Talk:Enterprise content management

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copy edited by Macwhiz, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on September 21, 2010. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.

definition is too broad[edit]

Content management and media asset management are two different diciplins under the heading of "Digital Asset Management. The definition is too broad. (drvannie(

Digital assets are a subset of media assets, which are a subset of content. Other than that, What's the difference? If anything, that redirect should be reversed.


Completely revised and expanded article on ECM based on this source: [[ (talk) 09:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)]]

Sorry for the "bad English" - I am not a native speaker - corrections welcome.

Published on wikipedia under GNU by the author. The author has been member of the Board of Directors of AIIM international when AIIM launched their new mission and focus on ECM.

Kff 15:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Additional Source added: For the section on History - based entirely on the new article sourced at the bottom of this entry. Evolving Electronic Document Management Solutions: The Doculabs Report, Third Edition. Chicago: Doculabs, 2002.

maglish 19:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Illustrations for the article[edit]

I need some help to integrate the images as thumbs without uploading them again. The references to the images in the German wikipedia are at the appropriate positions in the article text. Thanks.

Kff 15:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions for Extension of Article[edit]

The information is quite good and surprisingly relevent considering the original publication dates.

As vice chair for AIIM in Europe the original author was involved in the creation and definition of ECM 08:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that this supports the idea that the basics remain constant inspite of technology's changes.

The basic principles and the definition of ECM remained nearly the same for the last five years. 08:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

My thought upon reading this article was; Now that you've accumulated the information, what do you do about utilizing it for decision support and trend analysis?

Specifically, as I see things like wikis and ad hoc BPM systems gain traction in the enterprise, the reality of the Operations Dashboard becomes much more of a reality. The ability to show important business metrics in a fashion akin to the dashboard of ones vehicle is enticing for management. If you design information capture processes and store the information into a uniform repository, this real-time or near real time analysis is now possible.

Shouldn't the 'later stage' application of the collected information be discussed? Is it already discussed? If so, then it should get linked to the article...

me-g33k 09:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

@ me-g33k, hoping you visit this page again ...
Thanks for the compliments. The section about the three basic principles of ECM I published in the German issue of the ComputerWoche already in September 2001, the first version of the section about the ECM components I published in our Newsletter in December 2002. For the wikipedia article I only used those parts and facts where I believe that they will stay stable for the next years. The collected information represents as well the "official" point of view of AIIM (2003) and have been published in a lot of whitepapers.
My opinion is not to expand the article too much. If we start adding application oriented topics to the article it will be become much longer and it is already very long. For applications (and new terms and acronyms) I believe it is better to create articles of their own although these artciles always will be in the danger becoming some kind of "advertising". I would prefer to delete all information about companies and better link to the respective category in the open directory project.
Kind regards Kff 12:29, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
The section on products and trends needs some update 08:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Change of ECM definition[edit]

AIIM international has changed the definition of ECM twice this year. A history of the definitions can be found here: This list is regurlarly updated. Kff 17:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

The fact that AIIM changed the definition does not make the definition correct. ECM and CM are not restricted to unstructured data. ECM systems and CM systems manage all data in an enterprise regardless of its type. (Bobbear43 (talk) 17:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC))


Reading through this article leads me to the belief that there is a Neutral Point of View issue, likely due to the fact that only one or two people have contributed the vast majority of the content. It's a good article, with lots of good information, and it presents certain views about the present and future which are clearly the author's opinion rather than absolute fact.

I'm here to learn about ECM, so I wouldn't want to be the one to try and clean it up. Holding off on putting the NPOV flag onto it for now.


ECM is an umbrella for a lot of trends, strategies, products, methods, and technologies. There are in fact no real "facts". Most of the text is the position of AIIM and available on the web, in posters, as articles, in books, in seminars, as CompTIA CDIA+ certificate, and even in ISO standards. The NPOV question can only be applied to the last section referring to companies who sell products for ECM. 09:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Hello Biologic,
Most of the contribution was authored by me except the first introductory paragraph and the section "ECM market development". I left these parts of the original article unchanged. My text follwos the outline provided by AIIM international, the association representing most of the vendors and some thousand users of ECM. The article is to give an overview about the major strategies and the components of ECMS solutions. It mirrors the general market perception of this acronym. There are trade shows, conferences, books, articles, seminars, certification programs, standards, roadshows and a lot of more material giving the same view on the topic. I believe this contribution is no NPOV at all (except perhaps the section "ECM market development". In the German Wikipedia lists of vendors or future trends are unusual, but I have seen similar collections and texts on the English wikipedia). To cry out "NPOV" and in the same sentence to declare that you are not going to edit this contribution ist not the common way on Wikipedia.
Kind regards,
Kff 13:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
direct quotations from the whitepaper made visible italic.
No NPOV at all 08:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Possible Copyright violation[edit]

Removed. The article was released by the original author. 10:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


I wikify tagged this article because it is poorly formatted, horribly long and jargon-ish Paul 05:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

fix this article please or i will[edit]

this needs a major rewrite, its so bad i think anyone who spends a few hours reading the articles on Content management, content management systems, document management, digital assest managment, etc etc will be able to hack something better together. as it stands today the article is so full of sales speak that its essentially useless. its like some trying to sell coca-cola but never mentioning the name of the product! Catfoo 22:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is no advertisement for a product or a service. There is no sales speak in the article. The article describes a segment of information technology with its components. ECM is defined by its components. The definition and the scope of enterprise content management is acknowldged by an industry with several hundred vendors including IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, EMC and others. The defintion and the related components were defined by the association of this industry, AIIM. I think the article is very useful to get a complete overview about this important topic.
@ catfoo: everybody can edit an article on wikipedia. So if you have the feeling you have enough knowledge about the subject you may start to rewrite it. If you want to rewrite the article please make sure that for every erased section or topic you generate an additional article so that no part of the relevant information is lost. And please don`t get angry if others correct you or revert your contributions. 12:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Just a passing note, it's not required to preserve all content in an article even when the article was originally a cohesive whole written by a single author (that's what edit histories are for). It is important though to leave an edit summary and/or talk comment regarding why the content was removed. See Constructionism and reductionism (wiki) for the relevant 'philosophical positions'--what I stated is what appears to me to be de facto policy.Antonrojo 13:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
The questions are: Is the article too long? Is there redundancy? Is it a question of style? Is it a question of terminology? Is it a question of NPOV?
As author of the original article I tried to give a comprehensive view about all definitions, strategies and components of ECM. I tried to give every component of ECM the same weight in length and content in the different chapters. The article uses the terminology of our industry, which might be the reason for the post of catfoo. But most of the terms are linked to other articles giving more and detailed information. Catfoo complains about sales speak and indirect advertising (although the article names companies only in the last section), bad content (compiling information from other wikipedia articles is not the way to write a new article on a different topic), and that the article is useless (the request to wikify is now on the article for several weeks but there have been no major changes to the content). So let's see what happens to the article ... although the title of the entry "fix this article please or i will" sounds a little like a "thread" to me ... Kff 14:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
i assume you meant threat instead of thread, if so yes its kinda of a threat, as you just mentioned the "requet to wikify" has been on for several weeks, im new to wikipedia and i am not in the ECM industry but if this article is just going to sit i guess ill throw my two cents in. im just trying to get some movement on this. i probebly should have just kept my mouth shut. im not a very good writer, please understand that i was not trying to indicate that the article was doing indirect advertising, the issue is a question of style and too many undefined industry terms. for example what is a "accelerating business velocities"? im really not trying to be a troll here, ill read it carefully and see if i can find something specific to work on thats still within my scope of knowledge for this topic Catfoo 23:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment, catfoo. No "thread" no "threat" just gaming with words. I found the second paragraph with your example "accelerating business velocities" and just kept it - to leave at least a bit of the original authors work. Even as beginner you can start with small changes in style, even if you are not very familiar with the topic. In regard to the industry terms - yes - it is a jungle of acronyms. But this applies to every industry and every science. I believe the explanations in the text provide enough background and there are the links to more detailed articles. Kff 09:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms of style and POV aside, this is a very respectable paper, Kff. I don't think there are very many like it, for breadth and detail. It's nice to see, for example, that you have not written only about what "ECM" might mean in large companies and agencies (over 1000 employees - where the market is mostly focused, as reflected in much of the jargon and the trends); you have included in the description technologies and strategies that are used by smaller or older organizations; so that for example, so-called "ECM-Lite" will not fall outside of your definition, as it does in some papers that are written by vendors.

For a general encyclopedia, the article has the problem of being too technical. I don't think that it's possible to avoid all technical terminology, in an article about technology; but many ideas should be expressed more simply - in the voice of information for the uninformed, rather than so much like a presentation for professionals. It's in that spirit that I made my edits to the opening paragraphs. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 0032, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment and your edits, Mark. Your changes in the opening paragraphs of the article are in a section, I found here before adding my text. Together with the "history" of ECM I believe it is now a very comprehensive article (although there might be a lot of details in regard to the history which are still missing). Kff 16:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
If you upload your diagrams to the Commons, they can be accessed on all of the wikipedias, with the same mark-up syntax that's used for locally stored images. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I will provide diagrams with English text next week. Kff 17:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually I found this article has grown into something a little difficult to read. This is probably due to the hodge podge nature of what ECM is. However I think it may be worth breaking it down into ECM has these parts and they have the parts defined in other articles. Happyfish 06:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

There have been a lot of un-consolidated additions to the article of Kff and the illustrations are still missing. By the way, Kff wrote a new publication about ECM which is available on the internet. It is in English, French, and German. It provides some new arguments for ECM and has a more clear structure [1]. 17:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I do belong to the ECM industry and also think that this is an amazing piece of contribution! Problem is that ECM is not an easy thing to understand without being able to, not seeing it, but experiencing and working with it. That is maybe why I stay interested throughout the whole article. I do agree that, as part of a general encyclopedia, there should be a simpler definition of the term. It's a definitely GREAT article for anyone at least familiar with ECM, but I also believe that it would be quite difficult for anyone else to even understand what all this is about, which is probably the most important thing here IMHO

The article, blurry as it was, has become more blurry over time. What people mean by ECM is sometimes unclear to me anyway, but I've never thought that people meant by ECM only the management of unstructured data, as the lead now claims (which is contradicted by the remainder of the article). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This article commits so many crimes against reason, good writing, and wp standards that it boggles my mind. It gleefully uses terms that it never defines ("groupware" for one), puts discussions in sections having nothing to do with the discussion and strews generalizations around like rice at a wedding. Gak! I've taken several whacks at it, reducing the word count from 4450 to 3169, but feel that it is still so awful that I'm embarrassed to have had anything to do with it. We should delete this and start over. Its stupidity, vapidity and error rate are stunning. Lfstevens (talk) 01:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Lfstevens - thanx for re-writing the article. I believe it now fits better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Podium for AIIM?[edit]

Is this page a podium for AIIM, or an explanation of Enterprise Content Management? Just because an organization decides to change definitions does not mean that the article should follow suit (an explanation of changes would provide sufficient insight). And to be fair, ECM is child of KM, which is a child of EDM, which is a child of text retrieval, so ECM should be a fairly easy concept to explain, once the reader has understood the definition of structured and unstructured data (rather than try to avoid technical terms, why not, atleast provide definitions). The functions of any system on the market are similar, and the technologies are as well - files (located on a designated area on the file system, in a defined 'vault', in a database, or dispersed across the system), a database (perhaps relational), an index (for text retrieval, although newer indexing systems can provide retrieval of a wider range of file types and data types), an interface (usually forms) for entering descriptive data and for querying the repository. The article suffers from reference to AIIM, and not to too many entries regarding product and software companies that offer solutions in this market niche. Cut out the clips of articles (maintain references as references).StevenBirnam 16:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyone willing to take a stab at improving this article?[edit]

This article has potential, but needs both cleanup, better in-line references, and needs to become more accessible to new readers. Anyone willing to take a stab at improving this article? Harvey the rabbit (talk) 02:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The Link to AIIM is LINKSPAM ?![edit]

The Link to AIIM in the section external links was deleted several times as Linkspam! AIIM is an international association, which defined the term ECM in 2000, runs market studies and publishes on ECM, and is source of the definition. This Link is no Linkspam. If Wikipedia administrators regard the link as Linkspam, I propose to replace as well every mentioning and every text from AIIM by the term "the association, which defined ECM, but should not be mentioned or linked on Wikipedia" (remember TAFKAP) ... AIIM by the way has about 9000 members. Probably one of these will have an interest that the source of the Wikipedia article is mentioned as link. Happy New Year80.171.34.194 (talk) 16:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I should have been more careful with my wording, instead of just using the same wording that other editors used. It's an off-topic link that appears to have been added to promote the organization, and should be removed. See WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOTLINKS. --Ronz (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, it is no "off topic" link, because it links the article to the association, which defined ECM. AIIM is the majoor source for all market studies, communities, training and publications about ECM. It is not to promote the association, but to give the reader access to the original source of ECM. (talk) 13:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
That's all irrelevant. This article is about "enterprise content management." See WP:EL and WP:NOTLINK for more precise discussion. --Ronz (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
If AIIM is the industry body for ECM and contains as much information, papers, events, news, etc. as suggested, then surely the exception of a link to an official page of the article's subject stands.See WP:ELNO. On that basis, I think it should be included. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
That exception applies to the article on Association for Information and Image Management, which already contains the link, and that article is already linked from this article. No need to repeat the EL here. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 22:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Fair point, well made ... the wikilink to AIIM is clear and they're cited in the opening paragraph ... so on that basis the external link should go. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 02:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Link to Gartner report expired[edit]

The link to Gartner, in the references, has expired. I'm not an expert in ECM, can't provide a new link, but replacing the link with a similar link would be useful - although imho, in general, Gartner is more marketing bla-bla than real information. X10 (talk) 11:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

They've closed their media site, so I'll look tomorrow for where the reports are now housed. As to use of the reports, it is effectively a hot or not review of the market in any given year - and clearly when a vendor achieves the upper left (so called magic quadrant) they use it in their marketing. However, given that Gartner is a recognised as an authority, it is notable to cite them (so long as it doesn't get repetitive, eh?). Greyskinnedboy (talk) 08:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Hot or not, that's the reason I clicked the link in the first place :-) Their "magic quadrants" are mostly just that: magic, not factual. Thanks for fixing it anyway. X10 (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Changes in a direct citation ?![edit]

These are changes in a direct citation ... The section about Master Data has to be placed somewhere else ...!! (talk) 12:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Need a definition for 'Content'[edit]

What does 'content' mean? The word occurs in the article title, but is simply repeated without explanation in the opening sentence of the article, and in the 'Definition' section. A definition of this term is required. (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added a wikilink, but still, some sort of explanation might be helpful. There's a tendency in this article to assume that jargon like this is understood. (talk) 09:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Translation to another language[edit]

Hi, I am interested in doing a piece on ECM on another Wiki page (another language) After rading the Wiki guidelines I just wanted to make sure that I was not infringing on any copyright or anything, if I choose to translate some of the text directly? (I will not be translating the whole thing, I think it is a bit messy and needs a cleanup before this can be done).

Thanks in advance for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anne Thorstensen (talkcontribs) 08:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Translating text from here and placing it another language Wikipedia is certainly possible. Just follow the guidelines provided at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Translating from other language Wikimedia Projects, so that the contributors to the text here are appropriately attributed and there are no copyright concerns. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Most articles use and cite this multilingual source: ECM Enterprise Content Management, Ulrich Kampffmeyer. Hamburg 2006, ISBN 978-3-936534-09-8 Invalid ISBN (English, French, German), —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Copy edit[edit]

I've completed a copy edit of the page. I think it's a bit less confusing now, or at least, as non-confusing as the topic can get for the lay reader... It's an inherently jargon-filled topic. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyright issues[edit]

While copy editing, I noticed two outstanding copyright issues.

  1. While I understand that Mr. Kampffmeyer originally wrote this article and released his own papers under appropriate licenses, the "Characteristics" section contains a lengthy quote from ComputerWoche, the German version of Computerworld. While Mr. Kampffmeyer may have written the article, the published article's copyright is likely to be held by ComputerWoche. My understanding of copyright law is that the copyright of a work-for-hire, such as a magazine article, belongs to the publisher, not the author. If this is true in Germany, and holds for the referenced article, then the lengthy quotation is difficult to justify under Fair Use... and in this case, Mr. Kampffmeyer's release would be insufficient, as if it was a work-for-hire, he would not hold the copyright and therefore could not release it.
The article in ComputerWoche was based on an earlier presentation and article by my company PROJECT CONSULT. ComputerWoche had no excklusive publication rights. The same applies to the book, which was a source of this article, which was published by PROJECT CONSULT. Dr. Ulrich Kampffmeyer, Kff (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
In the meatime, the citation was removed with the comment: "removing excessive quote in violation of WP:NFC)". There is no violation of the WP:NFC. Please note, that the citation has been no violation of copyrights! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kff (talkcontribs) 16:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  1. The list at the head of the "ECM market development" section consists of copy-and-pastes and/or close paraphrases from the referenced Gartner report. It should be rephrased (and considerably condensed).

// ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

ECM market development[edit]

This section of the article is largely taken from a 2009 Gartner report that seems to have dated information, as it makes predictions about 2008. Also, it has a plethora of name-dropped companies. I was sorely tempted to remove most of them; many of them are likely to fail the notability test. Each company should have a reference attesting to its notability; that reference should be from a reliable trade publication, or better yet, mass media outlet—not a press release or company website. In order to be included, the company should be generally notable in the field, and this is the best way to prove it. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


About Autonomy, mentioned in this sentence: Vendors recognized by the 2009 Gartner ECM Magic Quadrant include Alfresco, Autonomy, Day Software, EMC, Ever Team, Fabasoft, HP, Hyland Software, IBM, Laserfiche, Microsoft, Newgen Software Technologies, Objective Corporation, Open Text, Oracle, Perceptive Software, SAP, Saperion, Siav, SpringCM, SunGard, Systemware, Xerox and Xythos Software.[6] Is it this one: If I am right, then link in previous sentence must be corrected.--Palapa (talk) 11:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


"There are only few examples of successful implementations whereby a shared repository for documents and web content are managed together.[citation needed]." Well, Wikipedia itself cannot be cited as a successful implementation of a shared repository for documents. ----~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. In fact I would say just the opposite, Wikipedia is probably one of the MOST AMAZING examples of a shared repository. When you consider the number of articles, the number of editors, and the overall quality of the repository... I know I'm sounding kind of like a Wiki Fanboy but so be it. If your definition of a document repository is that it has to follow the conventional rules where people have to check documents in and out, where edits have to sit in a queue and be confirmed, etc. than yes Wikipedia isn't that kind of repository but to me what matters isn't the process, it's the actual content that makes a repository and Wikipedia kicks ass in that regard. I would also add that Wikipedia shows how a bottom up method (similar to agile methods in software development) can work so much better than the conventional check-in/check-out highly controlled style of repository. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Evolution of ECM: should Advanced Case Management be mentioned ?[edit]

I think ECM has evolved during the last years, and mainly the Workflow / BPM aspects: both support the creation of content (typically the workflows supporting scanning) and the use of the content (use the right documents in a process, present all the related documents to support decision taking etc). Advanced Case Management brings additional ideas for making sure that a 360 degree view is possible, not just on a document, but on the complete file/case. It also emphasis the need for flexibility in defining the processes/flows and the need for incorporating additional media (email, chats, phone and voice recordings). (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The E of ECM[edit]

I think the divergent content in the article reflects a bit the industry, and it reflects that ECM by itself is an umbrella Terms created by Contractors and Vendors, segmentation is Key across the market to foster sales.

I was triggered by these marketese B2E, B2G, G2B and so on so forth, which reflects that everything is Enterprise oriented, within that WCM is even a separate planet. Reality is that huge parts of ECM is actually B2E.

This ever enlarging definition from AIIM has the same prob of over-reaching new areas of conquest and reflects the same prob of contractors and vendors.

Sadly Most current active new technology developments such as extensive (e.g. petabyte scale) B2C, C2C requirements have never been taken care by average ECM implementations (i.e. wikipedia is not representative of average ECM, not even WCM).

NoSQL Document Databases reflects the incapacity of scaling of vendors, and managing "unstructured content" which has always been out of reach (see IR and NLP).

If you go in the opposite corner of OCR, it rarely try to be content aware (e.g. to integrate across different ECM fields), i.e. an OCR for a form is quite a different thing than an OCR for a graph of numbers, same fragmentation pattern appears (see license scheme of one of those nifty commercial tools ..).

This stress on Workflow, process and documents reflects a generation of applications created around these technologies. For example Currently the distinction between document, html, xml, metadata and data is blurring. New trends reflects more API, virtualization, SAAS, which are little mentioned across this article, and to the extent of here are just adding extra marketese.

There are a lot of Fat Old Vendors slowly dying off, standards never achieved (like the read and write web), and pathetic compatibility across, but the same was there some 15 years ago ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyredeagle (talkcontribs) 12:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Enterprise content management. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)