![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
The result of the move request was: Move to Volkswagen emissions scandal per the naming policy on non-neutral but common titles. It appears there is clear consensus against the current title, and the "Volkswagen emissions scandal" was easily the best supported alternative. Further, it seems we have a firm consensus against the second proposed option, "Volkswagen diesel emissions controversy" - and more broadly, that including "diesel" in the title is unnecessary. Cúchullain t/ c 19:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Volkswagen common-rail TDI engine emissions scandal
Volkswagen emissions violations →
Volkswagen emissions scandal – Per
WP:COMMONNAME,
WP:PRECISION. Examples of common usgage:
The Independent,
Wall Street Journal,
Detroit Free Press and
NASDAQ See above for threaded discussion considering variations.
24.151.10.165 (
talk)
20:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Change to Volkswagen diesel emissions controversy
ViperSnake151
User:Davey2010 closed with moved to a non-requested name which is the least common name. See Google News search count below.
Note: Actual google counts added for first two examples given. Collect ( talk) 13:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps this may seem like a minor thing, but, I am quite interested in the *how* rather than the why at this point. Sure, it detected a few minor things and probably hooked it up into a bit of code in the ECU, but what are the 'triggers', persay? If anyone has some information, I request it be added into the article, perhaps into it's own section. OC39648 ( talk) 20:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
In the table noted, column, "WVU measurement", the figures shown are transposed between the Jetta and the Passat. Reference, WVU's "In-Use Emissions Testing of Light-Duty Diesel Vehicles in the United States ", page 89. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.39.71 ( talk) 17:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
According to the EPA [1], in the US, a full size diesel pickup or van produces more NOx per km than the high end of the range measured for the Passat. I realize they are not held to same emmissions standards, but it does give perspective - how many full size diesel trucks were sold in the same time period as VW TDI's? I'm not sure where this should be noted. RickH86 ( talk) 17:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
The numbers in that Computerworld analysis seem very iffy to me. If the engines emitted a maximum of 40 times the NOx standard - and that only under acceleration - then how does Computerworld work out that they produce 175 times as much? That just doesn't add up. I'm calling bullshit on that right there. -- Pete ( talk) 22:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
The calculations should be put in context of air that is getting dramatically cleaner in the United States, experts said. Also, the deaths from extra pollution are dwarfed by the 35,000 people in the U.S. a year who die in auto accidents and are closer to the annual U.S. death toll of spider or snake bites. [3]
Discuss. -- John ( talk) 21:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
But yes, please go ahead and compare these estimated deaths to car crashes or snake bites in an appropriate section with the opinions of expert sources, like the reaction section. Although I'm still baffled as to how this AP analyiss is meets our standards when it makes VW's negligent deaths look small, but doesn't meet our standards when they use "inflammatory" language like "dodge" and "chicanery". I call that cherry-picking. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 21:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Broad articles like Air pollution are the best place to put discussion of the trade offs between X hypothetical lives lost vs Y dollars spent on pollution control. This scandal article is far more tightly focused than that.
If a much larger number of sources begin writing comparisons like the AP of, like, how many died at the hands of Genghis Khan vs VW or whatever, then the case can be made that the numbers are comparable. Same thing for the idea that began this, that full size diesel pickups legally emit more pollution than VW's cars did illegally, though you'd have to factor in the dispersal of that pollution in rural areas where it has little effect on human health, which explains the US NOx policy to a large extent (plus each unpopulated rural state has 2 senators, same as California). But wait for the sources first. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 23:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
References
I've tried to add specific mention of the EA288 engine type in the summary because it seemed the only place it could fit well, due to the numbers quoted by VW. Yes, there may be a better place for it. But I object to it being removed entirely, and labeled "fussy details". It is an extremely importantly detail, because: VW USA, when admitting to the fraud, included in the admission (like the EPA had in the accusation) the 2015 models which all had the EA288 engine. VW in Germany declared (and all the media are trumpeting it) "only Euro-5 cars are affected"/"only EA189 engines are affected" whereas "Euro 6 cars are not affected". This stuck in my craw for a while, making it sound as though "Euro 6" was an engine feature and not a compliance limit - we're talking about the pretense of passing emissions tests, so what magically makes an engine pass even the harder Euro 6 test? I finally looked it up and found that "Euro 6" in this context simply means EA288 - which is why it matters: even as VW acts all shocked, it took them 5 minutes to look up the (actual) emissions numbers and declare the (much cleaner) EA288 fit for Euro 6 but not for the EPA limits. More interestingly, you'll find this nowhere in the press, because the US press (and other interested people in the US), if they even hear of the "Euro 6" part, assume it's some different engine, whereas the German press is in lockstep declaring that only the EA189 is affected and only it is installed in the US. (I tried to fix the relevant German WP articles and was told, in each case, that it wasn't so. They refuse to read English references, apparently. A lone VW announcement from 2014 announcing the EA288 in 2015 models was derided as "it must be time travel", as though it had to be post-scandal reveal.) These are probably the same people that think that this is all trumped up by US competitors who are afraid of VW's 2% marketshare. 143.116.116.91 ( talk) 21:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
What can this mean? Do we know?
A real fix would be to make the cars meet the emission standards all the time whilst still maintaining the origial performance spec. Is that what VW say that they will do? If this is not what they are doing we should remove and comment about 'fixing' the cars as it is misleading. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 22:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Both points of view are speculation about the future, so we shouldn't dwell on it much. Just mention each side's opinion briefly and then patiently wait to see what develops. The world will know soon enough if VW's repair will entail a loss of performance, and since this is not a news article we don't need to rush to get something out there. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 23:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Since the creation of this article, a fervent group of editors has insisted that we cannot write this article in the same tone as our sources. That there are predetermined limits on what Wikipedia may say, with no regard to sources. WP:WikiVoice says this is against policy: "Avoid stating facts as opinions." So when all of our sources assert the following facts:
These Wikipedia editors have rewritten what our sources tell us to create a false sense of doubt over these uncontroversial facts. They mistakenly apply the WP:BLP policy to a corporation that is in no way a living person, and we confuse criminal offenses with civil violations. It all gets mushed together in one mealy-mouthed blur, devoid of nuance.
And now, actual controversy have emerged. Some examples of issues under dispute:
This is only the beginning. The problem now is that while Wikipedia must carefully avoid bias in describing these actual controversies, and instead must take a reserved tone that attributes these assertions to the voice of the parties making them, we have used the same skeptical voice to describe the uncontroversial facts that all parties agree on. This is the problem of false equivalency, treating known facts and open questions equally to create distorted view of reality. The neutral point of view policy, not to mention WP:NOR and WP:V have addressed this numerous times. WP:ASSERT addresses this. We've dealt with anti-science partisans who want to erase the difference between well-established scientific facts and open questions on the frontiers of science, in order to carry out a political agenda.
This is a problem today, and this violation of NPOV is getting worse every day more controversies are added to the case. The longer it goes on, the less neutral this article becomes. The solution, as it has always been, is to trust our sources. If we're willing to cite them at all, then we must be willing to cite them fully and not screen out words and impressions that fail some arbitrary filter that goes under the name "encyclopedic". Policy says we don't second-guess our sources. When we do create false doubt, then we lose the distinction between facts and opinions. Everything looks like mere opinion. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 19:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
You mention:
We have 'The company had programmed their model year 2009 through 2015 turbocharged direct injection (TDI) diesel engine so that US standards nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions were met only during laboratory emissions testing'. What else do we need to say?
We have, 'According to the EPA, Volkswagen had insisted for a year before the outbreak of the scandal that discrepancies were mere technical glitches.[59] Volkswagen only fully acknowledged that they had manipulated the vehicle emission tests after being confronted with evidence regarding the "defeat device"'. So we already have that, but in more detail.
WE have, 'Olaf Lies, a Volkswagen board member and economy minister of Lower Saxony, later told the BBC that the people "who allowed this to happen, or who made the decision to install this software" acted criminally, and must be held personally accountable'. What exactly do you think needs to be added? Martin Hogbin ( talk) 20:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
It isn't just this one article. There's a core group of editors who think "encyclopedic" means certain arbitrarily-chosen types of facts get treated skeptically, and certain unusual events get toned down to make them seem less unusual. The problem with that kind of bias is that it is arbitrary; not all facts are toned down. Not all unusual events are given an air of uncertainty; only certain ones, and the choice of which kinds of events are called into question is entirely in the minds of editors. You have Standard English words rejected as "unencyclopdic" without any reference to sources at all. Editors know without even seeing the sources that "you can't say that on Wikipedia". All of which is expressly prohibited by WP:NPOV, which tells you to conform to the sources. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 23:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
These sources explain the difference and importance between voluntary and forced recalls, and offers comments. [1] [2] The Bloomberg and FT cannot be archived, but shows a wider perspective of setting precedence. [3] [4] EPA will test VWs fix, and if sufficient, order recall [3] .. aaand ze German sauce [5] That should be sufficient for covering the recall issue, with the "fix" issue to be dealt with later. The owner issue is probably part of why KBA ordered the forced recall, as that means no stragglers. TGCP ( talk) 17:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
As there was some controversy over the words for the recall, here is a suggestion to debate (blend text with current recall line) :
VW suggested in the beginning of October to let car owners decide whether their cars would be recalled for handling. [1] [2]
However, the KBA views the software as illegal, [6] [7] and has ordered a full recall of all affected cars in Germany. VW then decided to recall around 8.5 million cars in Europe, [2] about a third of all its car deliveries since 2009. [3]
KBA requires VW to send a recall plan to KBA before the end of October for 2.0 liter cars, and end of November for 1.2 and 1.6 liter cars. [7] If KBA approves a plan, VW can then start handling the cars. The German authorities require that VW removes the software and that VW ensures that emission rules are fulfilled. [1] Media estimates that the KBA procedure sets a precedence for how authorities in other countries handle the case. [3] [4] TGCP ( talk) 21:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
References
VW had proposed a voluntary recall of the cars, which would have meant that motorists only took their car in for repairs if they wanted to remove the defeat device. VW has told motorists their cars remain legal to drive on the basis that they passed emissions tests, even if this was only due to the defeat device.
Alexander Dobrindt, the German transport minister, confirmed there would be a compulsory recall. He said: "VW is ordered to remove the software from all vehicles and to take appropriate measures to ensure that the emissions rules are fulfilled."
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
Originally, the brand wanted to issue a voluntary recall, which would have placed the onus on individual drivers to come in for any remedy. However, Germany's Federal Motor Transport Authority (KBA) ordered a compulsory recall of every single affected vehicle.
Volkswagen chose to expand the recall beyond German borders in order to treat the issue as a European one
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
The mandatory recall is the basis for callbacks throughout Europe
The KBA's decision is expected to set a precedent for how other regulators with similar responsibilities across the EU deal with the scandal
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Das KBA hält die Software in den betroffenen Diesel-Fahrzeugen des VW-Konzerns für illegal
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
KBA ist der Meinung, dass die von Volkswagen eingesetzte Software rechtswidrig sei
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
The result of the move request was: Move to Volkswagen emissions scandal per the naming policy on non-neutral but common titles. It appears there is clear consensus against the current title, and the "Volkswagen emissions scandal" was easily the best supported alternative. Further, it seems we have a firm consensus against the second proposed option, "Volkswagen diesel emissions controversy" - and more broadly, that including "diesel" in the title is unnecessary. Cúchullain t/ c 19:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Volkswagen common-rail TDI engine emissions scandal
Volkswagen emissions violations →
Volkswagen emissions scandal – Per
WP:COMMONNAME,
WP:PRECISION. Examples of common usgage:
The Independent,
Wall Street Journal,
Detroit Free Press and
NASDAQ See above for threaded discussion considering variations.
24.151.10.165 (
talk)
20:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Change to Volkswagen diesel emissions controversy
ViperSnake151
User:Davey2010 closed with moved to a non-requested name which is the least common name. See Google News search count below.
Note: Actual google counts added for first two examples given. Collect ( talk) 13:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps this may seem like a minor thing, but, I am quite interested in the *how* rather than the why at this point. Sure, it detected a few minor things and probably hooked it up into a bit of code in the ECU, but what are the 'triggers', persay? If anyone has some information, I request it be added into the article, perhaps into it's own section. OC39648 ( talk) 20:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
In the table noted, column, "WVU measurement", the figures shown are transposed between the Jetta and the Passat. Reference, WVU's "In-Use Emissions Testing of Light-Duty Diesel Vehicles in the United States ", page 89. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.39.71 ( talk) 17:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
According to the EPA [1], in the US, a full size diesel pickup or van produces more NOx per km than the high end of the range measured for the Passat. I realize they are not held to same emmissions standards, but it does give perspective - how many full size diesel trucks were sold in the same time period as VW TDI's? I'm not sure where this should be noted. RickH86 ( talk) 17:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
The numbers in that Computerworld analysis seem very iffy to me. If the engines emitted a maximum of 40 times the NOx standard - and that only under acceleration - then how does Computerworld work out that they produce 175 times as much? That just doesn't add up. I'm calling bullshit on that right there. -- Pete ( talk) 22:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
The calculations should be put in context of air that is getting dramatically cleaner in the United States, experts said. Also, the deaths from extra pollution are dwarfed by the 35,000 people in the U.S. a year who die in auto accidents and are closer to the annual U.S. death toll of spider or snake bites. [3]
Discuss. -- John ( talk) 21:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
But yes, please go ahead and compare these estimated deaths to car crashes or snake bites in an appropriate section with the opinions of expert sources, like the reaction section. Although I'm still baffled as to how this AP analyiss is meets our standards when it makes VW's negligent deaths look small, but doesn't meet our standards when they use "inflammatory" language like "dodge" and "chicanery". I call that cherry-picking. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 21:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Broad articles like Air pollution are the best place to put discussion of the trade offs between X hypothetical lives lost vs Y dollars spent on pollution control. This scandal article is far more tightly focused than that.
If a much larger number of sources begin writing comparisons like the AP of, like, how many died at the hands of Genghis Khan vs VW or whatever, then the case can be made that the numbers are comparable. Same thing for the idea that began this, that full size diesel pickups legally emit more pollution than VW's cars did illegally, though you'd have to factor in the dispersal of that pollution in rural areas where it has little effect on human health, which explains the US NOx policy to a large extent (plus each unpopulated rural state has 2 senators, same as California). But wait for the sources first. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 23:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
References
I've tried to add specific mention of the EA288 engine type in the summary because it seemed the only place it could fit well, due to the numbers quoted by VW. Yes, there may be a better place for it. But I object to it being removed entirely, and labeled "fussy details". It is an extremely importantly detail, because: VW USA, when admitting to the fraud, included in the admission (like the EPA had in the accusation) the 2015 models which all had the EA288 engine. VW in Germany declared (and all the media are trumpeting it) "only Euro-5 cars are affected"/"only EA189 engines are affected" whereas "Euro 6 cars are not affected". This stuck in my craw for a while, making it sound as though "Euro 6" was an engine feature and not a compliance limit - we're talking about the pretense of passing emissions tests, so what magically makes an engine pass even the harder Euro 6 test? I finally looked it up and found that "Euro 6" in this context simply means EA288 - which is why it matters: even as VW acts all shocked, it took them 5 minutes to look up the (actual) emissions numbers and declare the (much cleaner) EA288 fit for Euro 6 but not for the EPA limits. More interestingly, you'll find this nowhere in the press, because the US press (and other interested people in the US), if they even hear of the "Euro 6" part, assume it's some different engine, whereas the German press is in lockstep declaring that only the EA189 is affected and only it is installed in the US. (I tried to fix the relevant German WP articles and was told, in each case, that it wasn't so. They refuse to read English references, apparently. A lone VW announcement from 2014 announcing the EA288 in 2015 models was derided as "it must be time travel", as though it had to be post-scandal reveal.) These are probably the same people that think that this is all trumped up by US competitors who are afraid of VW's 2% marketshare. 143.116.116.91 ( talk) 21:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
What can this mean? Do we know?
A real fix would be to make the cars meet the emission standards all the time whilst still maintaining the origial performance spec. Is that what VW say that they will do? If this is not what they are doing we should remove and comment about 'fixing' the cars as it is misleading. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 22:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Both points of view are speculation about the future, so we shouldn't dwell on it much. Just mention each side's opinion briefly and then patiently wait to see what develops. The world will know soon enough if VW's repair will entail a loss of performance, and since this is not a news article we don't need to rush to get something out there. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 23:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Since the creation of this article, a fervent group of editors has insisted that we cannot write this article in the same tone as our sources. That there are predetermined limits on what Wikipedia may say, with no regard to sources. WP:WikiVoice says this is against policy: "Avoid stating facts as opinions." So when all of our sources assert the following facts:
These Wikipedia editors have rewritten what our sources tell us to create a false sense of doubt over these uncontroversial facts. They mistakenly apply the WP:BLP policy to a corporation that is in no way a living person, and we confuse criminal offenses with civil violations. It all gets mushed together in one mealy-mouthed blur, devoid of nuance.
And now, actual controversy have emerged. Some examples of issues under dispute:
This is only the beginning. The problem now is that while Wikipedia must carefully avoid bias in describing these actual controversies, and instead must take a reserved tone that attributes these assertions to the voice of the parties making them, we have used the same skeptical voice to describe the uncontroversial facts that all parties agree on. This is the problem of false equivalency, treating known facts and open questions equally to create distorted view of reality. The neutral point of view policy, not to mention WP:NOR and WP:V have addressed this numerous times. WP:ASSERT addresses this. We've dealt with anti-science partisans who want to erase the difference between well-established scientific facts and open questions on the frontiers of science, in order to carry out a political agenda.
This is a problem today, and this violation of NPOV is getting worse every day more controversies are added to the case. The longer it goes on, the less neutral this article becomes. The solution, as it has always been, is to trust our sources. If we're willing to cite them at all, then we must be willing to cite them fully and not screen out words and impressions that fail some arbitrary filter that goes under the name "encyclopedic". Policy says we don't second-guess our sources. When we do create false doubt, then we lose the distinction between facts and opinions. Everything looks like mere opinion. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 19:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
You mention:
We have 'The company had programmed their model year 2009 through 2015 turbocharged direct injection (TDI) diesel engine so that US standards nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions were met only during laboratory emissions testing'. What else do we need to say?
We have, 'According to the EPA, Volkswagen had insisted for a year before the outbreak of the scandal that discrepancies were mere technical glitches.[59] Volkswagen only fully acknowledged that they had manipulated the vehicle emission tests after being confronted with evidence regarding the "defeat device"'. So we already have that, but in more detail.
WE have, 'Olaf Lies, a Volkswagen board member and economy minister of Lower Saxony, later told the BBC that the people "who allowed this to happen, or who made the decision to install this software" acted criminally, and must be held personally accountable'. What exactly do you think needs to be added? Martin Hogbin ( talk) 20:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
It isn't just this one article. There's a core group of editors who think "encyclopedic" means certain arbitrarily-chosen types of facts get treated skeptically, and certain unusual events get toned down to make them seem less unusual. The problem with that kind of bias is that it is arbitrary; not all facts are toned down. Not all unusual events are given an air of uncertainty; only certain ones, and the choice of which kinds of events are called into question is entirely in the minds of editors. You have Standard English words rejected as "unencyclopdic" without any reference to sources at all. Editors know without even seeing the sources that "you can't say that on Wikipedia". All of which is expressly prohibited by WP:NPOV, which tells you to conform to the sources. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 23:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
These sources explain the difference and importance between voluntary and forced recalls, and offers comments. [1] [2] The Bloomberg and FT cannot be archived, but shows a wider perspective of setting precedence. [3] [4] EPA will test VWs fix, and if sufficient, order recall [3] .. aaand ze German sauce [5] That should be sufficient for covering the recall issue, with the "fix" issue to be dealt with later. The owner issue is probably part of why KBA ordered the forced recall, as that means no stragglers. TGCP ( talk) 17:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
As there was some controversy over the words for the recall, here is a suggestion to debate (blend text with current recall line) :
VW suggested in the beginning of October to let car owners decide whether their cars would be recalled for handling. [1] [2]
However, the KBA views the software as illegal, [6] [7] and has ordered a full recall of all affected cars in Germany. VW then decided to recall around 8.5 million cars in Europe, [2] about a third of all its car deliveries since 2009. [3]
KBA requires VW to send a recall plan to KBA before the end of October for 2.0 liter cars, and end of November for 1.2 and 1.6 liter cars. [7] If KBA approves a plan, VW can then start handling the cars. The German authorities require that VW removes the software and that VW ensures that emission rules are fulfilled. [1] Media estimates that the KBA procedure sets a precedence for how authorities in other countries handle the case. [3] [4] TGCP ( talk) 21:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
References
VW had proposed a voluntary recall of the cars, which would have meant that motorists only took their car in for repairs if they wanted to remove the defeat device. VW has told motorists their cars remain legal to drive on the basis that they passed emissions tests, even if this was only due to the defeat device.
Alexander Dobrindt, the German transport minister, confirmed there would be a compulsory recall. He said: "VW is ordered to remove the software from all vehicles and to take appropriate measures to ensure that the emissions rules are fulfilled."
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
Originally, the brand wanted to issue a voluntary recall, which would have placed the onus on individual drivers to come in for any remedy. However, Germany's Federal Motor Transport Authority (KBA) ordered a compulsory recall of every single affected vehicle.
Volkswagen chose to expand the recall beyond German borders in order to treat the issue as a European one
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
The mandatory recall is the basis for callbacks throughout Europe
The KBA's decision is expected to set a precedent for how other regulators with similar responsibilities across the EU deal with the scandal
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Das KBA hält die Software in den betroffenen Diesel-Fahrzeugen des VW-Konzerns für illegal
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
KBA ist der Meinung, dass die von Volkswagen eingesetzte Software rechtswidrig sei
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)