Talk:List of active Russian Navy ships

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

In Reserve or not In Reserve[edit]

Notwithstanding what I have said immediately below, the tendency of this page is to use Jane's criteria. Therefore, by this criteria, units that are in overhaul and are reasonably expected to return to active service should continue to be listed as active rather than "in reserve". A thorough correction of entries in compliance with this approach will move a number of units back to where they belong and thereby provide a more accurate picture of the status of the Russian Navy.Федоров (talk) 13:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

NOT a copy of Jane's[edit]

This page should NOT be a copy of Jane's. Further, Jane's does not always get facts right. There is a delay in their publishing cycle and its editors are human with limitations and personal opinions. Also, this listing and the specific class page should remove the archaic term "battlecruiser" since the page that defines what a "battlecruiser" is actually starts by saying that the term refers to warships of the beginning of the 20th century. The Kirov class is not from the beginning of the 20th century and does not fit that definition. That same article also notes toward its end that its only the Kirov class' size that approximates the earlier definition - this should not be enough to justify the use of the term. Finally, Jane's is not the only source and certainly the ultimate authoritative source, may other authoritative references refer to the Kirov class as "cruisers".Федоров (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Active corvettes[edit]

Where has gone the data about the corvettes active in the Russian Navy?Raskiy (talk) 18:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

They are still there. The "Minesweeper" heading jumped to the top instead of being just above the NATYA section. I don't know how to fix it.Федоров (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Akula class submarine.JPG Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Akula class submarine.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Article is getting too long[edit]

This article is getting too long and needs cutting down. Readers would be put off by the length of the article and the complexity of it. Planned ships or ships under construction could be moved to a new page, for example Future of the Russian Navy. That would be a start.TalkWoe90i 14:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

  • It was a normal article, but there are always those who seem something wrong ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by AktiNo (talkcontribs) 22:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • So sorry Woe90i, but I must say that.... This is total degradation of whole article! I like (in ironic!) if you are first time on this page (i don´t see ANY update of this section from you) and you make general changes of article which evidently don´t say you something... Till end of this week the page will be undo to previous version if any REAL argument isn´t be added here from you or others.... Main reasons for this undo:
    • List of Russian ships was be remodelled about one year ago from unactual version. It´s design was be selected as like as List of United States ships page which is much larger and nobody said nothing about it
    • Uncomplexity of your update is flagrant - Sorting diferent clases to one class is unacceptable, sorting by "american style" by class names isn´t correct in Russian Navy and isn´t accurate, added of new column and follow-up transfer important notes to bottom of page is unpractical and chaotic, and masterpiece of your update is total destruction of "In constuction and planned ships" section and compensate it with few universal lines of text on "new page" copyed from Russian Navy main page...
  • So sorry, you are maybe good updater of others sections, but this change was be big disappointment...Hornet24 (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely object to your reasoning. The article was previously far too long and lets face it, looked in very bad/poor form. The article needed to be brought up-to standard. It is general practice in Wikipedia to keep articles concise, and not overly long and over bearing for the reader. I had two main issues with this article. Firstly there was no need for a separate list of "reserve ships" as those ships are still part of the force structure and secondly the section dealing with ships under construction or planned was in a total mess and wasn't needed at-all. I moved information regarding the future ships of the Russian Navy to Future of the Russian Navy (in-line with other articles such as Future of the Royal Navy) and am currently in the process of improving that article. This was to avoid the unnecessary duplication of the same information and the long messy inane list of future ships on this article.
This is English Wikipedia, therefore there is nothing wrong with using American terms. As most readers of this article would speak English as their first language it is common practice to use terms they would recognise.
I believe it would be against Wikipedia's policy's and guidelines to simply revert my edits as they do not fall under any category of Vandalism. I will seek another editors opinion on the matter. TalkWoe90i 00:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Woe90i, Hornet24, Woe90i invited me to comment. Long articles are not a problem in wikipedia at all, unless they go over around 60kb with pictures extra. Check some of the featured articles (my one, Military of the Democratic Republic of the Congo is the one I know best, but there are lots of others) that are long. I disagree that there is a general practice to keep articles concise, and in this particular case, 'reserve ships' are a near-unique feature of the present Russian Navy. They sit in harbour, with, it seems according to Jane's Fighting Ships, only a skeleton crew aboard and flying an ensign solely so the crews can be paid (cavert: this was about the 2000-2001 edition of JFS). So the reserve ships need to be accounted separately, in the current navy ships article; for example, Ochakov in the Black Sea Fleet, which by any normal measure should have been decommissioned years ago, but is not. As to the future ships, I have no point of view on this one. Hope my opinions on this are clear; please don't hesitate to clarify with me. Please also do not edit-war on this page; I might advise neither of you making any further edits to the article until you have throughly discussed the edits on the talkpage. Remember that the article's current state does not endorse any particular version. Kind regards to both of you, Buckshot06 (talk) 05:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Buckshot06 for clarification on this matter. This is exactly why I like to invite the opinion of a veteran Wikipedian as soon as possible, especially in a situation where its two editors on opposite sides of a dispute. Hornet24, I invite you to edit my sandbox as-well if needed. Taking on-board what has been said, I agree 'reserve ships' should be separated from ships that are active. I still propose that the section for planned or speculative ships was unnecessary, very messy and shouldn't be re-added. This is a list of ships that are serving in the Russian Navy after all.TalkWoe90i 10:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
OK... Revert of "reserve ships" section was agreed.... Whats next... If you think about poor article I must stop you - in last year and half page was be reincarnated from about 10 years old data to fully actual and design was be in 75% of page upgraded to functional and transparent version - lists of other navy ships are in more worse form as this - bringing others page to standard which was here is more useful then degrading this list... Yep, this is English wikipedia, but about Russian Navy - and if you don´t like be barbarian you must accept some differences in ships classification especially in case if American classification was included too... I think last thing of controversy: Ships in construction and planned ship was included because RN awarded them (not all - of course) and its status of completion is important part of navy´s future... Because ships in construction same as planned ships is unarguable part of lists of other nations list (for example: List of current ships of the United States Navy ) I don´t see any reason why they shouldn´t be included here... As I say - previous version was be most accurate and comprehensive article and is better revert this new changes to previous status... Main problem of this section is sometimes very hard access to status of current ships and here is only about five peoples who can contribute to most actual status of this theme - i think unneeded and degrading changes is problem which nobody want here - if you like to be useful here we can talk about it (for example here was be last unredesigned section of reserve ships; here is lot of missing pictures or silhouettes; I have prepared in construction section redesign and I think auxiliary vessels section transfer to new list will be need to be discuss) and for last lot of relatively new information which was here is missing on ships class pages... Future of the Russian Navy page is needed, but that is better if it is text version of future of navy with link to this page with list of future ships... Now kill me with arguments please :) Hornet24 (talk) 12:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
A compromise, I have decided to restore the previous (supported) revision of this article, including the Ships under-construction and planned section. However Hornet24, I would very much like it if you help me to improve and redesign that section of the article.
I have made some minor modifications to the tables to improve the overall presentation.TalkWoe90i 20:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Just to point out, the Cruise missile submarine Tomsk is not in reserve and I have added it to the active fleet. The destroyer Admiral Kharlamov has been in reserve since 2001 and has been placed into the reserve list. Cheers.TalkWoe90i 20:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi again, I´m so sorry, but I havn´t much time for "full-time" working on wikipedia at this moment... Woe90i thanks for partly revert your changes, but lets go to talk about notes - I think they are more transparent in previous version - now you must finding all notes in bottom of list - i know previous version isn´t ideal, but best what I can create for more transparent list of ships (see version old about two years)... Next thing is K-150 Tomsk status - I have about half year old info about it, which say, submarine is still in workshop and works will be finished not earlier then 2nd half of 2012, then sail tests after repair is needed... By this reason I must ask from where is your unreferred change... I try to ask for update Tomsk newer status... Because I havn´t some information about Admiral Kharlamov is it same situation - pls refer it...
I see here big mishmash in actualization (duplicate info, unreferred changes, changes of referred dates - i know, is old, but if isn´t newer, is old better then user projection) i prepare "undo" of page core to about two week old version and implement all referred changes... Heading of page will be keep without changes... Estimated time of change: Today in 18:00 UTC... Other changes we can talk here and implement later... Hornet24 (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
You dont own a monopoly on the article and cannot simply "undo" days/weeks of mine and other editors revisions. Who are you to dictate such?
Every change I made is supported by a WP:RS, please go back and review the list/changes/citations. Tomsk was never placed into reserve and is merely undergoing an overhaul. I would therefore like to see a citation that clearly says she was placed into reserve before we place the submarine in the reserve list. Likewise, the citation given for Admiral Kharlamov says the ships status as "in reserve" and not been put to sea since 2001. Again I would like to see a citation that clearly says Admiral Kharlamov is active before we add it to the list of active ships. If you have alternate sources please provide them.
Lastly, the new notes/comments format is cleaner and more presentable. Each note is linked in a similar way to the list of references and there is no harm in using this structure, especially if it cleans up the table. Previously most of the lists notes were either unnecessary, unsourced or written in very poor English.TalkWoe90i 15:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Thats not about you and your revision - as I say I like to discuss them and if they are usefull I like to implement them!
  • If you like rules - here is about fiveteen changes in few days which are unreferred and liquidate credibility of whole theme - first is I think your changing of defign in which is few missing things - for example Buckshot06 readded one of them or your deleting two for theme important section... Next is change of status to active of submarine which is still in longterm repair (it is out of active service and need to be recommissioned, and main reason for that is change of broken steam generator not relatively ordinary overhaul which is make due to long stay on ground due to previous)... Next is unreferred cancelation of constructed ship which status of completation was be (i know isn´t much) unknown, but nowhere is information about stop of construction... And then is here lot of date changes which are unreferred and maybe is user speculation.... As I say all new referred changes will be preserved!
  • You ask who I am - I am person who is interested in this branch for many years and have some sources thanks to which I can before about one and half year remake this page to actual, more comprehensive and well arranged page... Subsequenty I am person which have limited time to check any unreffered change at same speed with which are that changes maked here at last weeks...
  • Here is two option - first is undid all unreferred revisions by the rules and maintain quality of section or here is second, I stop correct this page because I rally havn´t time to fight with efort of some users to do lot of changes of unclear reason (maybe it is really good idea but worse execution, or atempt have lot of actualization and merits - I really don´t need know reasons)...
  • About notes on bottom of lists - here is hard access to notes which are now separated from its holder - If is somebody really interested and like to be informed about whole fleet, he must 38times (for this moment, more then 20 other notes is in "in built" section) look at the bottom... Yes, if you need to see harmfull and less functional version is it now good... If problem is poor English - why you change design and still don´t change that very poor English??? This your reason strenghten my idea about your need to be merited for redesigning of that what dot need it... Now I go work for restore the list Hornet24 (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Tomsk was never placed into reserve! I would like to see a citation to support that first. I never deleted any information regarding the Bulava missile status, Buckshot06 undid an IP edit not mine as I didn't remove the information. You said: "If problem is poor English - why you change design and still don´t change that very poor English???", eh, well, that argument is unfounded and false, as I did correct numerous cases of very poor English in this article. If your only problem is the "difficulty" using the note format then that is an easy fix, just remove the tags(?) at the start and end of each note.
As I said above I want to see some sources to support Tomsk being in reserve. For example, when a NATO submarine is in-need of an overhaul or refit the submarine isn't put into reserve - even if its a long overhaul. Some French SSNs have taken upto 4 years in overhaul! The Reserve ships section of this article is for ships that were officially placed into reserve, decommissioned and placed in reserve or ships that are still in commission but have no realistic combat capabilties or haven't been put to sea for years (as per the Janes statement in the lead).TalkWoe90i 19:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I never say something about K-150 in reserve - I only say it is out of active service at "unique" repair... Same case is K-152 it isn´t in reserve - but long term (5 respectively 10 years of repairs respectively lease to India) no-active status need to be take into consideration... For example Project 667BDRM subs are in regular overhauls/modifications and are still at "active" section... Reason is I don´t like create new "in repair/overhaul/modernization" section... OK... We can discuss it, but this is very controversial theme... About English - your numerous changes of corrections of English is unfindable due to redesigning on same actualization - I would be like if you make changes in grammar of notes or text, because my English isn´t good, but I like if that changes are visible at history list... Total mishmash in whole list is undisputed fact as I wrote earlier (most of that changes isn´t your work) and due to it I insist on restoration two week old version and implement all referred and useful changes... About Admiral Kharlamov - I don´t know if from 2001, but fact is he is really at reserve (thank you for change of status) and I receive info about he´s planned modernization in near future.... Last - "notes" - I can´t restore notes easily because you change proportion of tables - thats reason why announced changes wasn´t implemented yesterday (I really havn´t time)... I hope we find common way to improve this page... Hornet24 (talk) 13:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Hornet24....wtf ??? Again on page mess ... why make the abolition of edits

example Laid down corvette 20380 "Gromki" February 17, why he canceled? Landing craft Ataman Platov not under costruction - active ! Tomsk has completed repairs. K-442 Chelyabinsk in the reserve, why is it removed? Burevestnik canceled and dismantled, and he was again added ADMIRAL MAKAROV - Will be laid down in autumn 2011 ? ))) now 2012 ! 22350 Admiral Yumashev - will be laid down in summer 2012, why canceled ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AktiNo (talkcontribs) 16:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Aktino - if you read editation message "Restoration due to design changes and lot of un-referred changes... All intervening changes will be checked and referred will be added in near time" you know why...
  • If edits reffered will be back today - if not I try to find newest info about it and alternatively readded them...
  • For example: Ataman Platov - duplicite now (in both section - will be fixed) - my mistake... Tomsk - I have info he is still on repairs...
    • I hope now it is all... It´s early morning here and I work whole night... I must check it all once again... I have some misgiving about status of some submarines and ships... Hornet24 (talk) 02:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you for understanding

I can learn something about your friends connected with the fleet — Preceding unsigned comment added by AktiNo (talkcontribs) 10:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Unreferenced changes[edit]

Hi, This page have problems with lot of unreferenced changes which at last time grew here like grass after rain - some is useful but lot of them is unverifiable or in worst case obsolete and in this time totally misleading and invalid... Please put into all your edits references of reliable sources!!! If you havn´t them, you can add that item into () - brackets(?) with [citation needed] mark or into NOTE column with same mark, but don´t change reliable data on page, THX Hornet24 (talk) 13:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Career editor ending[edit]

I'm sorry, but due to lack of options to prevent flooding this site by unverifiable informations, lack of my time to check them and the unwillingness of some Wikipedia editors accept the rules, I decided after two years, to complete my efforts on keeping this site up to date, including confirmation and proof reliable resources where they were missing. Become a regular user, using Wikipedia as a source of basic information used to determine gross for me to view unknown topics. Those rule-abiding thank you for your help and I wish you more success Hornet24 (talk) 06:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Very interesting and useful page, like a man who has a lot of friends is associated to the fleet, I will try to do only valid changes and check for other possible changes. Good luck to you. Aktino. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AktiNo (talkcontribs) 07:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Messy[edit]

Hello to everyone who follows this page :) I just wanted to suggest a couple things:

1) Can the tables be standardized? Im talking font (bold & italic) and columns, especially FLEET

2) Can we attempt to add missing images? I am not very familiar with copyright etc.


OR another thought i have is to make it just like US Navy style ship list page, few images but a very clean layout. Then have a second page created just for list of ship classes with their images, listing number of ships in each class (planned, under construction, commissioned, retired, reserve) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammer5000 (talkcontribs) 16:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


Anyone else please also suggest/discuss and I am sure that many readers will appreciate everyone's contribution, as will I :)

My feelings on this are that maybe we try not to make any drastic changes to layout, just make it more clean/neat and standardized. Hammer5000 (talk) 11:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@Hammer5000, so your suggestion is to use the List of current ships of the United States Navy as a template for this article? AktiNo what do you think? Antiochus the Great (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Antiochus the Great, I think the list of US Navy ships more informative, but also present a list of the Russian Navy is not so bad.(talk)
Yep I think that layout is very neat and table structure well setup, if people dont mind loosing images for every single class of ship that is. So keep this page as a list of all ships in neat format and then we can have another page that lists classes (only! unlike my previous suggestion) with images for those who like to see a gallery with brief information. I am just thinking of different ideas as the current page as i said look messy. Hammer5000 (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Hammer5000. I left a comment at WT:SHIPS and WT:MILHIST on this, in the hope of getting more opinions here, maybe a consensus/decision on how to address the issues you raised. Antiochus the Great (talk) 18:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Think this page should retain it's current layout. It's effective and quite common among the ship/list pages of other navies. The US is an obvious exception but only because there are about a bah-zillion different USN ship list pages (too many AFAIC). - theWOLFchild 18:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
The basic layout seems OK, at least for the Active and Reserve sections (though the field widths could be standardised to some degree to make it neater). But the Planned/Construction section is unnecessarily lengthy - for example Project 'Leader' destroyers could be reduced to two lines from 12, or even one.
The there is the long section of Planned/Construction auxiliaries, yet there is no table for those in the active fleet (just a heading). That missing material will be very lengthy, so suggest that a separate List of active Russian Navy auxiliary ships article is developed. Davidships (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Davidships and Thewolfchild. So keep existing style and formatting, but just tidy it up a little etc... sounds good. What about the planned ships section? Would that not be better integrated into the Future of the Russian Navy article? Antiochus the Great (talk) 14:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggest keep where it is for the moment - it aids updating if both tables are on the same page, and gives a better overview. I suggest first sort the formatting issues and slim down the Panned/Under Construction section (every possible future unit does not need its own row), consider whether there are too many photos (I don't have a particular view on this aspect, though it could be argued that none are needed since they are always only one click away in the relevant article) - and decide about Auxiliaries. Then see how the page looks. Davidships (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Agree with David. Also, a small suggestion... get rid of all the question marks ("???") - they look terrible in an encyclopaedia. It would be better to use tbd (letters 't', 'b' and 'd' in lower case, in italics for "to be determined"). This is commonly used in other articles. - theWOLFchild 15:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

So as I can see we are leaning on keeping as is just slimming/trimming/formatting! I dont mind if the photos remain, but since a lot of them are missing and many photos for new vessels are being deleted due to copyright, maybe we can take the photos out? Hammer5000 (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe a small image gallery at the end of each section? Similar to List of active Royal Navy ships. Taking images out of the table tends to greatly aid in table neatness. Antiochus the Great (talk) 16:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
SUPPORT - sounds good to me, anyone else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammer5000 (talkcontribs) 16:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Yep, I like Antiochus the Great's idea as well. - theWOLFchild 03:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Me too. Meticulo (talk) 01:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

See my Sandbox for an example of the proposed changes. Suggestions welcome. Antiochus the Great (talk) 16:06, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

SUPPORT - Yep that looks great. Awesome job Hammer5000 (talk) 12:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay chaps, almost a month since this discussion. I've finally made a start incorporating the new tidier tables into the article. Will continue to overhaul the entire article. Cheers. Antiochus the Great (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
That look great! Thanks for taking this on. Hammer5000 (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of active Russian Navy ships. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Checked, failed. Redalert2fan (talk) 15:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on List of active Russian Navy ships. 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.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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) 21:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Inactive vessel on list[edit]

Russian ship Liman sank today, so it needs removing from the list. I can't see how to achieve this without mucking up the table. Mjroots (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on List of active Russian Navy ships. 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.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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) 05:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of active Russian Navy ships. 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.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 16:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Checked. Redalert2fan (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)