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

Minimalist Living[edit]

Practitioners of this form of simplicity were heavily influenced by authors such as Henry David Thoreau, and tend to divest themselves of all in life but the meaningful. They enjoy purging clutter, and streamlining everything. These minimalists didn't even bother to show up and write a proper paragraph about themselves for this article. Bravo. ~~Insightfullysaid, 25 September 2011~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insightfullysaid (talkcontribs) 02:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Punk Rock Minimalism[edit]

i'd say punk rock movement is also a minimalistic movement. tired of long instrumental solos boasting about the musicmanships, punk emerged as a movement based on minimalistic riffs eg. The Ramones.Muthuppattar (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You'd say? Any reliable sources that also would? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


I think the section Minimalism in Philosophy would be better titled Minimalism in Life or some such. Philosophical Minimalism refers to a similar view to deflationism, it has to do with reducing the burden of 'truth' on a sentence.

questions: where is the link between minimalism as a concept in art and stuff and 'minimalist philosophies'? what actually are these 'minimalist philosophies'? so, if the author feels that it is true that money is the general medium of things in this world, how come he criticises life depending on money as if that would be a matter of personal choice; just as if there could be philosophies that would freely chose this actual fact of socialisation as a random move to gain meaning?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

I find it quite disturbing how the Japanese philosophy of minimalism has not been discussed even though almost all miminalist art and design has been greatly influenced by traditional Japanese design.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Waynepl107 (talkcontribs) .

I have now changed the title. If someone with a better english than mine could try to reformulate what's inside...

questions: where is the link between minimalism as a concept in art and stuff and 'minimalist philosophies'? Imomentt (talk) 08:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


This page really needs to be split up into a disambiguation page for visual minimalism and musical minimalism. There is definitely enough info about both to require separate pages. Hyacinth


In agreement with Hyacinth, I believe that each subtopic in this article potentially contains more than enough depth to warrant splitting it up into multiple articles. Doing so may also lead to more in-depth development of each topic. C4Diesel 9:50, 14 Sep 2006 (UTC)

Postmodernism series[edit]

I've created a template feel free to add other important examples of postmodernism - broadly defined - in this template so that readers can gain a better understanding of the terms involved by comparing and contrasting their use over several articles. Stirling Newberry 17:29, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with this decision as minimalism is widely viewed as modern art rather than postmodern art by a great deal of art historians. The object-oriented nature of minimalism in the obvious last breath of modernism before conceptualism and postmodern thought took over art movements. Vanessa kelly 03:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


Perhaps this quotation is relevant somewhere on the page? "Perfection is reached, not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away." –Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (1900–1944)

not really. minimalism isn't taking things away, it's not adding them in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
No. Mea (talk) 05:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hemingway as Founder of "Literary Minimalism"[edit]

I think the question of whether Hemingway founded literary minimalism needs to be discussed. First, if you believe that Hemingway is the founder (I don't), you might look to Hemingway's antecedents as the founders of minimalsim: Gertrude Stein and Sherwood Anderson.

Second, Hemingway could arguably be called the founder of "hard-boiled" fiction, but I don't consider him a minimalist in the sense that minimalism is used to describe some schools of modern art. Hemingway used words sparingly, but his work wasn't formal or totally objective, as minimalism in art is.

I would like to remove the section on Hemingway, if no one has any objections. Griot 20:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Since there are no objections, I'm removing Hemingway. Griot 00:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I have read nearly everything Hemingway has written, including correspondence. I never connected him with minimalism. I still don't. However I see in a brief web search that this concept has taken root. Too sad... I think Hemingway was a big fan of economy and omission. How this got labeled minimalism is a sad story. The art of letters is in accelerated decline in the internet age. Mea (talk) 05:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Steve Martin[edit]

I'm not advocating including Martin as a minimalist author, but I am seeking clarification. If anyone has read "Shopgirl" or "The Pleasure of my Company" I'd be interested in an opinion. I personally consider Martin's writing style minimalist because he doesn't label his characters; he merely presents them and lets the reader decide what they are. But the dialog is not necessarily simple. So does a richer dialog disqualify a work as minimalist.

-- The dialog, in this case, would likely eject him from the nomenclature as well as the fact that his presentation of characters, although somewhat novel, is by no means a typical minimalist technique, but rather one that eschews a normal sense of identity for reader interpretation. (JetBlack11 (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC))

Minimalism in visual art[edit]

It's good to see this back. While it needs lots of work, it shouldn't be deleted outright. I also cleaned up some red links and improper external links. If an artist doesn't have a page, they really shouldn't be listed, and definitely not linked to externally. Eva Hesse is not a post-minimalist. She died in 1970. She's more proto-minimalist, if such a term can be employed. At least she belongs to a whole field of post-abstract-expressionist sculpture of which I'm uncertain of a categorical name: somewhat minimalist, early postmodern, process art, something like that. Freshacconci 16:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Eva Hesse is one of a few artists who led the move from Minimalism to Postminimalism. I remember her work in 1966 as moving past minimalism or through minimalism into various uncategorical forms - eccentric abstraction, anti-form sculpture, etc. Eva was a pioneer of what came to be known as Postminimalism. Modernist 00:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

And yet it makes mince meat of art history to list Hesse as a post-minimalist tout court. I agree w. freshacconci. Smithson's attitudes should be more prominently explored. Also, seriously lacking are the philosophical grounds for Fried's objection, encapsulated as theatricality, and the minimalists' [actually Stella's]related remark, what you see is what you see,,, and why this represents a paradigm shift away from Transcendence as an aesthetic first principle. Otherwise, this whole section makes little sense to me. Some of the artists listed do not strike me as minimalists--Hesse for one, but the inclusion of Hannah Wilke is mystifying.Actio 06:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)actio

For what its worth - from a Robert Morris bio - "Robert Morris organized Nine at Castelli, (1969) one of the first exhibitions of post-minimalist, anti-formalist art which featured the work of Eva Hesse, Richard Serra, Keith Sonnier, and Bruce Nauman, among others". Modernist 19:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Development of Early Minimalism[edit]

I wrote a section on the early history of minimalism and how it developed, then realized that there was a separate page for Minimalist Music, and moved that material over there instead. I did, however, change the section on the controversiality of the term minimalism, deleting this sentence - "The minimalist movement in music bears only an occasional relationship to the movement of the same name in visual art" - because I can't imagine what it means. Seems to me, either it bears no relation - and how identical can any musical movement be with any visual art movement - or it bears some relation that could be critically argued, but remained pretty consistent over the time in question. Kylegann 14:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

They were roughly parallel movements, at least at the beginning, and I believe Michael Nyman coined the term for music based on the precedent set in visual art. However, the sentence you refer to is a bit vague. It would need to be supported more, maybe expanded to explain what that means, i.e. how were the two movements connected, if at all, and more importantly, how did they differ? To say they '[bear] only an occasional relationship" still implies some sort of relationship, but in what way? I think something on this is crucial, but would need some work.Freshacconci 16:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Apart from your assessment, Kyle (by the way I used one of your articles in my thesis about post-minimalism, thanks!), in terms of the title of this section "The Development of Early Minimalism," need we really say that John Cage was an influence for the founders? Barring " 4'33" " which was more stunt than a thematic shift for him, are we really claiming that "In C" or "Electric Counterpoint" etc... were influenced by Cage pouring water and a bale of hay in a piano, or lighting a violin on fire? It is undeniable that his actions portrayed a major shift in "serious music" from the mathematic dogma of serialism, but does this then inherently place him as the primary mention of influence to minimalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JetBlack11 (talkcontribs) 21:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's important to mention La Monte Young at some point in this article. Many consider him the creator of minimalist music and he is certainly included in the 'four' along with Glass, Riley and Reich. In fact, Adams has a more peripheral influence on minimalism than Young. That he is not mentioned at all in this article whilst the others are is very unusual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding John Cage: I feel it is an error to refer to him as a "prime example" of minimalism. His (Wikipedia) page itself does not refer to him as such but rather, among other things, as an avant-garde and chance composer. Certainly "chance" music is in many ways the opposite of minimalist music--4'33", for example, is not concerned with repetition at all, but the infintely complex relationship of sounds heard during "silence."Paulgraham.yates (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Minimalism in Film[edit]

I know much more about minimalism in music and visual art than I do about minimalism in film. But I would not have called the movie Last Life in the Universe a minimalist movie. It has plot, character development, intrigue, and variety of mood, none of which I would associate with a minimalist aesthetic. By contrast, van Sant's Gerry or some of Warhol's films fit this label much better. 2006-11-03.

The problem with adding Warhol to this category is that it doesn't quite fit. Warhol's earlier films are often considered proto-structuralist films, as they are about the act of filming itself. The "minimal" elements of Warhol's films are somewhat secondary to the duration, structure and pop aspects (i.e. dealing with stardom, personalities, glamour [at least squalor-as-glamour]). To list Warhol as a representative of minimalist film is misleading. A better example (at least from the art world) would be Chantal Akerman. But then, as the main page indicates, the minimalist film entry needs major work.Freshacconci 15:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I recomend this section to be deleted. Just as there are no scholarly codifications of minimalism in film, there is no expert in the realm of "minimalist" film aesthetics. This is not a denial that some minimalist film style exists, but it has never been espoused in a scholarly manner in print of reliable sources. Therefore, the discussion of minimalism in film should be relegated to film forums and not wikipedia entries, as all such entries would be the result of personal research or speculation. 11-9-2006

Good point. I tried thinking of something I read about minimalism and film and came up with nothing. It's used as an aethetic description as you mention, but there was no "minimalist" film movement in the way there was for art and music.Freshacconci 19:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Minimalism in commerce[edit]

A good article, and the first art-oriented article I have seen without external links! --CliffC 02:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Template overlapped by picture[edit]

Just noticed something that's been here a while - anybody know how to keep Nicole's picture from overlapping the {{modernism}} template at the bottom of the page? --CliffC 16:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed current designer image[edit]

Many current artists feel their image should be here. Lets keep it to the movement and those of the period. --Mach535 04:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Minimalism was an art historical movement. Any revivals should be covered elsewhere if at all. Freshacconci 04:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Robert Rauschenberg the minimalist[edit]

StN -- You are right insofar as I wouldn't consider Robert Rauschenberg a quintessential minimalist. But there are aspects of Rauschenberg's work that can be considered minimalist. He would not be considered a part of a minimalist school, or of a minimalist movement, but I can think of work I've seen by Rauschenberg that I would consider minimalist. I once saw a big retrospective at a big New York City museum of the work of Rauschenberg. My favorite paintings of the show were very early, and very large, silkscreen paintings, executed entirely in black. I think they were on a white background. The imagery was realistic -- mayby photo-lithographs. I would certainly think the descriptive term minimal could be applied to them. But you are right, I think, that Robert Rauschenberg would not be considered a minimalist. Bus stop 05:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Frank Stella's work also wound up far from minimilism, but he was a central figure in the early movement, so should remain here. With Rauschenberg it was a trial effort before he found his voice, sort of like Rothko the fauvist.--StN 16:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
StN -- Did he find his voice or did he lose his voice? I think Rauschenberg's early work was arguably his best. Bus stop 17:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I won't argue with your judgment, Bus stop. I like much of his work from all his periods. I think, though, that once he settled into his neo-Dada style, or whatever you would call it, he stayed with it. So he must feel comfortable with that mode of expression.--StN 17:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

StN -- It seems Rauschenberg and Frank Stella both went from a more constrained method of expression, to expression that took place with greater exuberance. They also both seemed to go from two dimensional work to three dimensional work. I am not sure if that is a gain or a loss. Bus stop 17:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


What about J.M. Coetzee? No modern writer fits the description better imo.

And since when is Chuck Palahniuk a minimalist? He has a way of creeping into a lot of unnecessary places on wikipedia. I'm suspicious, but I don't know the full expanse of Palahniuk's work. From the stuff I know he's definitely not. But a Palahniuk expert can feel free to defend him. I'd also question Bret Easton Ellis, but Palahniuk is the guy who seems to creep into more unnecessary places. Also, William Carlos Williams wrote one of the most famous minimalist poems in history: "The Red Wheelbarrow". His absence is a shame. Creeley (along with half the major poets in the last half of the twentieth century) wouldn't exist if it wasn't for Williams. So I say Coetzee and Williams have more of a place than Palahniuk and Ellis.
Overall, the lit section is odd. It jumps from talking about minimalism as a reaction against metafiction (but doesn't explain why) in the 70's to talking about people from all over the century (jumping back to Hemingway, for example, implying that he was reacting against the metafiction of the 1970s even though he'd been dead a couple of decades), and the list includes some people who use metafiction. Doesn't make that much sense. Plus, why not throw in a few examples or explanations? Pounds' "In the station of the metro" is two lines, won't take up much room. You could probably cut and paste the entirety of "Breathe" by Samuel Beckett and not take up much space. Some brief explanations at least would be helpful. And why no mention of haiku? The biggest influence on twentieth century poetic minimalism?

F. Simon Grant 20:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

At the same time, wouldn't you posit that haiku is in itself a form with a finite length, which is not minimalist, per se. Especially in the musical realm, the point was not to write short pieces (Reich and Glass compose operas, they each have any number of pieces that slowly develop over 10+ minute periods) but the length and choice of materials is completely deliberate rather than the pre-determined length of haiku.

I totally agree however that Palahniuk, while I am a fan of his work, is in no way a minimalist and he should be removed.

(JetBlack11 (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC))

Palahniuk is in no way whatsoever a minimalist. Nor is Easton Ellis. --Kbrewer36 (talk) 04:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Though I've been thinking this, and argument could be made for *Less than Zero* as Minimalist or as a response to it, certainly. --Kbrewer36 (talk) 20:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Michael Nyman-Gattaca-The Other Side.ogg[edit]

The image Image:Michael Nyman-Gattaca-The Other Side.ogg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


Why is there no information on minimalist cooking?

(Asked because I came to this page to try and prove to my girlfriend that adding tonnes of every spice in the cabinet doesn't lead to good food -- just indigestion and rectal discomfort. (talk) 19:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Threshold of originality[edit]

I am wondering do we need to put "copyright" tags on numerous images of minimalism since many of them don't meet threshold of originality? --Artman40 (talk) 12:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Sex/ Is Angin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Too much[edit]

. (talk) 04:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that the article tries to cover too much. There might be separate pages for minimalism in literature, in music, in cooking, and so on.--Kbrewer36 (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I think "Minimalism in visual art" should be a separate article. Bus stop (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The article cites the influence of Japanese design. Take a look at Japanese architecture, theater, and cooking. If you have a feel or appreciation for minimalism, you should be able to sense the commonality. I haven't read one objection that makes sense to me in this talk for the single article. Why spread the critical pain across multiple articles?Mea (talk) 04:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Ornamentations are quality rather than quantity[edit]

With regards to the above unsourced idea written in the article and used here as this section's heading, I would like to object to its veracity. It seems to mean that those who add details in quantity lack quality in each detail, whereas every minimalist detail is of a higher quality than what can be found elsewhere. This is plainly not true, as for thousands of years, there have been craftsmen who have made high-quality detailing that was used again and again on a structure. And there are minimalist structures that lack any appreciable quality. --Riction (talk) 14:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The commonly accepted concept of minimalism implies an intentional goal of creating a minimalist tableau. You cannot merely choose any object that has a lack of complication and lack of quality materials and declare it minimalist. I don't believe there is such a thing as a "minimalist detail." Minimalism usually refers to the overall effect of a given composition. Mea (talk) 04:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


I think there is a rough consensus here that the material on minimalism-like-what-judd-did ought be pulled out into a separate page; I intend to do this in a few days unless anyone has a strong objection? Pho-logic (talk) 09:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Keeping in mind the complexity and subtlety of the art and the artists - I think Minimal art is not just what Judd did, although I agree the section on Minimal art can probably be expanded...Modernist (talk) 12:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Do you mean creating a separate article for minimalism in visual art? I'd support that in principle, however what we would be left with in this article would be a hodgepodge. I know little about literary minimalism but minimalism in music is a key topic in its own right and it would be stuck between that whole section on design minimalism (which has its own problems) and the very truncated literary minimalism section. This may require an overview article, such as Baroque, which explains the use of the term in history and gives an overview of the different types of baroque art, and then separate articles on visual art, music and so on with more detail. From what I see, the visual art section could stand on its own (unless I'm missing something) but I do worry about what kind of dog's breakfast we'd be left with in the main article on minimalism in general. freshacconci talktalk 12:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
There is a separate article on minimal music and what is in this article is a quick overview. That's what I'd like to see if visual art is split. We still have the problem with the design section which comes first for some reason. If no one has the energy or interest to create separate articles for architecture and literature, we'd need to rearrange things so design isn't first (and that section needs a lot of work in any case). Also, it's my hunch that the general reader, when thinking of minimalism, thinks of visual art first. I'd suggest, if we split the article, to lead of with: a general intro to minimalism, then a brief section on visual art (with the disambig link to the main minimalism in visual art article), then music, then architecture, with design rolled in, then literature. Something like that. freshacconci talktalk 12:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I mean minimalism in the visual arts, & obviously more than just Judd, but still reasonably tightly defined. I support freshacconci's proposal, that we split off, have an overview section here, and rearrange this article. Pho-logic (talk) 21:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I support the proposal as well...Modernist (talk) 21:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Right! Does anyone object? If not, I'll do it over the next day or two. 12:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pho-logic (talkcontribs)
Leaving this one as is and a new article focused only on minimal visual art along the lines of Minimal music might work...Modernist (talk) 20:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Right, I have created the new page, I've just copied all the content over, and we can futz around with that over there and prune the content here reasonably hard. I also suggest we try and rearrange this page so minimalism (visual arts) and minimalism (music) are prominent, because I think those are the two most common uses. Pho-logic (talk) 01:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Splitting is an anti-minimalist direction. Less is more. Mea (talk) 05:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I added Minimalism (visual arts) to Minimalism (disambiguation). Bus stop (talk) 05:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

New image[edit]

Example of minimalist and neomodern dasign in an office building in Pretoria.

Hi everyone, I have included this image of a facade of a building in Pretoria, South Africa which has a minimalist architectural design. Some users however do not allow it to be included in the article. Please share your views. Thank you. --PretoriaTravel (talk) 12:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You were adding the same image to 4 articles, without any other additions (text) to the article, which makes it look like spamming. Cst17 (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Nou het ek jou verstaan. Ag, nie man.. A friend of mine made a comment that there are no images illustrating contemporary architecture in Pretoria, so I decided to make some of modern images in Pretoria East. The image is intended to serve the same function as this photo (it is not mentioned in the text, but is included in four articles. Jammer vir die misverstand. Regards --PretoriaTravel (talk) 13:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality and Sources[edit]

I've removed a portion of the lede where it said "to achieve the maximum effect". First, that portion was unsourced, as is basically the whole lede. Second, I don't think any reliable source would really assert that the effect of minimalism is the highest above all other arts and styles. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue against your edit, but you should be aware that ledes are meant to summarize the article content, and so in the ordinary way they should not include any referencing. Sources supporting the claims, however, should be provided where those claims are found (more amply discussed) in the main part of the article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Article is a mess[edit]

Why are their two architecture sections? What is the basis for the ordering of the sections (historical, conceptual, what)? Why are there full unsourced paragraphs, and long lists of names, also unsourced? Why are their multiple citation styles, with whole paragraphs making reference to sources only in the most literary style (sans footnotes) while in most places, inline citations lead reader to source? The article may have, at one point, been encyclopedic, but in its structure, formats, content, and sourcing, it most certainly is not now. (talk) 21:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I think I can answer your first question, based on a scan of the article's edit history. There was originally no section at all on architecture, but rather one on "design", which at some point had the section heading expanded to include architecture. The second section also originally had nothing in it about architecture, and was evidently intended as a subsection of the one on design.
Moving on to your second question, it does not appear that there is any basis at all for the ordering. It seems just to have grown over time in a random fashion.
As for citation styles, I don't see any places that use a "literary" style of referencing, without any footnotes at all, though I do see some places where authors are named in the text as well as in the footnote at the end of the paragraph. Could you point out some examples of what you mean? There are in fact two different citation styles in use, one of which is decidedly suspect, in that it seems to be a sort of hybrid between SFN (shortened footnote) and full-footnote style, while the other is in orthodox SFN style.
I suspect that the reason for the general inconsistencies is down to editors with interests in particular areas (visual arts, design, literature, architecture, music) working on the sections corresponding to their own interests, and ignoring all the others. I must confess to my own guilt in this regard, since I think I know what I am talking about in music and (to a lesser extent) visual art, but know nothing at all about minimalist design or literature, and rather little about architecture.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Minimalism. 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) 13:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)