the country, plain and simple. ♫
Hurricanehink (
talk)
13:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)reply
I am referring to the country and am not changing the name of a country, i am using a perfectly valid abbreviation that it is even used by the SI Gov at times. Just because you dont like it - it doesnt mean it shouldnt be used.
Jason Rees (
talk)
03:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Why can't we just mention Malaita? The wikilink can explain where it is, ect. That is what I currently have, so arguing over this further is pointless IMO unless you think there is something wrong with "Malaitia".
YEPacificHurricane04:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)reply
I wont remove that it is the United States Joint Typhoon Warning Center since we need to define which JTWC we are on about.
Jason Rees (
talk)
20:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)reply
It doesnt matter we have been told in FAC's before now to define where the NHC is since we could have NHCs and JTWCs in other regions that we are not aware off.
Jason Rees (
talk)
21:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)reply
"During May 17, the United States Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC) started to issue warnings on the system and designated it as Tropical Cyclone 33P after the system had developed winds equivalent to a tropical storm" - just say "Joint Typhoon Warning Center". And can you add a comma somewhere? Ditto the subsequent sentence.
"During May 18, the system continued to intensify and developed a broad and ragged eye as it moved towards the southwest, before it was reported as passing over Malaita island at around 1400 UTC.before it passed on Manawai at around 1400 UTC." - just, try fixing it...
Done, and it is likely it passed over the island at very similar times, hence the wording "around".
YEPacificHurricane
"During May 19, Namu remained at its peak intensity as it slowly moved away from the Solomon Islands and moved across 160°E into the Australian region, before during the next day the system gradually recurved towards the south-southeast while gradually weakening" - split sentence in two, and avoid awkward "before during" construct.
"and broadcast by the Solomon Islands Broadcasting Corporation which instituted a 24 hour broadcasting schedule to convey warnings and advisory information" - add comma before "which"
"Most of the damage caused by Cyclone Namu occurred because of widespread phenomenal flooding as many rivers over-topped their banks" - try rewriting this. A comma would be helpful, but don't just plop it in.
"There were initially reports of 50 people missing, and the death toll was initially only five,[15] one of whom was a man who drowned." - I don't get it. How many people died on the island?
Then no need to mention what the initial thoughts were right here. Death tolls usually start out pretty low, until reports come in. --♫
Hurricanehink (
talk)
20:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)reply
But it's only a preliminary report. Death tolls often don't go up until a few days after a storm, once assessment crews have been through. ♫
Hurricanehink (
talk)
13:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)reply
I think that's pretty clear if you continue on. 15:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
" two ships (one was 60 ft (20 m) long and the other was 120 ft (35 m) long)" - avoid parenthesis within parenthesis. Also - " each sunk " should be "each sank."
Ehh, see the problem now? "The two bridges that connected the city with the island of Guadalcanal were destroyed, thus leaving Honiara isolated from the rest of Guadalcanal" ♫
Hurricanehink (
talk)
13:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)reply
" Schools, buildings, electricity, water supplies, roads, communication systems, forests, and agriculture sustained widespread damage" - you already covered parts of this earlier.
In the lead. And because you made me change it earlier, it no longer applies
Specifically, you previously talked about roads and buildings, and a sentence later in the paragraph says "Mudslides and logs destroyed roads, bridges, water pipes and drainage systems". There is major redundancy still. ♫
Hurricanehink (
talk)
13:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)reply
"On Sikiana Island, a small island with a few hundred residents, only one house was left standing" - this seems really random next to the other info in the paragraph.
It'd work better if it wasn't right after - "There were initially reports of 50 people missing, and the death toll was initially only five,[15] one of whom was a man who drowned". Which again proves that sentence isn't worth much. ♫
Hurricanehink (
talk)
13:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)reply
"Initially, postal services were closed and telecommunications were disrupted due to the storm; as a result; it was estimated that the former would remain closed for several days." - the "as a result" part seems awkward and unusual.
I strongly feel that there is still a lot out there that could be added to this article, for example
Thesethreejournals contain a lot of information that need to be used to expand the article. I am trying to rewrite the article and am grateful to Hurricanehink for not failing this GAN yet but my time is limited at the minute so thus i feel it is time for this article to be failed.
Jason Rees (
talk)
14:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Well, GA's don't have to include everything, it's is suppose to be a summary. Anyway, this GAN has turned a bit dramatic, and I'd rather worry about other articles than this right now. Therefore, I am withdrawing this GAN.
YEPacificHurricane14:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)reply
As time and my motivation allows, I am going to try and sort this article out in order to try and tell the story of Namu a lot clearer than the article does presently. My working suspicion is that each of the nine provinces with the exception of Temotu will deserve a paragraph each and one for the overall impact. The aftermath section will also be about 3-4 paragraphs long. If anyone has any thoughts on the structure let me know, I am very keen to hear in particular to hear from @
Yellow Evan and
Hurricanehink:.
Jason Rees (
talk)
14:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)reply
An 11 month late reply (I was looking at my older articles and stumbled across this), but knowing you, you'll eventually come back to this, it's probably a good idea, but I assume in addition to the nine paragraphs about impact you mentioned above, you'd also keep the paragraphs with the TC warnings and the one with rain/wind totals.
YEPacificHurricane23:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)reply
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on
Cyclone Namu. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}).
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the
project page for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Melanesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Melanesia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MelanesiaWikipedia:WikiProject MelanesiaTemplate:WikiProject MelanesiaMelanesia articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the
project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
" on the island of Guadalcanal, a village of then-43 people saw only 5 survivors" - I'd rewrite this a tad to "on the island of Guadalcanal, then a village of 43 people, only had 5 survivors."
"Overall, schools, buildings, electricity, water supplies, roads, communication systems, forests, and agriculture sustained widespread damage." - where? If Solomons, you should reinforce that somewhere in the 3rd lede paragraph.
"On May 15, 1986, the Fiji Meteorological Service's Nadi Tropical Cyclone Warning Center" - as with other articles I've read, this is way too long to begin the MH. Just say "the Fiji Meteorological Service". In the Atlantic, we only say "the National Hurricane Center". No need to go into such detail that it's a TCWC right away. Add a note if you feel it's necessary, but that's too much right away.
I disagree that its too much straight off the bat and feel that it is better to get the abbreviation out straight away rather than leave readers confused. What you use in the Atlantic is not really relevant here.
Jason Rees (
talk)
20:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)reply
It is relevant. They're both warning centers. It works much better in the Atlantic only mentioning the name, and keeping it as short as possible. No need to frontload the amount of information. You can add a note to explain the information, but in prose, it's too long as it is now. --♫
Hurricanehink (
talk)
20:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)reply
I feel that using the FMS NADI TCWC isnt that long and works a lot better than using just the Fiji Meteorological service if you dont like that then perhaps you need to remember that you supported me using the Fiji Meteorological Services Tropical cyclone Warning centre in Nadi Fiji.
Jason Rees (
talk)
21:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)reply
I'd be fine with that. Check out the Google hits for
TCWC Nadi (mostly Wikipedia links, perhaps we should have a discussion about changing this?) versus
FMS. BTW,
Fiji Meteorological Service even abbreviates it as FMS. And if someone's gonna complain that they're not referring to their warning center, they call it
"RSMC Nadi-TCC". I realize that's the department for naming tropical cyclones, but we don't have similar specificity for
JMA. ♫
Hurricanehink (
talk)
13:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)reply
I dont see why you are trying to compare the hits for TCWC Nadi and FMS, since the TCWC designation was removed in 1995 well before the internet really took off.
Jason Rees (
talk)
15:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)reply
I never said it wasnt FMS in the 80s - i prefer to use TCWC Nadi since it flows better in my opinon and just because the JMA is styled the JMA it doesnt mean that we should do the same for the South Pacific.
Jason Rees (
talk)
16:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Well, YE is the GA nominator, so it's partly up to him, and I brought up a discussion on the project talk page, since I strongly feel that FMS works better (being 3 characters versus 9 for TCWC Nadi). ♫
Hurricanehink (
talk)
17:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)reply
I majorly disagree it flows better, FYI. There is no point in calling it TCWC Nadi. I don't want this GAN to fail becuase of something like this.
YEPacificHurricane17:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)reply
I would like to remind Hurricanehink that this is my GAN as well even though i do not feel that the article was not ready for a GAN as not enough research to cover the major aspects has been done. This includes the damage total which keeps getting messed around with and the fact that one of the reports is duplicated several times and contains a better estimate of the death toll than many of the
While you did do the MH and nobody
own's articles, as of this writing, I officially nominated this GAN, so this is my GAN. No, plenty of research had been done. It's slightly longer than the 2 SPAC FA's. While Namu is more important than both the 2 others FA, this is GAN not FAC, so the article does not have to be as comprehensive as a FAC. It is 29 kb, which in my opinion is plentifully given that SPAC storms as a whole are non-notable (it only affected 170,000 people after all). This is the second longest SPAC storm article that I know off (after Evan, which was much costlier and extremely recent). Wikipedia articles are not expected to include everything, it is suppose to just be summary. If you think this is short, how long do you expect it to be? And, if it is short, why don't you be
bold and expand it if you consider it "your GAN". And no, the damage total is not being messed around, we don't include economical losses for articles in any basin. While I am somewhat open to using EMDAT damage total, it's 20 million, but even that seems a bit low; I think it is one of those instances where EMDAT damage total is a bit low. And the death total is fine IMO, I have seen plenty of sources that go with 150 deaths. We could arguably use EMDAT which goes with 101 deaths, but given the info on exactly how they died, more than 101 people died during the storm. It's not like people come back to life after all :P
YEPacificHurricane04:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)reply
YE the best death toll i could come up using just what is located within the article was 62, even though you could use the details in reference 1 to expand out how many died and in what situation. I have my doubts about if 150 is right since
this by the same authors as ref 1 but not used in the article, researched all of the deaths and came up with a death toll of about 111. I dont expect miracles with the length of the article and do not care about how many kb it is but i do expect to be able to justify the death toll and that takes a lot more research and yes i will help expand it more as long as i am treated with a little bit of respect and not like a piece of chewing gum on the sole of your foot.
Jason Rees (
talk)
11:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)reply
"started to monitor a tropical depression that had developed within the monsoon trough in association with Typhoon Lola about 90 km (55 mi) to the north of the Solomon Island: Malaita" - cut "had", add comma after trough, and fix the ending, that's awkward. I'd say "north of Malaita in the Solomon Islands."
I seriously doubt that it matters that it ambiguously refers to one island at the top of the archipelago. I also dont see why i have to stick to the Solomon Islands when the Solomon Island is just as valid and you dont use the official name of the states (ie: USA).
Jason Rees (
talk)
21:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)reply
I don't see why you're bringing in USA in. That's an abbreviation. You're changing the name of the country. You should refer to the country, plain and simple. ♫
Hurricanehink (
talk)
13:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)reply
I am referring to the country and am not changing the name of a country, i am using a perfectly valid abbreviation that it is even used by the SI Gov at times. Just because you dont like it - it doesnt mean it shouldnt be used.
Jason Rees (
talk)
03:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Why can't we just mention Malaita? The wikilink can explain where it is, ect. That is what I currently have, so arguing over this further is pointless IMO unless you think there is something wrong with "Malaitia".
YEPacificHurricane04:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)reply
I wont remove that it is the United States Joint Typhoon Warning Center since we need to define which JTWC we are on about.
Jason Rees (
talk)
20:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)reply
It doesnt matter we have been told in FAC's before now to define where the NHC is since we could have NHCs and JTWCs in other regions that we are not aware off.
Jason Rees (
talk)
21:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)reply
"During May 17, the United States Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC) started to issue warnings on the system and designated it as Tropical Cyclone 33P after the system had developed winds equivalent to a tropical storm" - just say "Joint Typhoon Warning Center". And can you add a comma somewhere? Ditto the subsequent sentence.
"During May 18, the system continued to intensify and developed a broad and ragged eye as it moved towards the southwest, before it was reported as passing over Malaita island at around 1400 UTC.before it passed on Manawai at around 1400 UTC." - just, try fixing it...
Done, and it is likely it passed over the island at very similar times, hence the wording "around".
YEPacificHurricane
"During May 19, Namu remained at its peak intensity as it slowly moved away from the Solomon Islands and moved across 160°E into the Australian region, before during the next day the system gradually recurved towards the south-southeast while gradually weakening" - split sentence in two, and avoid awkward "before during" construct.
"and broadcast by the Solomon Islands Broadcasting Corporation which instituted a 24 hour broadcasting schedule to convey warnings and advisory information" - add comma before "which"
"Most of the damage caused by Cyclone Namu occurred because of widespread phenomenal flooding as many rivers over-topped their banks" - try rewriting this. A comma would be helpful, but don't just plop it in.
"There were initially reports of 50 people missing, and the death toll was initially only five,[15] one of whom was a man who drowned." - I don't get it. How many people died on the island?
Then no need to mention what the initial thoughts were right here. Death tolls usually start out pretty low, until reports come in. --♫
Hurricanehink (
talk)
20:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)reply
But it's only a preliminary report. Death tolls often don't go up until a few days after a storm, once assessment crews have been through. ♫
Hurricanehink (
talk)
13:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)reply
I think that's pretty clear if you continue on. 15:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
" two ships (one was 60 ft (20 m) long and the other was 120 ft (35 m) long)" - avoid parenthesis within parenthesis. Also - " each sunk " should be "each sank."
Ehh, see the problem now? "The two bridges that connected the city with the island of Guadalcanal were destroyed, thus leaving Honiara isolated from the rest of Guadalcanal" ♫
Hurricanehink (
talk)
13:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)reply
" Schools, buildings, electricity, water supplies, roads, communication systems, forests, and agriculture sustained widespread damage" - you already covered parts of this earlier.
In the lead. And because you made me change it earlier, it no longer applies
Specifically, you previously talked about roads and buildings, and a sentence later in the paragraph says "Mudslides and logs destroyed roads, bridges, water pipes and drainage systems". There is major redundancy still. ♫
Hurricanehink (
talk)
13:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)reply
"On Sikiana Island, a small island with a few hundred residents, only one house was left standing" - this seems really random next to the other info in the paragraph.
It'd work better if it wasn't right after - "There were initially reports of 50 people missing, and the death toll was initially only five,[15] one of whom was a man who drowned". Which again proves that sentence isn't worth much. ♫
Hurricanehink (
talk)
13:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)reply
"Initially, postal services were closed and telecommunications were disrupted due to the storm; as a result; it was estimated that the former would remain closed for several days." - the "as a result" part seems awkward and unusual.
I strongly feel that there is still a lot out there that could be added to this article, for example
Thesethreejournals contain a lot of information that need to be used to expand the article. I am trying to rewrite the article and am grateful to Hurricanehink for not failing this GAN yet but my time is limited at the minute so thus i feel it is time for this article to be failed.
Jason Rees (
talk)
14:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Well, GA's don't have to include everything, it's is suppose to be a summary. Anyway, this GAN has turned a bit dramatic, and I'd rather worry about other articles than this right now. Therefore, I am withdrawing this GAN.
YEPacificHurricane14:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)reply
As time and my motivation allows, I am going to try and sort this article out in order to try and tell the story of Namu a lot clearer than the article does presently. My working suspicion is that each of the nine provinces with the exception of Temotu will deserve a paragraph each and one for the overall impact. The aftermath section will also be about 3-4 paragraphs long. If anyone has any thoughts on the structure let me know, I am very keen to hear in particular to hear from @
Yellow Evan and
Hurricanehink:.
Jason Rees (
talk)
14:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)reply
An 11 month late reply (I was looking at my older articles and stumbled across this), but knowing you, you'll eventually come back to this, it's probably a good idea, but I assume in addition to the nine paragraphs about impact you mentioned above, you'd also keep the paragraphs with the TC warnings and the one with rain/wind totals.
YEPacificHurricane23:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)reply
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on
Cyclone Namu. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}).
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.