Talk:2014 in hip hop music

Hip hop Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hip hop, a collaborative effort to build a useful resource for and improve the coverage of hip hop on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Hip hopWikipedia:WikiProject Hip hopTemplate:WikiProject Hip hopHip hop articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Years Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years 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.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Images

Are all these images necessary? It looks like some amateur user page. What happens after the said artists album is released do we remove the photo? Koala15 (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pessimistic much? It looks 1000% times better, you must not know how a FL article looks. All FLs have pictures of the subjects and images are recomended in all articles, the fact that we never had any in these articles is the problem. And yes duh, when the album is released the image is removed as there is no room next to the released albums. Now instead of it looking like a long awkward list, there is more to look at in the section. STATic message me! 02:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular way you're selecting these? - Wetdogmeat (talk) 02:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Albums that appeared on most anticipated albums of the year lists from major publications including [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] and [9], among others. Also I left off artists that albums had no title yet. As you can tell, there is more than enough room to include at least five more images, so you can include one or two very significant underground artists if you would like. STATic message me! 02:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, i guess it wouldn't hurt but it just looks a little excessive in some parts. Koala15 (talk) 03:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re-releases

STATicVapor, can you explain: 1) whether re-releases/deluxe editions, etc, are normally included in these articles? I notice that the 2004 deluxe edition of the album is not listed in the 2004 article, for instance; and 2) how Illmatic XX is not a re-release of Illmatic? It's the same album, re-released, ergo... (Also, you might want to keep WP:BRD in mind). - Wetdogmeat (talk) 21:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a re-release, it is remastered and comes with an additional CD with demos, freestyles and unreleased tracks. To even compare the quality of this article to the 2004 one is ridiculous. No one started actually creating decent versions of these articles till 2010. Of course anything before that is going to be incomplete. It is clearly a notable release that is being covered in many reliable sources, and being released by a major label, so of course we should mention it. STATic message me! 21:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting it shouldn't be mentioned. I'm questioning whether it should be listed indiscriminately amongst the new releases, seeing as it is a re-release (a remastered anniversary edition with bonus material is still a re-release and it's absurd to argue otherwise; remastering old albums for anniversary editions is standard practice, incentivising re-purchases with bonus material on re-releases is also standard practice; Illmatic was released in 1994, what do you call it when something that has been released is... released again? What if it had no bonus material and just had new artwork? Would you still want to list it?). I think information about the 20th anniversary of Illmatic, the re-release, the tour, etc, should be covered in the events section. - Wetdogmeat (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Reissue", "Reissue", "Re-release", "Re-release", etc. Also, Illmatic XX currently just redirects to Illmatic, not even to a particular section of the article that explains what Illmatic XX is. When I first saw that listing I thought that's what Nas was calling his new album. Following the link I obviously figured it was an Illmatic anniversary release, but I had to search the article to confirm that. So it's currently both useless and misleading in the 'upcoming releases' section, where it could actually be informative in the 'events' section. - Wetdogmeat (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, does seem like you could categorize it as a "re-release," however I believe it still deserves listing in upcoming releases, it is obviously not the original Illmatic. For the record, it did have an article when I added it, but User: Koala15 redirected it, which did seem like a good decision as that article was completely unsourced. But if someone actually tried, it is definitely an encyclopedia article worthy topic. It does not deserve a mention in the event section as it is not necessarily an event, its a series of events that would obvious be better suited and more informative in Nas' article, rather than this one. But as you can tell by the coverage you just found, it is notable enough to deserve listing. STATic message me! 23:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I still disagree, as in my opinion it very obviously is the original Illmatic, just remastered and bundled with a bonus disc, like a million other reissues. But I'm not that concerned about it; except if it's to be listed anyway, then in lieu of a specific section in the Nas article that explains what Illmatic XX is, it needs a note added to the listing here, as the redirect is currently obscure and useless. - Wetdogmeat (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine, but since it "probably" will chart, why not mention it? Not like we have any space limit were close to crossing. Very significant re-releases like this album, should be mentioned. There is a paragraph in a section in the Illmatic article about the re-release, but I do not know if you noticed that. So the redirect would still make sense. STATic message me! 17:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw that, but I had to ctrl-F the article to find it, since there's no section labelled Illmatic XX and the redirect is just to the top of the article. I'm not against mentioning it, as I was saying, I just don't think reissues should be indiscriminately listed among new releases. Once there's a note attached I don't really mind, but in a year in which Nas is set to release a yet-to-be-titled new album, and given the recent fashion for 'sequel albums' in mainstream hip hop, and given that Nas himself has already released a quasi-sequel to Illmatic, having a listing for something called Illmatic XX among upcoming new releases, with an uninformative, ambiguous redirect, is a problem, imo. - Wetdogmeat (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I had to do the same. You're right tho that makes a lot sense, and I have no problem with the note at all. If I adjusted the redirect to the correct place, then do you think it would make sense to link it? STATic message me! 18:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think a redirect would be appropriate if there was an Illmatic XX section in the Illmatic article, which shouldn't be a problem given the coverage it's getting. - Wetdogmeat (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bushido - Sonny Black

German rapper Bushido sold 80,000 copies of his new album "Sonny Black" in Germany alone during the release-week. So he should be at the top of the sales table. Ich901 (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.rap.de/news/40-news/16660-bushido-verraet-verkaufszahlen-von-qsonny-blackq

@Ich901: That source is just the rapper claiming their sales, when he could be exaggerating them. We need a reliable third party source to report the sales at the end of the fiscal week. STATic message me! 17:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mixtapes

@User:Koala15 - As I've already explained to you in the edit summary, the term "mixtape" has no fixed meaning beyond the purely negative meaning "not an album". That's all it means. The reason that any given mixtape is not considered an album differs from mixtape to mixtape and from artist to artist. You can only make sense of the term in relation to the term album. In mainstream hip hop, it often means that the release is free. But not always. In underground hip hop, albums and EPs are frequently free, and mixtapes are sometimes not free. There is no way to determine whether a release is a mixtape or an album/EP other than by looking at what sources call it. Which is, in fact, how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia does not work by Koala15 declaring that he knows the TRUE and ONLY definition of a word, and that this definition will hold for this article, which Koala15 owns, and which he will determine the content of based on his own whims and opinions. Here are some examples of non-free mixtapes: 1, 2, 3. And here is a very, very famous example of a free studio album: In Rainbows. Again, the answer is (as with literally everything on the encyclopedia): look to the sources. - Wetdogmeat (talk) 19:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As long as i have been editing this pages, it has always been a rule not to add mixtapes to the page even if it is billed as a free album. It wasn't my decision. Mixtapes that are sold in retail are usually called "retail mixtapes". If we added every single mixtape or "free album" this page would be ridiculously long. And In Rainbows is an awful example, that album was also sold in stores. Koala15 (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is called begging the question. I agree that we should not add mixtapes to the article. But I reject your definition of "mixtape" as meaning "free album". Its only consistent meaning is "not an album". Sometimes this is because it's free. Sometimes it's because the beats are jacked. Sometimes it's because the vocals are all freestyled. Sometimes it's because not as much work was put into it as a 'proper' album. Sometimes it's because the tracks are leftovers from sessions for other albums. Whatever. Your mainstream/commercial bias is glaring. You've also ignored the examples of non-free mixtapes. And In Rainbows was released for free and only later sold, so according to your definition, at the time of its release it was a mixtape. - Wetdogmeat (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is sometimes quite hard to determine whether a release should be classified as an album or a mixtape. The majority of albums are sold commercially and most mixtapes are free, but that's not always the case. However, some "reliable sources" tend to use the term "album" quite broadly, sometimes describing mixtapes as albums, where the word album is used with the meaning of "musical release". So I think we should use the information from sources, but also other evidence, such as has it been released free/commercially/by label, and other information specific to the release, to determine how to classify it. What do you think STATicVapor? 2Flows (talk) 23:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We only list retail releases, that has been the rule since the creation of these articles and it makes perfect sense. It is the bright line that should not be crossed. Rappers will label their project as a "free albums" instead of "mixtape" sometimes, due to the negative connotation of the word and also to give it more importance in their mind. However they are the same. If we start listing "free albums" then might as well list every single mixtape a notable rapper releases, and that is not going to happen. There would be thousands of projects we would have to add if we just included the ones that the artist coined a "free album". If the not notable project gets a official retail release, then we can include it. STATic message me! 23:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this 'rule' written?
You are also begging the question; the fact is that "mixtape" does not only mean "free release", as I have proven.
Restricting the list to retail releases betrays a distinct mainstream/commercial bias, which is unacceptable.
"Look to the sources" does not just mean primary sources. - Wetdogmeat (talk) 00:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was the consensus of the article editors as far back as I can remember (I started editing them during 2010 in hip hop music), you barely started editing these articles late in 2013, so you would obviously not know. Yet, that is how the article has always been run so you must give a valid reason for the consensus to change. In hip hop, yes free albums that are never released for retail sale are "mixtapes", the word has evolved what it meant back in the day. We do not even list retail mixtapes or street mixtapes (mixtapes released for digital sale along with free download). Your mainstream bias comment is beyond laughable, if the rapper does not even deem it important enough to release it for sale, then it is not important to list here. If we listed every single piece of music longer than a single song that is released by a rapper, then there would be tens of thousands of releases on these pages. The consensus is only to list retail releases, as is obvious by the immediate opposition here. STATic message me! 00:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not established on the authority of a little group of editors who appoint themselves curators of an article, it's determined on the basis of existing policy. So what is the policy basis of this consensus? Is it the policy that says "when defining a term, ignore all reliable sources and proceed according to your own private definitions"? Because that's what you're doing.
You're free to use the word "mixtape" however you like, as narrowly as you like. But you don't actually control the social meaning of the word. It does not simply and exclusively mean "free album", as I have proven [this is being conveniently ignored]. And this wider array of meanings are the meanings you will find in the reliable sources upon which the content of Wikipedia is based.
Not every musician is trying to live off their music, particularly when that is close to impossible these days. So yes, there is a mainstream/commercial bias to the exclusion of non-commercial releases (the clue is in the word 'commercial'). You wouldn't know this because you only listen to mainstream hip hop, but plenty of underground releases are 'pay what you want' or free. And they're not mixtapes. To simply assert that they are is to beg the question (ie: what is at issue here is the definition of 'mixtape'; to assume that there is already an accepted definition is to assume that the issue is already resolved, and to circle back around to the original question, hence beg the question).
[ignored point] "Look to the sources" does not just mean primary sources. - Wetdogmeat (talk) 01:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is established by the editors of the articles, the "little group of editors who appoint themselves curators of an article", is your uncivil made-up connotation. Consensus on this sort of content cannot be policy based, policies do not govern the layout of any articles for that matter. Guidelines could, but there is not one such official guideline, so it falls on the consensus of the article editors, which is not to include mixtapes or other free releases. It has been this way for years. The article does not only include commercial releases, but only retail releases just like every other article documenting music in years. As for "You wouldn't know this because you only listen to mainstream hip hop", hahaha you do not know me so do not act like you do. We get that you can count, but your points are moot. So might as well drop it, if no one else agrees with you consensus cannot change. I suggest we now review all the little underground releases that Wetdogmeat has added. If it is only available via Bandcamp with the choice to pay for it, it is just as worthy to include as the mixtapes that are also released on iTunes. STATic message me! 02:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with layout, it is about content. If you can't base your argument for or against particular content on policy and sources then it is a baseless argument. A little group of self-appointed curators has no authority over the content of the article. Where did this consensus building take place? You can't possibly be referring to the 'mixtapes' section here. Please tell me that's not your idea of consensus building. If not, then where was this legendary meeting of the minds held?
[ignored point] You're free to use the word "mixtape" however you like, as narrowly as you like. But you don't actually control the social meaning of the word. It does not simply and exclusively mean "free album", as I have proven [this is still being conveniently ignored]. And this wider array of meanings are the meanings you will find in the reliable sources upon which the content of Wikipedia is based.
Anything that is sold for a profit is commercial. That's what commerce is. The privileging of retail releases is, by definition, a commercial bias. And a commercial bias is a de facto mainstream bias. (And while I'm fortunate enough to not know you personally, I see what articles you edit, what content you contribute to this one, and what your favourite albums of the year are - you even just condescended to "little underground releases", do you ever not undermine your own arguments?).
[ignored point] "Look to the sources" does not just mean primary sources.

Can you count? When you're presented with 4 points, try responding to 1, 2, 3... 4 points. They are not moot (looks like you got something out of our exchange earlier. Not a total loss then). - Wetdogmeat (talk) 02:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and unless it does not violate any policy, polices do not govern what the authors of articles choose to include in the articles. No ownership issue at all, there is no such thing as multiple editors trying to own an article, you cannot make such libel claims without any backing except that everyone disagrees with you, but with the stupid things you think of, are you still surprised. I do not even want to bring up Deadmaus or Tech Nine... I already addressed your second point, just because you cannot read, does not mean I have to repeat myself. Well this article only lists commercial releases, just like every other yearly music article and that is not going to change without consensus for it. How about instead of stalking my user page and articles I edit, instead you should step outside your mommy's basement for the first time in your life. The world is quite glorious. My music taste has nothing to do with my opinion on this issue, it is common sense to only include retail releases, or else these articles would be exponentially long. You need to quit with this damn underground bias you have. It is not hard at all to put a album on iTunes or for sale on Bandcamp, I could do it right now, so again your commercial point is invalid. As for the other "ignored point", that is all good and well for other articles, but we only include retail releases here. If you have a source that says it was released for sale then fantastic. A reliable source is needed for that, not a source calling it an album. We include EPs so obviously that is not required. Overall, your posts continue to be nonsensical. You have no support for the change, so just drop it. Feel free to jump in with further comments 2Flows or Koala15, continuing with this childish editor is too much for me sometimes. There is nothing really worse then someone who's every point has been refuted, yet they claim they have not and instead just spew out disconnected rants. STATic message me! 18:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see this is a heated argument, but let's all remain civil. Comments on other editors, instead of content, do not prove any point. As for the discussion, I would agree with Static's point that what to be or not to be included in an article can sometimes be determined by consensus on the talk page, as long as none of the options are against a wp guideline, which I think is the case here. It is just common sense to trim the list by only including retail albums, as they are the most notable ones. Otherwise, as has been stated, the list will become way too long. I also think that in certain cases, if a release has received significant coverage, it would be appropriate to include it, regardless of retail/non-retail. 2Flows (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why would the list become way too long? We would still be excluding mixtapes. All we would be doing is removing the mainstream bias against free albums (not mixtapes). The distinction would be determined by sources, as usual. - Wetdogmeat (talk) 23:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely 2Flows, I did not want it to get this way at all, but I am not one to back down if someone is going to make direct insults towards me. This discussion would be the consensus. Glad to see you get the point. I also get your point about including if it received a very large amount of coverage. I few that jump out to me would be the Live.Love.ASAP and Crenshaw, along with Run the Jewels (a free album), which would have been an example had it not got its later release. Where is this supposed extreme coverage in reliable sources that is suggested? STATic message me! 00:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hahahahaha, a guy with 20,000 edits a year just told me to get a life. You can't make this shit up. Also maybe steer clear of big words like 'exponentially' or 'connotation' if you're going to try boasting about your basic literacy. Anyway...

You ignored my question. Do you think I'm not going to notice when you ignore my questions? I'll notice whether you number your points or not. Answer the question. Where was this consensus determined? Please don't tell me it was that little exchange on the 2010 talk page or I might pass away laughing. (And there is no reason a small group of like-minded editors can't collectively violate WP:OWN - if there is no actual consensus and only the self-assertion of that group's authority, then that's exactly what you're doing.) (And you're talking about libel now? That wouldn't be a veiled legal threat would it? I'll grant you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't know what that word means either.)
You did not address my second point. Here's a recap: Koala15 said we don't include mixtapes and defined mixtapes as 'free albums'. I countered that not all mixtapes are free and not all albums are sold. I gave several examples of mixtapes that are not free. You then came in claiming that 'consensus' (whose, where, still undisclosed) is that we don't include mixtapes or free releases. Which of course strikes any observer with a functioning braincell as an ad hoc argument in the face of inconvenient evidence. Mixtape does not exclusively mean free album. This is a fact. It doesn't matter what you would like it to mean, or the way in which you personally use the word. Its social meaning is beyond that and determined by reliable sources, not your personal whims. Given this fact, what is the basis for excluding free albums that are not mixtapes? You have not given one. You've only claimed that if we were to include free albums and EPs (free non-mixtapes) then the list would "be exponentially (sic) long". Why is this the case? We would still be excluding mixtapes, would we not? Can you give me some examples of free albums and EPs that would have to be included (aside from the Del and Rza ones)? You and Koala15 didn't even know such things existed until I pointed it out to you. You thought all free releases were mixtapes. I've proven that that's not the case. You've ignored that proof, of course, because that's the disingenuous and evasive way you conduct an argument.
Your ignorance of underground hip hop is relevant, because if you knew anything about it, you would know that releasing non-mixtapes for free or 'pay what you want' is pretty common, and it has nothing to do with how 'hard' it is to upload something to iTunes (this is inane even for you), it has to do with the principles and the culture of giving things away for free. Not everyone wants to get rich or die tryin'. Your mainstream bias is implicit in your privileging of commercial releases. Pay attention to the italicised words. This is what I mean when I say you have a mainstream bias, not simply that you only listen to mainstream hip hop. I have no corresponding "underground bias", as I'm not trying to arbitrarily remove mainstream albums from the list based on some erroneous personal definition of "studio album" or something. Do you understand? (I also don't exclusively listen to underground hip hop, but that's beside the point.)
Begging the question yet again. The points at issue are: A) whether all free releases are mixtapes; and B) if not, whether free non-mixtape releases should be included here. Point A is settled. You are assuming that point B is also settled when it's not. Refer to points #1 & #3 and answer the questions: where was this consensus determined and why would the list become overly long? - Wetdogmeat (talk) 23:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"And there is no reason a small group of like-minded editors can't collectively violate WP:OWN - if there is no actual consensus and only the self-assertion of that group's authority, then that's exactly what you're doing." You have never heard of a group of editors that commonly edit a certain page establishing consensus for this type of thing? It happens all the time on other pages, there is no Wikipedia God to ask, right? So we have to come up with our own consensus. Koala15 (talk) 00:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Start off with a personal attack, yeah that makes your post so much better. 1) I never said that discussion was the consensus, it was the general agreement or consensus of the article editors through the years, try reading the edit summaries of all those pages in the last four or so years. Stop false crying ownership just because the other editors of the article disagree with you, it does nothing for your argument.2) I never said all free releases of albums were mixtapes, you are just making these things up. I said these days, alot of different rappers label a lot of their mixtapes as "free albums". Random example would be that recently Kevin Gates saying he considers all of his ten official mixtapes to be albums. So we should now include them all because he said they are albums? Even though none of them have articles to link to and only the last two were also released for retail sale. So where do we draw the line? At least he is probably 10x more notable then the rapper who is releasing this free album. You know I still do not even know the name of the rapper or album, I just can tell by your point of view pushing that it is some random underground rapper, and you probably created their stub article. 3) Okay sure it's common, now how many of these albums are notable? I have no mainstream bias at all, you can stalk my user page and contributions all you want, it still proves nothing at all. I just believe we should lean to only include releases that can be paid for. Just like we only include releases by rappers with their own Wikipedia article, there was no talk page discussion about it, it is just common sense that became, lets say it again, general agreement or CONSENSUS among the editors of these yearly articles. In hindsight I wish there was so I could have pointed you to that, only for you to argue about it anyways. Okay you want to make a change, so where is the support? You have none. I responded to everything you pointed out, yet again, so don't say I didn't. STATic message me! 00:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just sayin'

People got time to write this kind of articles actually? I think no one reads or interested in it. Stop wasting your time for this kind of garbage music's articles. All the separate articles of the hip hop songs are not notable. This is a big waste of time --46.130.59.226 (talk) 19:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2014 in hip hop music. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on 2014 in hip hop music. 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: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2014 in hip hop music. 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: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]