Talk:Tennessine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Ununseptium)
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Tennessine is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 15, 2015.
WikiProject Elements (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Russia / Technology & engineering / Science & education (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the technology and engineering in Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and education in Russia task force.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of Natural sciences.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Converted[edit]

Elementbox converted 12:21, 15 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 17:58, 2 June 2005).

Vote for Deletion (2004)[edit]


from VfD:

Delete. Fancruft. Stub about an element that has not been discovered and about which nothing is known. Trollminator 17:46, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Keep official IUPAC assignment - therefore something on wich the whole chemical science community agrees - therefore legitimate. --Musschrott 18:02, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That doesn't make it notable for the vast majority of users. There are other places for sciencecruft fans to talk about this. Trollminator 19:06, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"sciencecruft"? Strong keep. It's an accurate factual summary of the current state of knowledge regarding an unsynthesised element. Elements are inherently encyclopedic (although you could possibly argue for a single page on "miscellaneous transuranics"); it "exists" in that we know it to be possible, we have a broad idea of its properties, we have an offically-standardised name for it. Shimgray 19:20, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Simply being factual is not enough to demonstrate notablity. In any event, this element does not exist. It's pure speculation by fans. Non-notable. Trollminator 19:22, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Keep, it's on any good periodic table. -- user:zanimum

Keep DCEdwards1966 19:49, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

  • Very weak keep.delete I didn't find any authoratative hits (EG university, international standards organization, or government site) until page NINE of the google hits, where I found it on a periodic table from the University of South Dakota[1]. Note that page 4 of the hits had it used in a work of science fiction. Niteowlneils 20:08, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    Note that it is NOT on this Canadian gov't periodic table[2], tho' Ununoctium is. Niteowlneils 20:13, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. "Fans"? I do believe the poster is living up to his or her name. --jpgordon{gab} 20:22, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • This is sciencecruft. The 'whole chemical science community' does not agree. An element cannot be officially named until it is discovered. This has not been, it is someone's speculation about what it might be like if it was discovered. Trollminator 20:29, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Try Googling 'IUPAC Ununseptium' - all you get are Wikipedia mirrors - there are no official or credible sites reporting this. Trollminator 20:35, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • So, to be credible... you know, there's a reason no-one uses "ununseptium", and that's that there are other, simpler, ways of referring to it. [3] - Physical Review C, where the first paper listed was published, is certainly a reputable journal. Why would a site have to use the specific terms "IUPAC" and "ununseptium" to be valid? You can have a perfectly reputable discussion of a minor asteroid, by name, without ever mentioning the IAU or the Minor Planets Center... Shimgray 21:09, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Note that none of these "unun___" placeholders appear on the IUPAC periodic table[4], and searching the Official IUPAC site gets zero hits for "ununseptium"[5]. Niteowlneils 21:04, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Abstain. Not sure what Trollminator is up to, but don't care. I don't believe it's sciencecruft, because by and large I think science is encyclopedic. I am, however, concerned that it is describing something that is as of yet theoretical, and unlike some other parts of science that speculate on the unverifiable, this is not an essential piece of theory that fits into something else. I'm not sure that, as it stands now, it merits an encyclopedia article with speculations on its characteristics. If you think you have a good argument as to if it should stay or go, note that it might not be hard to convince me to change my vote. Note that I wanted to make a joke about unobtainium, but I couldn't figure out how. *sigh* --Improv 21:08, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Possible ways of looking at it (I'll agree that element-117 is the weakest) -
a) several papers have been published on it (I can find half-a-dozen on a quick glance through scholar.google.com, but a proper lit search would find more) - do we have articles on other predicted-but-not-yet-found things? Not sure.
Sure do. Try e.g. 2010 or 22nd century. And then at Sasquatch and Loch Ness Monster. Undiscovered (in same cases merely unnamed) chemical elements trump each of these in terms of established acceptance in the field. - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]] 22:00, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
I'd forgotten those obvious examples... Higgs boson and graviton as well. It's also notable that the criteria apparently being applied is "has it been formally named by IUPAC yet", which would mean that Roentgenium magically became notable a month ago despite nothing new being known about it - there's functionally no difference between our level of knowledge of Rg or Uub, and an arbitrary classification like this isn't helpful. The name does not make the man, as it were... Shimgray 23:24, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
b) we're being asked to establish a threshold of notability for elements. As it is, all elements are treated as notable, including those which have not yet been synthesised but will (plausibly) be soon. So we're going to end up with a list of elements with almost everything broken out, but two or three - like this - which aren't notable enough... so what do we do with them? There's some information here, not much... but we have been able to broadly predict (or decent) characteristics of these high-number elements, and that information ought to be kept along with that of the lower ones. In a way it seems simpler just to keep (uninformative) pages for these ones than to try and establish a critera (note that we're also being asked to consider elements synthesised several years ago, detected by independent groups, about which a moderate amount is known as unencyclopedic). Shimgray 21:20, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) (I had two others, but have forgotten them. Updates may follow. <g>)
    • I disagree. To suggest that element 117 cannot or may not exist would contradict established assumptions about atomic structures. There is no scientific reason that it would not be a feasibly created element. - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]] 00:31, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 21:30, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Take a look at the last section of these IUPAC recommendations: 4.4 Interim names Prior to and during the naming process, the element may be referred to by its atomic number, as in ?element 118? or by its provisional systematic name, ?ununoctium?. If a symbol is needed, the systematic, provisional three-letter symbol should be used --jpgordon{gab} 21:48, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, and note statement at IUPAC: Until discoveries are confirmed, elements are provisionally designated in terms expressing their atomic numbers in Latin, for example "ununnilium" (one-one-zero for 110), "unununium" (one-one-one for 111), and "ununbium" (one-one-two for 112). from [6]. - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]] 22:00, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Summarily cancel all similar VFD submissions for articles on as-yet-unnamed chemical elements and other accepted chemical theory by Trollminator. - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]] 22:00, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, although this is clearly not as notable as many things that do get deleted. Do not remove vfd notices before the normal period however, unless you want other (cough) controversial deletions also removed. There is a process, let it run. Mark Richards 22:25, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep fvw* 23:06, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)
  • Keep, quite encyclopedic indeed. Antandrus 00:21, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep althought article could describe better the element's so far theoretical nature - Skysmith 08:04, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Clearly encyclopedic. Abuse of VfD. jni 09:20, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep the article. Delete the VfD kiddie. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 15:27, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Jayjg 21:44, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. How is this fancruft?! --Idont Havaname 01:01, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Strong keep for the same reasons mentioned by me in ununbium. --Andrew 20:06, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 06:37, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. ("Fans"?) —tregoweth 18:32, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
    • Time to print up some Ununoctium T-shirts! Who's with me? - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]] 22:22, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep --Blade Hirato 03:18, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Scientific elements are noteworthy, even the ones not discovered yet. Besides it is only a question of time before this is discovered. Once a better name than "ununseptium" is assigned this element, (e.g. Meitnerium used to be called "unnillenium") redirect to the new element name. 129.177.61.124 09:03, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

The information of Uus is hypothetical[edit]

Look this page: apsidium - ununseptium here, at the bottom, you can read that ununseptium has NOT been produced. In some sites you can find hypotetical isotopes for Uus.

The symbol Ts[edit]

Ts usually indicates the tosyl group in organic chemistry. Has IUPAC noted this? Double sharp (talk) 04:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah, okay, they have: "NB: We are aware of the fact that Ts is often used as abbreviation for the tosyl chemical group. However, this was not considered to be a valid objection, given the fact that we also use the symbols Ac and Pr for chemical elements, while chemists also use these as abbreviations for the acyl and the propyl groups. Very common items like AcOH and PrOH are usually not taken for the hydroxides of actinium and praseodymium and a possible confusion with the tosyl group seem extremely low." This seems to imply that the problem with Cp was not cyclopentadienyl but rather cassiopeium (though who actually uses that name today?). Double sharp (talk) 04:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't assume that just because the IUPAC followed a particular line of reasoning in 2016 that IUPAC would have necessarily followed the same line of reasoning in 2009-2010. But see Copernicium § Naming and the references cited there.
But then again, they might decide to follow precedent. If they delayed their 2010 announcement until Copernicus' 537th birthday, might they decide to wait to make their official announcement on a significant date - or maybe four such dates? That may mean that we should have the move restrictions last beyond November. YBG (talk) 04:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, the move restrictions are tied to the decision, not to a date. That's the easiest part of this ;-). -DePiep (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello DePiep! Thanks for adding the proposed names to the infoboxes for these four elements, incidentally: I was thinking that that would be a good idea, and lo and behold you made it possible. (^_^) I don't suppose that you could also add the possibility for pronunciation entries for proposed names? Periodic Videos already has a video about this, so I could transcribe Prof. Poliakoff's pronunciation. Double sharp (talk) 14:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
P.S. I think the standard term for the final name is trivial name, not "formal name" as we currently have it. I realise that this makes them sound a little lightweight and silly, but that's what IUPAC says they're called: "These [systematic] names are provisional and are replaced as soon as a given element is prepared and unequivocally characterized. Perhaps unfortunately, the unambiguous systematic name is then replaced by a trivial name suggested by the scientists who first prepared the element." Double sharp (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Double sharp, good to hear we had the same thougth :-).
About adding the 2nd pronunciation: I think that is not MOS-like, and I don't like it myself. The MOS WP:PRON is not clear on this, it is not explicit on which words should have pronunciation. Of course the titleword can have it (currently systematic names then), but for the rest that MOS is saying like: "do not over-add pron". That certainly would apply to non-title words. As for me, I don't like the pronunciations at all because it clutters the view (how glad I am we moved them from lede to the infobox). This view (the appearance of a text/page before reading words) is very important to make reading pleasant for The Reader. Then adding a non-Latin alphabet(!) text, as IPA is, is off-putting so we better prevent that. Of course, the respelling in regular alphabet ('MER-kyə-ree) is only allowed after an IPA text.
In November, after the name swapping, it will be solved of course.
Next, I prefer not to use the phrasing 'trivial name' for this, for as you write: makes it sound too leightweight. Given the confusing situation re the status of the names, it's good to use a stronger term. I'll throw in an other RS: the IUPAC June 2016 publication. It says: "new names", "proposals", "names for new chemical elements", "proposed name", "Recommendations", but not "trivial" (or should we point out to them that they are inconsistent in this ;-) ?). -DePiep (talk) 10:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I can understand, of course. It's just that the pronunciations of these names are not obvious and they are fast becoming almost alternative not-yet-official names for these elements (since WebElements, for example, has jumped the gun and started using them, and it seems the media has not made it clear that they are not yet official – or else it would be hard to explain the number of edits installing the new names that have to be reverted), so it makes some sense. But I can wait. (^_^)
I can accept "formal name" for those reasons. Double sharp (talk) 13:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
But we don't have the official pronunciation rules yet! So we would guess them, and any reader can do just that.--R8R (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Do we even have them for the named elements, actually? If we don't, as I suspect, then I think that the closest thing would be to see what chemists with English as their native language say. (We probably need some notion of correctness, or else where would we be with darmstadtium and roentgenium?) Double sharp (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
If we don't, then, again, why can't we let the reader figure it out themselves, since we don't have any better proof than nothing?--R8R (talk) 14:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
We could add pronunciation to List of elements (all). Whether the new names are in there, or in a separate section (keeping the systematic names for now), prononciation(s) can be added. btw, does one of you know what the native (Russian) pronunciation is of Yuri Oganessian? We could start with that (esp the stressing). -DePiep (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
The Russian pronunciation would be "YU-riy Tsoh-LA(like in "LArge")-koh-vich Oh-guh-nes-SYAN("s" pronounced softly, "y" omitted)".--R8R (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Then for Oganesson, that would be like: oh-guh-nes-SON? Interesting. -DePiep (talk) 00:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Dear Double sharp. Please stop referring to the prof & the PT videos. Nice, when you're 12 yo, but even this year he keeps using a 1970 PT. See how he introduces period 8 in [7]: not even explaining the presence of those elements at position 121?! Misleading all novice interested students 13+ yo. A waste. -DePiep (talk) 00:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Since just about everyone is still using the 18-column PT in education, I would not fault him for it. Besides, given that this is meant to cover the news of the elements 113, 115, 117, and 118 being confirmed, I do not see why he would need to go into detail on elements 121 and above when the next elements being considered for synthesis are only 119 and 120. He has a different video about Pyykkö and his model, where he indeed talks about elements 121 and above now that they are relevant. Double sharp (talk) 04:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I was rather expecting them to go with Tn for a symbol rather than Ts. Is there an organic group that uses Tn, or other conflict? (I am guessing it's thoron which used Tn, as actinon used An, and radon Rn). So, I guess it will mean Ts won't align tennessine with the standard abbreviation for the state of Tennessee (TN). Not unlike how California is Ca not Cf like californium, BUT if you look at the side of a boat registered in California, you'll see CF, not CA. Interesting parallel that it's in the halogen row though with Fred Allison's commonly-considered mistaken 1930's discovery of astatine, which ACS accepted the name alabamine, with symbol Ab (rather than Al -- because aluminum!). Other states that almost made it I know include virginium (miscovery of francium) and illinium (miscovery of prometheum). 66.186.163.112 (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thoron was the reason. Double sharp (talk) 02:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

a more complete orbital energy level diagram[edit]

Here is one that shows Cl, Br, I, At, and 117. Double sharp (talk) 13:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

why I moved the graph to the right[edit]

MOS:IMAGELOCATION suggests right-aligning images in general. Does it run into the XF3 images on your screen, R8R? Double sharp (talk) 10:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I thought it was me who moved it there. I remember I replaced a centered pic with a side-aligned that you showed me a long while ago, I just didn't remember if I shifted it left or right. The two looked close enough for me to want to separate them with some space. Anyway, I moved the large pic up a para. Right alliance should be OK now if you want to implement it. No big deal for me.--R8R (talk) 10:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
OK, done. Double sharp (talk) 12:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Change name?[edit]

Tennessine and the other new names are now official: https://iupac.org/iupac-announces-the-names-of-the-elements-113-115-117-and-118/ fluorogrol (talk) 09:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Nuclide chart deeply problematic[edit]

The chart seems to show half-lives in the island of stability of greater than one year. So far as I'm aware, none of the nuclides in the island of stability have half-lives of as much as a second. Kent G. Budge (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not "deeply problematic." The data in that chart is theoretical, only overlaid with experimental where possible. "Characterized isotopes are shown with borders" -- this phrase in the caption is supposed to help readers understand that (as you can see, most isotopes don't have borders in that graph, thus they're not actually characterized). Think about it for another second and if you still think the wording is poor and you can do better, you're welcome to try.--R8R (talk) 23:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
The filled squares are the known isotopes to the left of the island, which still remains undiscovered, even though we're now at least sure that it is there around the unknown region of 291Cn and 293Cn. These two nuclides are expected to have half-lives of about 1200 years. Double sharp (talk) 09:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Number of atoms and isotopes[edit]

According to [8], 22 atoms of tennessine have been reported: 16 with short decay chains assigned to 293Ts and 6 with long decay chains assigned to 294Ts. However, in [9] it is shown that the set of 16 short chains is not congruent. It seems to me that the 2013 set corresponds to 292Ts (5n channel). My questions:

Do set 2010+set 2012+D3 form a congruent set?
Do set 2013+13×short+96×long form a congruent set? Burzuchius (talk) 13:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
This is very interesting indeed and I do find it very concerning given that this was the only argument for the discovery of Mc and Ts. (Nh from the RIKEN data is not in question, and there is no chance for this kind of thing in Og, which was created as an even-even isotope.) Maybe soon we'll have more comments on this analysis (which I notice has scientists from Lund and the GSI). Double sharp (talk) 16:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh, and yes, the article seems to say that some of the "short" chains from element 115 assigned to 289Mc may actually be from 288Mc (leading to spontaneous-fission, prompt or delayed, by the daughters 284Nh and 280Rg). This seems to suggest that the element 117 chains that feed into them may really be from 292Ts, just as you say. (And I think these new results should be put into the article!) Double sharp (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Now it seems to me that the alleged 277Mt is in fact 276Hs, from ...280Rg(EC)280Ds(α)276Hs(SF).Burzuchius (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
That seems quite plausible. I was wondering for a while how 277Mt could have such a low fission barrier in spite of the odd proton, but if it were 276Hs there is no problem (like the known 282Cn, 284Cn, and 284Fl). Double sharp (talk) 03:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
In a new 2017 paper on the 248Cm+48Ca reaction the team at RIKEN has detected 7 new decay chains: one of them appears to start at 292Lv and then alpha decay all the way to 280Ds (t1/2 = 6.7 ms, using ln 2 as a conversion factor from their provided lifetime). The partial SF half-life theoretically expected for this nuclide (12 ms) is significantly shorter than the alpha half-life (811 ms): still, both are short, so an alpha decay to 276Hs still seems within plausibility if 280Ds is being populated in the moscovium experiments via electron capture of 280Rg.
There is also a report of a possible chain in the 2n channel leading to 294Lv, fissioning at 286Cn. This last nuclide should have a significant alpha branching, and the half-lives observed seem to make this assignment plausible for some of those 294Ts chains. Now that we have passed N = 176, EC should be on a par with alpha decay as a decay mode; we now need to be able to observe those characteristic X-ray lines more than ever. This new RIKEN experiment is an excellent step in the direction of going for new neutron-rich isotopes with low beam energies and sorting out this mess; hopefully soon we shall get cross-bombardments for Ts and Mc, as well as clarifications on the as yet uncharacterised 292Ts and 295Ts isotopes. The latter can be made in the 2n channel (kind of like going for 290Fl and 294Lv); the former is perhaps best made when going for its parent 296119. (Oh, 291Ts would clarify things too, and even lighter ones might be made via 243Am+50Ti.) Double sharp (talk) 07:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Some of the short decay chains have rather long lifetimes and I would almost be tempted to say that some chains assigned to 293Ts might have 294Ts as the correct assignment. The premature termination of the chain before it reaches Db would then be explained by EC branches in these odd-odd nuclei leading to 294Lv or perhaps its daughters, before reaching the area of SF instability around N=170 at 282Ds or 278Hs. But this is all OR until we reexamine these reactions and get more data - hopefully soon including EC detection. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 03:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, one problem with that is that it seems to necessitate the production of 290Mc in a 1n reaction. Such is the trouble with OR. I suppose we'll have to wait for more reactions to be conducted in this region (maybe also involving future E119) to get real, sourced answers. Double sharp (talk) 04:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

"penultimate element of the 7th period of the periodic table"[edit]

@NameNameLikeWha: Please have a look at the periodic table, I don't know what makes you think tennessine is the last in the seventh period when oganesson is still in the seventh period. And in case you're wondering, "period" refers to the row not the column.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

"@Jasper Deng: Thank you for pointing that out. I had misread the article and thought it had said "group," not "period." I apologize for causing you inconvenience, and I understand now.--NameNameLikeWha (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)"

Restoring toponyms[edit]

Tennessee -> Tennessee, United States

The point is that not everyone knows where Tennessee is. Of course, this would be negligible if we were talking about some American-specific topic, but this one isn't. But this is actually the case, among native speakers, too: consider people in India or Africa; you can't expect them to know where the state is. Is this the U.S. or Canada? Or is it Australia? Also, I believe it is best to keep places described all in the same way.

Lesnoy, Sverdlovsk Oblast -> Lesnoy, Sverdlovsk Oblast

I see no benefit here. We lose a wikilink with a map in the flashcard for desktop users for what? So, I believe, many people won't know where "Lesnoy, Sverdlovsk Oblast" is, but it helps if they see a flashcard with a map of the region.

I genuinely see no benefits from removing these links; quite the opposite.--R8R (talk) 09:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tennessine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)