Talk:Lincoln–Douglas debate format

Source

www.lddebate.org just tells you "it works!" .com seems valide, but hasn't been updated in a while and looks out-of-date. I didn't check the other sources out. Someone with more freetime should. --Lophoole 02:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of resolutions

Should we start a separate wiki article that is just a list of all of the LD resolutions? That part is starting to get unneccessarily long on the LD page.--199.94.95.138 19:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the list of resolutions really should be put in a separate article. Maybe we should just keep a few resolutions as "samples"Dramma!

Burden of Proof

I deleted those sentences about the affs burden of proof and not needing a case (If anyone has ever won without a case please tell). Negatives must uphold a value in LD debate, and for this they need a construction. The affs burden of proof is to prove that x is acheived by y, the neg must prove that x is not acheived by y, or something better than x is not acheived. Uber nemo 04:33, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

In Overview: it says "...the negative must simply prevent the affirmative from achieving this goal through showing that standard for the round cannot be acheived in a world abiding to the resolution." Can someone more familiar with debating put this into a form that non-debaters can understand? I find it mystifying. Boojum 14:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An editor added:

The most common way to negate the resolution is simply to prove that the opposite is true. If the resolution is "abortion is moral," the negative would argue that abortion is not moral. Due to the fact that the negative does not have to prove the whole part of the resolution absolutely false, he or she could argue that abortion is sometimes moral, but since the resolution is an absolute, categorical statement, it is false. This is known as a "balanced negative."

...balance negs are fairly controversial -- I seem to recall reading an editorial "against balance negatives" in the NFL magazine some years back, which observed that no neg has ever lost a round because they argued against the resolution, but plenty have lost for arguing that they don't have to. Balance negs may be worth mentioning in passing, but they shouldn't be in the 3rd paragraph of the article. jdb ❋ (talk) 00:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

Honestly people, the policy page is 10x better than the LD page. The LD article is cramped and poorly written. I think the whole thing should be overhauled. Dramma!

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.. --Ybbor ^Talk 22:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NDR

Is it really necessary to have NDR rankings in here? They lack any real value in explaning what LD is. I propose removing that Lasvegasgamer 05:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NDR Rankings might not explain how LD is done but they certainly contain information pertaining to the practice. Presumably not everyone who reads the entry is looking for basic information about how the activity works, some could very well be looking for the sort of information NDR supplies. Further, links don't have to include information directly related to explaining the entry. Thats why they're links and not text (we obviously wouldn't list the top ten debaters in the country in the wikipedia entry). I would agree with moving it to the bottom of the list of external links since I don't think the NDR is especially important.--Jsn4 08:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not with the lack of NDR updates here. Issue closed. --Monkus2k 03:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Examples as definitions (specifically the "Conceptualizing the debate" section)

It seems to me that if we are going to define things we should try to define them first *without an example*; as it stands now the conceptualizing the debate section makes no sense at all, even with the analogy. If this section is even necessary it should be clarified, otherwise it ought to be deleted. Lasvegasgamer 01:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising

Wikipedia is not to be used as advertising.See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. While whoever runs LDdebate.net may have a useful guide for students new to the activity, that does not need to be in the intro. Lasvegasgamer 08:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, the podcast section isn't really relevant, as of today the iTunes links deliver nothing, the blog has barely been viewed and the podcast isn't popular. Therefore I am deleting the advertisement. Lasvegasgamer 22:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kritik

Changed critique to kritik. Any objections?

Yes. Does anyone actually use this policy-debate technique in L-D? In the Ohio area (at least in my experience), I can't imagine a faster way to lose a round than "kritiking" the resolution. jdb ❋ (talk) 02:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All I changed was the word 'critique' to the more common term 'kritik.' And actually, policy-crossover has become increasing popular (and succesful) with the most advanced debaters, especially in the national circuit. XAdHominemx 00:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two things: Don't change the page unless you either post before or after you make the changes. The section about alternative forms of LD becoming more in the national circuit popular was important because the local circuit generally catches on to what the national circuit is doing. Secondly 'LDizzle' has no place in this article. I'm reverting the page for both those reasons.

Um, there's no rule about posting every change you make on the talk page -- that's what the history log is for. Also, you should sign your entries. (Incidentally, people did use critiques/kritiks fairly often where I debated (Northeast).) Uttaddmb 23:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This has become a contoversial section, therefore any changes to the article ought to be discussed here before they are changed, which can be more precise than making revesions afterwords, and prevent senseless reverting/rereverting. Which bring us to another discussion- what is the difference between 'ought to' and should? Just kidding. --XAdHominemx 02:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I changed some of the wording which was just confusing and I took out the part about only neg debaters being able to kritik. While Affirmative debaters rarely kririk there is no rule preventing them and there have been critical affirmatives in the past as well.--Jsn4 00:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who deleted the bulk of the altenative LD section? I'm revertig tomorrow unless an explanation is given. I believe it is the same guy who you reverted for vanalism yesterday, Jsn4. --XAdHominemx 05:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative forms of LD

Someone should write a section discussion the increasing use of theory arguments in LD. The current VBD discussion @ http://www.victorybriefs.net/webs/daily/archives/006182.html should be sufficient reference to construct one. nt November 29, 2005

I am adding the Affirmative strategy of picking a particular part of the resolution to affirm. My team and our policy team call this "parametrics" however I do not know if that is widely accepted. sdevoid October 05, 2005

Cite Sources... as you would in the round. Wikipedia rules. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Cite sources Rick Boatright 04:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is hard to find evidence on most debate theory since they don't publish it like other subjects, I was able to find a debate round where the "partial-affirmation" took place. sdevoid October 05, 2005

Of COURSE they publish it. CEDA publishes an academic journal on debate, and there are others. You're a debater. Find a library. :-) (note, sarcasm.) Rick Boatright 00:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First, Adwait's case probably isnt the best example of parametrics since the case also includes a narrative. Moreover, if someone feel qualified to add something about narrative as an alternative form that would make sense.--Jsn4 00:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No offense to the coach above, but I don't think that the so-called "rules" of Wikipedia apply here. I don't think CEDA or the NFL or any other debate organization really is representative enough of what new trends are present in LD. I have never once heard an LD Theory arguement become truth because there was an article written about it somewhere. In keeping with the spirit of the Wikipedia, I think it is best that those judges/coaches/competitors that are seeing new forms of LD arguements become mainstream be allowed to post about them here without having to find some source to cite. In debate lingo: That requirement seems to me to be a huge appeal to a non-existant authority :-). On the other hand, it seems to me that it's a bit ivory-towerish to include any particular debater's case as an example of what a new form of debate is. In keeping with both those points I've deleted the citation of Adwait's case @ the Stanford RR. If someone feels differently, I hope we can get a discussion going here on the talk page...

First, try to sign your name when you edit the talk page, its the second button from the right. Second, I sort of agree with you. We shouldn't be extremely concerned if we can't find sources and certainly theory is created by the participants. But after its created its WRITTEN about, thats just true and when it is written- thats a sign of the practices acceptance in the community. There are a TON of articles of kritiking out there. Moreover, if we can't find a journal an archived VBD column, Westman page, or LD-L cite would still be better than nothing. I realize this is a unique situation given that so many of the people posting here could probably be considered experts. But there is still something contraversial about kritiks and they are rarely seen outside the national circuit so we need to have sources to back up these claims. Its not enough for us to just assert it. (In debate speak: We need to spike out "T- No Lit.)--Jsn4 00:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, sorry for not signing my name to my above posts, wasn't trying to hide :-). I must say I agree with you that the alternative forms of LD (such as the K, specific affs, etc) section requires some careful handling because it may be so different from most of the debates not going on on the National Circuit. However, I can't say I necessarily see why many believe a source is that necessary. It seems to me that the only thing a source would prove is that the act in question actually happens and is not something simply made up...but I believe that can be handled by the community monitoring system that makes Wikipedia what it is. Other then being unnecessary, I believe there are two problems with citing sources from debate journals (West,VBD or otherwise). First) Everyone in the LD Community has some sort of belief about the way LD should be. Articles written will almost always have an axe to grind one way or the other. 2nd) As I briefly mentioned in my first post, I think that citing these articles as the way LD is becomes too much of an appeal to a non-existant authority. There's no reason why an author for Victory Briefs or CEDA should be able to say what a part of debate "is" and have that be used as the definitive source for an encyclopedia; in my opinion it is antiethical to what LD as an educational tool stands for and what the Wikipedia is about. Lasvegasgamer 07:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In response two the arguments about sourcing being bad: 1. Sure everyone has a different view, sourcing just means that view is prevalent enough that someone wrote it down, very few claims in this article are facts, we qualify nearly everything- that doesn't mean sourcing the qualification is a bad idea. 2. Same thing, no ones appealing to authority here, the question is whether certain practices occur not whether some practices are the way LD ought to be done. For whether or not sources are "necessary" see the no original research policy. Also, there aren't THAT many of us on here- certainly not enough of us to speak conclusively about the rest of the activity. Plus, sources lend ethos to the work. Thats why debaters card analytical arguments. Conclusion: Wikipedia says we have to, it will still benefit the article, and we're not making any unwarranted appeals to authority because we're not making ANY claim as to what is the BEST WAY to do LD.--Jsn4 10:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Institutes

After viewing the intense dicussion of the various institutes here on the Talk page and looking over at the Policy Wiki article, does anyone feel that it might be beneficial to have (at least) an institutes section? Such a page should at least explain what they are and some reasons debaters go to them.

I agree, write it. Its a significant part of the culture. My concern below was that people were just using the link section to advertise their companies. So long as its unbiased and accurate- fine with me.--Jsn4 00:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Institutes as Links

What is the basis for this? It makes sense to have the Victory Briefs blog (for its role as a cultural focus point) as a link- but not the company homesite. Similarly the NSD link should either be struck or changed so it links directly to a page that provides information regarding LD debate.--Jsn4 00:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anon user just added Dallas Debate. I'm eliminating all of the corporate links and changing the Victory Briefs link to the daily blog.--Jsn4 00:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again, deleting NSD link. If someone things it should be up justify it here. As far as I'm concerned we should either include every institute site or none at all. The Victory Briefs link that is up there is not a link to the institute site but to the popular weblog- thus its inclusion.--Jsn4 06:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tournament Organization

This section seems pretty complete and no link to the policy debate article really is necessary. If anyone feels that something should be over here then they ought to move it. Following with making this page more complete / avoid confusion, it seems we ought to delete the link to the policy debate page.Lasvegasgamer 01:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the following over for accuracy, and then post.

===Tournament Organization===

In a typical one or two-day tournament, each debater will debate four rounds, two rounds advocating the affirmative side, and two rounds advocating the negative. Longer tournaments typically have five or six preliminary rounds, in which all debaters participate. The top debaters from the first rounds then advance to a single-elimination tournament (sometimes dubbed as "Break-Rounds") to determine the winner of the tournament.

In many tournaments, and especially in smaller tournaments, all debaters present have the potential to "hit," or square off against, all other competitors in the tournament. A debate in which each competitor goes against every other one is called a Round Robin. Most LD tournaments are "power-matched" (also called "high-high" or "low-low"). In this system, after each round, the meetings for the next round are decided on the basis that winners meet winners and losers meet losers. Other tournaments are "high-low," or "power-protected," meaning meetings for the next round are winner against loser. A combination of the two involves power-matching win-losses and power-protected speaker points. Still other tournaments use randomized brackets. In "Break Rounds" after the primary 5-to-seven pre-elimination rounds, the top "seed" will "hit" the lowest "seed". "Seeds" are determined by the amount of speaker points awarded by judges in preliminary rounds.

At many larger events, tournaments are divided into three catergories: Novice, Junior-Varsity(J-V), and Varsity, and act as 3 separate tournaments with break rounds in each division. Most often in these tournaments, there are requirements set on eligibility to debate as a novice to ensure fair competition in the beginner catergory. The main requirement is that the debator may not have competed in the previous school year. However, if the person only debated a small number of rounds their first year, they may still be eligible to compete as a novice. Typically, a coach is left to decide who qualifies for J-V and who qualifies for varsity, and is sometimes used as a tactic to ensure a win in the J-V catergory by enrolling a top debator in a J-V to "sweep" the division.

At NFL-sponsored state competitions, to prevent larger schools from taking over the tournament by sheer force of numbers, a limit is set on how many debators (typically four) a school may enter into any one division. This allows smaller schools with fewer debators a more level playing field to compete for break rounds and tournament awards. This limit is most effective in ensuring good competiton in the Novice and Varsity catergories, but a larger school might have an advantage with an overflow of experienced debators, which are then enrolled into the JV catergory. At the national qualifier tournament, one school may only submit its top four debators. This eliminates nearly all issues of school size and "unfair competition" to ensure each student and each school gets an equal shot at the national tournament.

Ab2kgj 05:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think something like this was up before. Heres the thing: If you knew nothing about LD and come upon this section would just confuse the hell out of you. But more importantly there is no standard tournament organization. Plenty of tournaments only have one or two divisions and have no actual eligibility standards. Plenty of kids don't have real coaches- so coaches are certainly not responsible for who qualifies for what division. There are stats that don't have NFL-sponsored state tournaments. I suspect there are tournaments with different limiting rules. NFL Qualifier rules are so complicated and change every year... it makes almost no sense to put them in. They don't really have anything to do with understanding the activity either.--Jsn4 08:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks alright, the only thing I found is that NFL Qualifiers are not preset to 4. School size is still a factor, schools with less overall entries get less debate entries as well. Lasvegasgamer 08:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm...im pretty sure that our school was unable to enter more than 4 in the qualifier for LD. Can someone find the rules regarding qualifiers?Ab2kgj 22:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its a really complicated process that has to do with the number of NFL points your team registered. Like I said I don't think it needs to be included in the article.--Jsn4 01:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

67.53.145.33

This guy keeps vandalizing the page. Anyone know to report him to have him suspended for a couple of days so that we can patchthe broken peices of it back together?--XAdHominemx 06:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Links links links

Shouldn't the topics (November/december topic-blah blah blah) provide a link to other wikipedia sites? So that if a debator were to visit this, they could find some research on the topic easily? As a matter of fact, there are very few links to be found in this article in general! I'm only a n00b (and uber n00b) but could some put some wiki-links on this page?

If you're gonna call yourself a "n00b" then you should be asking for linkz, no? I added a whole bunch, btw, good suggestion. Does anybody think we should be linking to basketball and football? That doesn't make too much sense to me... w/e--Jsn4 05:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Variance of focus in LD between leagues

As I understand it and as the article seems to say, NFL value debate attempts to find a value that both sides agree upon as the standard and then focus the debate on which side better achieves this value. In the NCFCA, on the other hand, the focus is much greater on the clash of values - debating which value should take precedence when the two come into conflict. Rounds where the entire debate is focused on which side better upholds one value (referred to as criteria wars) are usually looked upon with some disdain by most NCFCA LDers. Does the NFL focus at all on the clash of values or is this looked upon with as much disdain by NFLers as criteria wars are by NCFCAers? --HomeschooledDebater 19:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of recent NFL resolutions has tended to proclude extensive value debate. I wouldn't say they're "looked down upon" value debates just don't tend to happen very much. When there are significantly different values the debate still tends to focus on the criterion where the value the differences are more clear and easier to understand. That said...you kids really spend 26 minutes talking about whether justice or morality is better? --Jsn4 23:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it is my understanding that the use of LD theory and progressive debate decreases in the order of TOC -> NFL -> NCFL -> local things. --Chronicidal 02:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something like that, though there are some areas with local debate that is more progressive than NFL. --Jsn4 23:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How precisely is "progressive" defined? It may be new, but I don't think we can automatically consider it better just because it is different. --151.199.159.3 17:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is really the place for that debate since we all know how the word progressive is being used its not all that important.--Jsn4 23:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rulebook

Could somebody please link me to an LD rulebook? I've been unsuccessful in my search. Cynicism addict 04:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're sincere- there isn't one. If you're being ironic- hahahah. --Jsn4 04:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Past winners

Should we create a "Past winners" section? It would probably fit before or after the past topics section and include winners of major tournaments such as Nationals and TOC (possibly other national circut tournaments?) Is this too elitist or does it provide a record of important historical information? --Sdevoid 23:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's relevant. --proficient (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Syllogism

Should the syllogism method of debate be included? This method has been becoming popular in recent months. -rubbaducky42

Nah, I don't think so. Syllogism is a basic form of logic and should be kept in its separate article. Rokasomee 03:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changes in NFL ballot

I removed this paragraph:

In light of recent competition, the National Forencics League has created new burdens for both debaters. In stead of the AFF having to prove that the resolution is true, and the NEG simply preventing this from happening, the new burden is equal on both sides. The rational behind this is the recent trend in LD style. LD is intended to be a more persuasive arguement based debate. However, national circuit debaters were taking advtage of the previous burden system and "spreading their opponent." In other words, the NEG would focus on making a lot of arguements against the AFF and only go for "dropped arguements." This style of debating was effective at winning debates, but lost sight of the intent of LD. Thus, in hope of preventing this style from overtaking copetitors, the National Forensics League created equal brudens for botht he AFF and the NEG.

It's got no source, it's poorly written, and it's biased. Does anyone know enough about the changes to make a serious edit? --Monkus2k 03:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that the burdens were changed? What are they now? Rokasomee (talk) 07:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Debate section times

I think the times for the various parts of the debate listed in the article are incorrect. I can't find a reliable source to base real times on, however, so could someone check the times with some other source? Cap'n Refsmmat 01:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea the times are really wrong, I actively debate LD so I modified the time chart to match the standardized times for LD rounds.(Dan 1 01:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

What Happened?

I propose that someone rewrite the article in order to outline what LD really SHOULD be about--what the creators originally INTENDED it to be about--as opposed to what it has become. For instance, the use of cards along with the term itself has only come into use in the last couple of years. It did not exist when the category was originally created, and certainly was not used by either Lincoln or Douglas. LD has become so bogged down in technicalities that people have stopped focusing on what the values, the true essence of LD, and this article is only worsening the situation. This must be mended.

--a concerned advocate —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.212.94.131 (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

    I agree. Good job!

yea ignoring every single change that has happened to the activity sure makes for a great encylopedia 24.161.110.100 (talk) 01:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of a Case section

Does anyone have proof for the opening quote or observation portions? Those portions are very rare, even in "novice debate," which the article claims.--Soulwar (talk) 02:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm going to remove this until someone shows this to be from somewhere other than their own personal cases.--BuddyJesus (talk) 03:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rare Cases

In the "Cases" section, there is a mention of irony cases and major/minor premise cases. I don't fully understand what either of these are, but if anyone else does, it might be good to add a brief definition of these, similar to what has already been done for the other types of cases mentioned in that paragraph.--Smileej (talk) 02:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey debaters

This article is kind of important within the debate community, but it is really bad and has no sources. You should totally fix it.Enigmocracy (talk) 03:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I had to read all the way down to the "Format" section before I got an idea what the heck a Lincoln-Douglas debate is, and I still don't know what is considered the defining trait of this as opposed to other debate formats. That information should be right at the top! With Newt Gingrich talking about challenging Obama to a series of these, it's apt to become a topic of interest outside the debate community. 152.160.99.172 (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should this even have its own page?

Having this page be Lincoln–Douglas debate is a bit like having the John Philip Sousa page be about the John Philip Sousa award [1], and relegating the actual person to John Philip Sousa (composer). If someone wants to read about high school debates, they'll go to an article about high-school debates or about one of the organizations that sponsor them; from there, if the person is interested enough and the sub-types are actually notable, they'll follow "main article" links to pages about the specific sub-types. If someone comes directly to this page, it's nearly certain they actually wanted Lincoln–Douglas debates. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 14:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Policy Debates

As much as I love the fact that there is still a debate system in place in high school, which I thought would be history by now, and though I favor the LD style, the policy-oriented, auctioneer-style Speech and Debate tournament sponsored by the National Forensic League should certainly be mentioned. 173.217.145.196 (talk) 04:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lincoln–Douglas debate. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150930055930/http://www.speechanddebatecoach.com/ to http://www.speechanddebatecoach.com/

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) 04:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lincoln–Douglas debate. 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) 13:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]