This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is rediculous. I have asked for a 3rd opinion and posted on the language reference desk and Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. I believe it is POV pushing to say that a common variant spelling used by professionals is simply a spelling mistake. -- Andrew c 15:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
When Strong Opinions Collide: Coming soon to a Wikitheatre near you! So realistic you'll feel you're bound up in the action! Can a one-letter change affect your life? You'll be surprised! Shows daily at random articles over issues you'd never expect to feel strongly about. May result in a need to calm down, and/or climb the Reichstadt in a Spiderman costume to gain attention for your point. Rated P-13G: All parents must have the guidance of a sensible pre-teen to point out if you're behaving foolishly.
Google results:
Feotocide is completely wrong, Fetocide less than half a percent of the sample. Suggestion: Move article to Foeticide, mention Feticide, and don't bother mentioning Fetocide at all. Sound good? Adam Cuerden talk 16:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
By the way, this is a little facetious, but... Andrew made a typo, "rediculous", in his first line. As I had been trying to think of a common title for a straw-poll comparison, I've used it:
The proportions are roughly the same for this typo vs. the correct spelling as for fetocide vs. Foeticide. Adam Cuerden talk 16:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I sidestepped the issue: I changes the citation used to a more neutral one with a more accepted spelling. If fetocide doesn't appear, we needn't mention it as a spelling or alternative. Huzzah!
Adam Cuerden
talk
16:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello all. I am jumping into this from the Talk:MOS, which asked for an outside opinion. I got the gist of your debate and stopped reading at that point. This is so as not to overly influence my comments with what ever passions are expressed in the body of the debate. Also note that while I am not an English language academic, I am a practitioner of practical logic (computer science) and a web designer (who cares about communicating with people). When it comes to spelling English words I have two fixed standards: (1) New Oxford American Dictionary, 2nd Edition and (2) Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (1989). Both of these list "feticide" as meaning "noun. destruction or abortion of a fetus.". The Webster's also states, right in the feticide entry that "foeticide" is a an alternate spelling. The NOAD2 mentions "foetus: noun. variant spelling of fetus (chiefly in British nontechnical use)" and "foeticide" is a derivative. Based on these sources I have determined that "fetocide" is not a proper spelling. There maybe professionals that spell it "fetocide", but the Wikipedia readers will not understand what is meant by this spelling. If a quote from credible source spells it "fetocide", then leave it in that spelling. That is my outside opinion on this matter, and it will not change until sources on par with the two I use include "fetocide". -- Charles Gaudette 19:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was no consensus. -- tariqabjotu 22:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Feticide → Foeticide — Far more common according to google, though both are valid. Adam Cuerden talk 16:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Add * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''' on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
Add any additional comments: My only reservation is that (a/o)e->e does tend to divide along national lines: Americans prefer "fetus/hemoglobin/medieval" whereas British prefer "foetus/haemoglobin/mediaeval". Googling seems to indicate that foe- is more popular even in the U.S., but be ready for some irate American to demand that it be moved back. Zargulon
Adam Cuerden talk 16:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
In addition to what is stated above, this new proposed spelling fails the pubmed test.
-- Andrew c 16:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure the pubmed test applies, since, as the article suggests, the word is in highly common usage both in general political discourse and in the legal community. I go with google and Adam. Zargulon 17:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter much, though, either way. It's perfectly acceptable in either namespace, as long as both forms are listed. Adam Cuerden talk 17:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
All I have to say is:
and
We are not accurately representing our sources when we specify "fetus" or not include "embryo". There is nothing wrong with being general to accommodate our sources. We even have a source that says "or causing an abortion." Our wording is similar to that, and doesn't exclude any of the 7 definitions. - Andrew c 01:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone thing that the article should be split? The legal term describes a crime, while the medical term describes a medical procedure. Having them on the same page may confuse readers or imply that a medical procedure is a crime. I would propose having feticide (legal) and feticide (medical) and keep this page as a disambig page, or just spin out the medical content to a new article, and put a otheruses template at the top of this article. - Andrew c 15:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
(undent) Neither Harmonic (mathematics) nor Harmonic (color) are very long, but both of them are separate articles, not sub-sections of Harmonic. I can see no logical basis for conflating two completely different topics, which happen to share a title, into a single article simply because the resultant spin-off articles would be on the short side. There's always room for development. I think it would be a lot easier to develop information on fetal homicide laws if the subject had its own specific article, Fetal homicide, because then editors would be free to concentrate on that topic alone, without first having to separate it from all the information related to abortion. I think it's a very awkward fit to have information related to fetal homicide laws and abortion contained in the same article — it begs for disambiguation. - Severa ( !!!) 03:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. I see that a split tag has just been put on this article. So far, there is no consensus for a split. I cannot understand why a split would be appropriate. The abortion article has not been split up into separate articles on its medical and legal aspects. As Lyrl points out, this article does not have length problems (as the abortion article does), so I cannot support this continuing proposal. Ferrylodge 02:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
There does not seem to be consensus for a split. So, maybe it's time to remove the thingy at the top of the article. Ferrylodge 05:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The law map is not displaying until the level of the abortion template. I believe this is because the image call for the abortion template is above the image call for the map. But this makes the law map display for me in the "see also" section, which makes no sense article-wise. Is there any way to force the map image to display in the U.S. law section without removing the abortion template? I had considered moving the image call for the abortion template into the U.S. law section just below the law map (this is a great fix in preview mode on my screen), but a)I'm not sure that would work for everybody's monitor setup, and b)it's nonstandard to have templates put in the middle of articles. Lyrl Talk C 00:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The lead paragraph says: “As a medical term, feticide includes causing the death of a fetus as the first phase of a legal induced abortion from around gestational week 20, usually after detection of a fetal abnormality.” I think this needs to be modified, to something like “As a medical term, feticide includes causing the death of a fetus, for example as the first phase of a legal induced abortion from around gestational week 20 after detection of a fetal abnormality.”
Medical dictionaries do not limit the term "feticide" to post-20 weeks, so I don’t think we should impose that limit either. Dorland’s Medical Dictionary defines feticide as "the destruction of the fetus." American Heritage Stedman’s Medical Dictionary defines feticide as "Destruction of the embryo or fetus in the uterus." Online Medical Dictionary defines feticide as "Destruction of the embryo or foetus in the uterus." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ferrylodge ( talk • contribs) 14:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
A Google search in the "Scholar" database for the terms "feticide" and "first trimester" gives a bunch of results. For example: Berkowitz, Richard et al. " First-Trimester Transabdominal Multifetal Pregnancy Reduction: A Report of Two Hundred Completed Cases", American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology. Volume 169, page 17 (July 1993): "All of the procedures were performed in the first trimester by the transabdominal injection of potassium chloride into the thoraces of those fetuses that underwent feticide." Hope that helps. Ferrylodge 04:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
This article presently says that feticide is sometimes used medically during "abortions after 20 weeks." However, the abortion article says, "medically, it [i.e. abortion] is defined as miscarriage or induced termination before twenty weeks' gestation, which is considered nonviable." These two statements are inconsistent. Which one is wrong? Ferrylodge 15:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Medical dictionaries vary on this point. Some medical dictionaries define abortion as, "the premature exit of the products of conception (the fetus, fetal membranes, and placenta) from the uterus. It is the loss of a pregnancy and does not refer to why that pregnancy was lost." (See here and here and here). This does not restrict when the event occurs. Likewise, numerous medical articles use the term "abortion" after 20 weeks. See here and here and here and here.
So, I am comfortable with the terminology presently used in this article. However, the abortion article seems overly restrictive in this regard. Ferrylodge 04:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Feticide, it seems, has often been associated with satanic cults. There should perhaps be additional sources regarding the alleged practice among such cults. ADM ( talk) 04:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Another issue that would probably deserved to be mentioned is fetus trafficking, the illegal sale and purchase of dead fetuses for commercial, scientific or other dedrading purposes. There is notably a law in the state of Maine which speficially prohibits this. [1] Such trafficking would presumably be related to the practice of fetal cannibalism, which has been called McFetus when it is done so publicly. [2]. Certain contemporary moralists have also complained about the increasingly common practice of embryonic trafficking, which is done for similar commercial and scientific reasons. [3] ADM ( talk) 05:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
California is shown in blue on the map (murder or homicide), but the text indicates that this depends on the age of the fetus. The map categories are not mutually exclusive, so it could be made clearer what principle (if any) has been used to resolve ambiguities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.111.112 ( talk) 19:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I have delted a passage as I do not believe it to be true: See Talk:Child destruction#Killing of a viable fetus before birth.
"Fetal homicide laws are increasingly often used to prosecute pregnant women who suffer miscarriages or stillbirths, in cases where prosecutors argue that their actions caused the miscarriage or accuse the women of taking such actions."
This language is a bit weird. When describing child abuse laws, do we say that "child abuse laws are often used to prosecute against mothers who suffer the loss of their children, in cases where prosecutors argue that their actions constituted abuse or accuse the women of taking such actions" ? Or do we say simply "child abuse laws are used to prosecute parents accused of causing the death of their children" ?
By using the former language, we would be siding with the parents, insinuating that they are innocent and poor victims ("they already suffered the loss of their children, now they suffer at the hands of the police"). The latter language is more neutral.
So to be neutral, clear and objective, we should say "Fetal homicide laws are increasingly often used to prosecute pregnant women accused of intentionally causing miscarriages or stillbirths. " Jorge Peixoto ( talk) 06:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
This entire article is about human feticide. I think there should be mention, even a section, on feticide in nature. For example it is mentioned here Plains_zebra#Reproduction and here Rodent#Birth_and_parenting. I would assume it is reasonably common with many other species (infanticide certainly is) although I haven't researched it. I think its an important point to make as well as very interesting, especially to see which species have been observed doing it the most. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treva26 ( talk • contribs) 03:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
@ SocraticOath: I don't have access to the article you added, but I do have access to the Induction of fetal demise before abortion paper, and both the quote you provided from the source and the full article I have access to suggests that your addition desperately needs to be qualified. Even the quote from your source notes that there's a sharp difference between failure rates for intrafetal and intraamniotic injections, and the Induction paper additionally notes extremely different failure rates depending on the dosage. It's also not clear to me which version (and which dosage) is preferred outside an experimental context; I think we may be misleadingly giving the impression of a far higher rate of failure than actually exists in practice. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 16:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Feticide. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.rcog.org.uk/files/rcog-corp/Abortion%20guideline_web_1.pdfWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is rediculous. I have asked for a 3rd opinion and posted on the language reference desk and Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. I believe it is POV pushing to say that a common variant spelling used by professionals is simply a spelling mistake. -- Andrew c 15:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
When Strong Opinions Collide: Coming soon to a Wikitheatre near you! So realistic you'll feel you're bound up in the action! Can a one-letter change affect your life? You'll be surprised! Shows daily at random articles over issues you'd never expect to feel strongly about. May result in a need to calm down, and/or climb the Reichstadt in a Spiderman costume to gain attention for your point. Rated P-13G: All parents must have the guidance of a sensible pre-teen to point out if you're behaving foolishly.
Google results:
Feotocide is completely wrong, Fetocide less than half a percent of the sample. Suggestion: Move article to Foeticide, mention Feticide, and don't bother mentioning Fetocide at all. Sound good? Adam Cuerden talk 16:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
By the way, this is a little facetious, but... Andrew made a typo, "rediculous", in his first line. As I had been trying to think of a common title for a straw-poll comparison, I've used it:
The proportions are roughly the same for this typo vs. the correct spelling as for fetocide vs. Foeticide. Adam Cuerden talk 16:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I sidestepped the issue: I changes the citation used to a more neutral one with a more accepted spelling. If fetocide doesn't appear, we needn't mention it as a spelling or alternative. Huzzah!
Adam Cuerden
talk
16:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello all. I am jumping into this from the Talk:MOS, which asked for an outside opinion. I got the gist of your debate and stopped reading at that point. This is so as not to overly influence my comments with what ever passions are expressed in the body of the debate. Also note that while I am not an English language academic, I am a practitioner of practical logic (computer science) and a web designer (who cares about communicating with people). When it comes to spelling English words I have two fixed standards: (1) New Oxford American Dictionary, 2nd Edition and (2) Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (1989). Both of these list "feticide" as meaning "noun. destruction or abortion of a fetus.". The Webster's also states, right in the feticide entry that "foeticide" is a an alternate spelling. The NOAD2 mentions "foetus: noun. variant spelling of fetus (chiefly in British nontechnical use)" and "foeticide" is a derivative. Based on these sources I have determined that "fetocide" is not a proper spelling. There maybe professionals that spell it "fetocide", but the Wikipedia readers will not understand what is meant by this spelling. If a quote from credible source spells it "fetocide", then leave it in that spelling. That is my outside opinion on this matter, and it will not change until sources on par with the two I use include "fetocide". -- Charles Gaudette 19:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was no consensus. -- tariqabjotu 22:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Feticide → Foeticide — Far more common according to google, though both are valid. Adam Cuerden talk 16:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Add * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''' on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
Add any additional comments: My only reservation is that (a/o)e->e does tend to divide along national lines: Americans prefer "fetus/hemoglobin/medieval" whereas British prefer "foetus/haemoglobin/mediaeval". Googling seems to indicate that foe- is more popular even in the U.S., but be ready for some irate American to demand that it be moved back. Zargulon
Adam Cuerden talk 16:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
In addition to what is stated above, this new proposed spelling fails the pubmed test.
-- Andrew c 16:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure the pubmed test applies, since, as the article suggests, the word is in highly common usage both in general political discourse and in the legal community. I go with google and Adam. Zargulon 17:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter much, though, either way. It's perfectly acceptable in either namespace, as long as both forms are listed. Adam Cuerden talk 17:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
All I have to say is:
and
We are not accurately representing our sources when we specify "fetus" or not include "embryo". There is nothing wrong with being general to accommodate our sources. We even have a source that says "or causing an abortion." Our wording is similar to that, and doesn't exclude any of the 7 definitions. - Andrew c 01:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone thing that the article should be split? The legal term describes a crime, while the medical term describes a medical procedure. Having them on the same page may confuse readers or imply that a medical procedure is a crime. I would propose having feticide (legal) and feticide (medical) and keep this page as a disambig page, or just spin out the medical content to a new article, and put a otheruses template at the top of this article. - Andrew c 15:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
(undent) Neither Harmonic (mathematics) nor Harmonic (color) are very long, but both of them are separate articles, not sub-sections of Harmonic. I can see no logical basis for conflating two completely different topics, which happen to share a title, into a single article simply because the resultant spin-off articles would be on the short side. There's always room for development. I think it would be a lot easier to develop information on fetal homicide laws if the subject had its own specific article, Fetal homicide, because then editors would be free to concentrate on that topic alone, without first having to separate it from all the information related to abortion. I think it's a very awkward fit to have information related to fetal homicide laws and abortion contained in the same article — it begs for disambiguation. - Severa ( !!!) 03:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. I see that a split tag has just been put on this article. So far, there is no consensus for a split. I cannot understand why a split would be appropriate. The abortion article has not been split up into separate articles on its medical and legal aspects. As Lyrl points out, this article does not have length problems (as the abortion article does), so I cannot support this continuing proposal. Ferrylodge 02:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
There does not seem to be consensus for a split. So, maybe it's time to remove the thingy at the top of the article. Ferrylodge 05:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The law map is not displaying until the level of the abortion template. I believe this is because the image call for the abortion template is above the image call for the map. But this makes the law map display for me in the "see also" section, which makes no sense article-wise. Is there any way to force the map image to display in the U.S. law section without removing the abortion template? I had considered moving the image call for the abortion template into the U.S. law section just below the law map (this is a great fix in preview mode on my screen), but a)I'm not sure that would work for everybody's monitor setup, and b)it's nonstandard to have templates put in the middle of articles. Lyrl Talk C 00:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The lead paragraph says: “As a medical term, feticide includes causing the death of a fetus as the first phase of a legal induced abortion from around gestational week 20, usually after detection of a fetal abnormality.” I think this needs to be modified, to something like “As a medical term, feticide includes causing the death of a fetus, for example as the first phase of a legal induced abortion from around gestational week 20 after detection of a fetal abnormality.”
Medical dictionaries do not limit the term "feticide" to post-20 weeks, so I don’t think we should impose that limit either. Dorland’s Medical Dictionary defines feticide as "the destruction of the fetus." American Heritage Stedman’s Medical Dictionary defines feticide as "Destruction of the embryo or fetus in the uterus." Online Medical Dictionary defines feticide as "Destruction of the embryo or foetus in the uterus." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ferrylodge ( talk • contribs) 14:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
A Google search in the "Scholar" database for the terms "feticide" and "first trimester" gives a bunch of results. For example: Berkowitz, Richard et al. " First-Trimester Transabdominal Multifetal Pregnancy Reduction: A Report of Two Hundred Completed Cases", American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology. Volume 169, page 17 (July 1993): "All of the procedures were performed in the first trimester by the transabdominal injection of potassium chloride into the thoraces of those fetuses that underwent feticide." Hope that helps. Ferrylodge 04:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
This article presently says that feticide is sometimes used medically during "abortions after 20 weeks." However, the abortion article says, "medically, it [i.e. abortion] is defined as miscarriage or induced termination before twenty weeks' gestation, which is considered nonviable." These two statements are inconsistent. Which one is wrong? Ferrylodge 15:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Medical dictionaries vary on this point. Some medical dictionaries define abortion as, "the premature exit of the products of conception (the fetus, fetal membranes, and placenta) from the uterus. It is the loss of a pregnancy and does not refer to why that pregnancy was lost." (See here and here and here). This does not restrict when the event occurs. Likewise, numerous medical articles use the term "abortion" after 20 weeks. See here and here and here and here.
So, I am comfortable with the terminology presently used in this article. However, the abortion article seems overly restrictive in this regard. Ferrylodge 04:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Feticide, it seems, has often been associated with satanic cults. There should perhaps be additional sources regarding the alleged practice among such cults. ADM ( talk) 04:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Another issue that would probably deserved to be mentioned is fetus trafficking, the illegal sale and purchase of dead fetuses for commercial, scientific or other dedrading purposes. There is notably a law in the state of Maine which speficially prohibits this. [1] Such trafficking would presumably be related to the practice of fetal cannibalism, which has been called McFetus when it is done so publicly. [2]. Certain contemporary moralists have also complained about the increasingly common practice of embryonic trafficking, which is done for similar commercial and scientific reasons. [3] ADM ( talk) 05:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
California is shown in blue on the map (murder or homicide), but the text indicates that this depends on the age of the fetus. The map categories are not mutually exclusive, so it could be made clearer what principle (if any) has been used to resolve ambiguities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.111.112 ( talk) 19:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I have delted a passage as I do not believe it to be true: See Talk:Child destruction#Killing of a viable fetus before birth.
"Fetal homicide laws are increasingly often used to prosecute pregnant women who suffer miscarriages or stillbirths, in cases where prosecutors argue that their actions caused the miscarriage or accuse the women of taking such actions."
This language is a bit weird. When describing child abuse laws, do we say that "child abuse laws are often used to prosecute against mothers who suffer the loss of their children, in cases where prosecutors argue that their actions constituted abuse or accuse the women of taking such actions" ? Or do we say simply "child abuse laws are used to prosecute parents accused of causing the death of their children" ?
By using the former language, we would be siding with the parents, insinuating that they are innocent and poor victims ("they already suffered the loss of their children, now they suffer at the hands of the police"). The latter language is more neutral.
So to be neutral, clear and objective, we should say "Fetal homicide laws are increasingly often used to prosecute pregnant women accused of intentionally causing miscarriages or stillbirths. " Jorge Peixoto ( talk) 06:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
This entire article is about human feticide. I think there should be mention, even a section, on feticide in nature. For example it is mentioned here Plains_zebra#Reproduction and here Rodent#Birth_and_parenting. I would assume it is reasonably common with many other species (infanticide certainly is) although I haven't researched it. I think its an important point to make as well as very interesting, especially to see which species have been observed doing it the most. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treva26 ( talk • contribs) 03:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
@ SocraticOath: I don't have access to the article you added, but I do have access to the Induction of fetal demise before abortion paper, and both the quote you provided from the source and the full article I have access to suggests that your addition desperately needs to be qualified. Even the quote from your source notes that there's a sharp difference between failure rates for intrafetal and intraamniotic injections, and the Induction paper additionally notes extremely different failure rates depending on the dosage. It's also not clear to me which version (and which dosage) is preferred outside an experimental context; I think we may be misleadingly giving the impression of a far higher rate of failure than actually exists in practice. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 16:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Feticide. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.rcog.org.uk/files/rcog-corp/Abortion%20guideline_web_1.pdfWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)