Talk:Spectrum (arena)

Philadelphia Municipal Stadium

According to Chapter XXX ("MUNICIPAL STADIUM") on pages 419–423 of the Exposition's 520-page official record entitled "The Sesqui-Centennial International Exposition" by E.L Austin (Director-in-Chief) and Odell Hauser (Director of Publicity) published in 1929, the official name of the stadium when it opened in 1926 was "Philadelphia Municipal Stadium" and not "Sesqui-Centennial Stadium." Centpacrr 04:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"The Municipal Stadium erected within the grounds of the Sesqui-Centennial International Exposition and the scene of many of its most colorful events will long remain not only as a memorial of the Exposition but as a substanial contribution to the facilities of the city for staging large outdoor events and athletic games." "The Sesqui-Centennial International Exposition" by E.L Austin and Odell Hauser; Chapter XXX ("MUNICIPAL STADIUM") p. 419 Centpacrr 10:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WachSpectlogo.jpg

Image:WachSpectlogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrestling content

The wrestling content in this article is all but pointless and should be allowed to be removed, regardless of the objections of wrestling fan kids who put it into every artcle they can and try bulling those who object to it. Paul Harald Kaspar (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The content about guys who act like they're fighting is beneath sections on people who can throw a ball and people who can hit a puck (and fight). I see no reason why the wrestling content is any less important than the basketball or hockey.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, and as I had mentioned before, its not like we are talking about some Backyard Wrestling Group, its the WWF/E, which is defently something. I can understand taking out something listing every house show and televised Monday Night Raw/Smackdown (though making note that such events happen are ok), but Pay-Per-Views, and really, large orginizations like the WWF/E, WCW, etc. holding events there are ok. Even if most of the article was wrestling in general in the arena, and the rest being very little about hockey/basketball/whatever sport is held in there, I would belive it to still be acceptable, its just that the wrestling aspect has been covered better than anything else.

I also do find the argument however, of wrestling being nothing more than pointless as nothing more than a bad argument. What if there is one thing that Group A considered ok, and Person B, regardless of what most everyone says, claims something to be pointless? That would mean a whole lot of stuff being taken off.

At the least, I would agree with at the most, maybe a note saying that wrestling events were held there, but to delete it because its pointless?

And from what I have said, this is coming from someone (me) who does find wrestling, at least lately, to be nothing more than garbage, but I do at least respect something being mentioned about something being held there, if it is at least notable.

Sorry for being a bit long winded.Whammies Were Here 03:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If the wrestling kids want to add wrestling content to every article imaginable, maybe they need to start their own little wrestling Wiki and leave the general-interest encyclopedia alone. Paul Harald Kaspar (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:CIVIL. You haven't even responded to my question as to why the "hockey kids" and the "basketball kids" get to have their information in the article, but the "wrestling kids" don't. --Prosfilaes (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Basketball and hockey are sports. Professional wrestling is not. As so many in your generation are saying these days, thank you, drive through. Paul Harald Kaspar (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's try this again; please read WP:CIVIL. Whether or not wrestling is a sport is irrelevant; what is relevant is WP:NOTE, which asks merely that "it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Which it has. It's actually more of a form of acting, which has a several-thousand-year history of being more notable than sports.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's try this again; basketball and hockey are sports, professional wrestling is not. Pro wrestling is as relevant to an article regarding a sporting venue as a circus would be. A general-interest encyclopedia suffers when niche content is inserted willy-nilly by fans of said content. Paul Harald Kaspar (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

What happens at a sporting venue is relevant to that sporting venue. If circus events regularly took place there, or a major circus event took place there, then it should be in the article. I note you didn't remove the section on music events that take place there. Wikipedia suffers when people go through removing anything on a subject because they don't like and attack anyone who supports it as being a "fan kid".--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia suffers when "fan kids" run roughshod on a general interest encyclopedia and add inconsequential and fringe-interest content. Nothing any of the fan kids has said in any way justifies wrestling content being strong-armed into Wikipedia articles by zealous followers of said pseudo-sport. Paul Harald Kaspar (talk) 22:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've never edited on wrestling before on Wikipedia, or any other sport, but hey, if that's what it's going to take, I think the two of us can strong-arm you over this issue.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Admitting that you are not editing in good faith probably won't help your cause, genius. Paul Harald Kaspar (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say that he is not editing in good faith? Whammies Were Here 01:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, as has been said, this is not like the WWF/E was running some house show, and the article was giving very detailed information about it, what was on there I belive (and most anybody else will belive) was a fair amount of info without going overboard on it. If your gonna delete that on the premise that since we are talking about a sports venue, that non-sports venues should not be in the article, then why not, for example, delete the music part on it too. Whammies Were Here 01:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I am editing in good faith; I'm merely tired of dealing with someone who fails to follow WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, and continues to delete text from an article against consensus.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The "consensus" is a couple of accounts that quite possibly belong to the same wrestling kid, backed up by a brand-new admin who has a talk page full of complaints regarding his conduct since being given admin status. That's less a "consensus" and more of a typical Wikipedia strongarming. As your murderous hero Chris Benoit was fond of saying, "Prove me wrong". Paul Harald Kaspar (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If you believe that I and User:PYLrulz are the same person, you can use Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. But we've both been here for years, and our differing writing styles and contribution histories should dismiss any real suspicion that we are socks.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I dont know what else I can say. If your gonna keep on resorting to name calling and outlandish claims, I dont think having the issue being mediated will even help, but I am doing just that. Hopefully we can be able to get this issue solved soon. Whammies Were Here 23:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason why wrestling should be omitted from the article. Looks like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur. I personally don't get professionally wrestling. And I have, in the past, extinguished overly zealous and overly inclusive categories listing every bumf*** arena that hosted a wrestling event. However it obviously a notable form of entertainment and as a transplant into the Philadelphia area I can understand the city's ties to it. If reliable sources can be cited (and I'm certain they can), then the Spectrum's role as a flagship venue is certainly notable. .ccwaters (talk) 04:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I still have yet to see anything justifying including wrestling content in this or any other sporting venue article. Looks like a case of WP:ILIKEIT. Paul Harald Kaspar (talk) 04:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Major televised events drawing large crowds in person and large audiences on TV are notable and should be noted in the article. You've yet to justify why this is different from the music content, which is also not a sport.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The wrestling section is just as legitimate as the music section. Please don't delete content unless there is a consensus that it doesn't belong. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 07:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

If a "consensus" was required to edit or remove content on Wikipedia, nothing would ever be edited or deleted. It's sad when wrestling kids and their friends have to make things up. Paul Harald Kaspar (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You have yet to cite any relevant Wikipedia policies relating to removal of the content. I have not interest in wrestling whatsoever, but I will enforce Wikipedia policies. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You have yet to cite any relevant Wikipedia policies relating to why it would be wrong to remove non-notable information regarding a fringe form of "entertainment" from an article about a sporting venue. Paul Harald Kaspar (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. WWE/WWF/whatever-you-call-it easily meets WP:Notability standards, regardless of whether you consider it a sport or theater/entertainment. I'm confident that most editors, wrestling fans or not, would agree. As I said before, I'm not a wrestling fan by any stretch of the imagination, but I don't pretend that wrestling doesn't have a large following and isn't notable. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Paul- I don't like wrestling. ccwaters (talk) 04:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't much care for being accused of "blanking" or other vandalism, especially when non-notable content is removed from Wikipedia on an hourly basis. I had no idea that some people take so seriously content related to their little hobby, but harassing a disagreeing editor with "warnings" does not seem to be what Wikipedia is about. Paul Harald Kaspar (talk) 05:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again, you fail to cite any relevant policy to support deletion of the content. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 06:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll repeat myself once again - It's not notable to insert pro wrestling trivia into every article possible. There is a PW Wikia that these kids could use to their hearts' content instead of filling a general-interest encyclopedia with "facts" about their hobby. The last time I checked, it wasn't a required step to "cite any relevant policy" to remove non-notable content from an article. Paul Harald Kaspar (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph simply acknowledges that major wrestling events took place at the arena, much like the sections on other sports and entertainment. It's as notable a form of entertainment as the other entries. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay I'm just going to throw my 2 cents in. I stumbled upon this issue after I found Paul removing wrestling events from the RCA Dome page. First off I'm just going to make this blatantly clear; I hate wrestling so I cannot be accused of bias towards it. Anyway Paul whether you agree or not these events are notable and should remain in the article. Just because you obviously have something against wrestling does not make it ok to continue removing this content. HoosierState^Talk 22:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm adding my opinion because I have to. Honestly, I am offended by the wrestling kids etc comments. The problem is people here are comparing wrestling to sport. I am a wrestling fan, and take wrestling for what it is, a highly notable, big business entertainment industry. If we notate in arena articles major concerts that occured there, it is not unheard of to add relevant information over a major event that took place at the arena. LessThanClippers (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

And it turns out that Paul was a sockpuppet (which I find extremly hilarious, since he did try and claim that me and one other user had some kind of sockpuppetry going on). I guess we can consider the issue dead now, and just determine that it was some former user that was just trying to raise some trouble. Whammies Were Here 22:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if another user popped up with a similar editing agenda (and claims of harassment from the notorious "wikiclique"). If that happens, feel free to post to the admin noticeboard and reference the Chadbryant sockpuppet case. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

10–4, over and out :) Whammies Were Here 22:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Minor Edit

Hey - in the first line, there's a missing closing bracket (I think) after the years it was called First Union Spectrum - it closes the years, but not the formerly known as statement. I'd probably change the overall enclosure to a comma, like "blah blah, formerly known as First Union Center(year-year)," but it's protected.

If I'm missing something, sorry. - David DiBattiste (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

another edit...Guns n Roses never played the Spectrum in 1992. They played there 3 nights in 1991, and other years as opening acts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.224.33.75 (talk) 14:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Demolition of the Spectrum is complete, and now the rubble is being cleared away. I think because demolition began in 2010, we should list it as being demolished in 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.237.19 (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Article name - back to "The Spectrum"?

Now that the arena is closed (and eventually will be demolished), should the article name go back to "The Spectrum".. either now or after it's razed? We can't use a "current" name if the venue doesn't exist, and the no-sponsor-name is the most commonly used and remembered. Additionally: when the naming rights to the Wachovia Center change (presumably to the Wells Fargo Center, but that's irrelevant here), what would we do with the name of this article? I realzie that bringing this up now may be a bit premature, but it's inevitably going to come up. Just some food for thought... Me Three (talk to me) 14:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I see the article was moved some time ago, but historical references to the venue refer to it simply as "Spectrum". (If preceded by "the", it is not capitalized). I've moved the article to Spectrum (arena) to comply with WP:DAB, and updated the intro and main logo to refer to its most commonly used name. Me Three (talk to me) 15:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I recall the arena being referred to as "the Philadelphia Spectrum" for quite some time (and our article's lead contains this name). Should we rename the article Philadelphia Spectrum (thereby eliminating the need for parenthetical disambiguation)? —David Levy 15:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The "Philadelphia Spectrum" was never a formal name for the building, but just something sometimes used by boxing and wrestling ring announcers. Prior to the purchase of naming rights in the mid 1990s by Corestates Bank (later First Union, Wachovia, and Wells Fargo as those banks were merged and their names changed), the name of the building was just the "Spectrum" with nothing else. Centpacrr (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

"tfc"

Numerous edits, of varying size, are being made with the edit description "tfc". By looking at the editor's other edits, it seems this is meant to mean "tweaks for clarity". However, many of them are simply reverting my edits. I'll take these one at a time until some clarity emerges here.

First up: this edit] was merely undoing my removal of the redundant phrase "then remaining" from the overly complicated sentence, "Once the centerpiece of the city's expansive South Philadelphia Sports Complex, by the time it was closed in 2009 the Spectrum was the oldest of the four facilities then remaining of the two indoor arenas and four outdoor stadiums which were built at the South end of Broad Street between 1926 and 2004. "Without that phrase, the main portion of that sentence is "by the time it was closed, (it) was the oldest of the four facilities" Take, for instance, George H. W. Bush. Today he is the oldest former president of the U.S. Not "today he is the oldest former president of the U.S. still living", today he is the oldest former president of the U.S. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The term "then remaining" is NOT redundant but clarifies that four of the six buildings which had been built at the complex had already been demolished when the Spectrum was closed. Centpacrr (talk) 16:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

You mean two of the six. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Breaking it down further, the sentence is overwhelmingly complex: "Once the centerpiece of the city's expansive South Philadelphia Sports Complex, by the time it was closed in 2009 the Spectrum was the oldest of the four then remaining facilities of the two indoor arenas and four outdoor stadiums which were built at the South end of Broad Street between 1926 and 2004." Here are the thoughts expressed in that sentence:

• • The Spectrum was once the centerpiece of the Complex.
  • When it closed, it was the oldest of the four facilities there.
  • Two indoor and four outdoor stadiums were built there.
  • The Complex is at the South end of Broad Street.
  • Facilities were built there between 1926 and 2004.

Additionally:

• • "expansive" is POV and, I might ask, relative to what? Meadowlands?
  • "indoor arena" is redundant as arenas are, by definition, indoor ("outdoor stadiums" isn't quite redundant because of the recent use of the term for large arenas.
  • A good bit of this info (and of the remainder of the section) goes pretty far afield of the Spectrum, discussing details of the other facilities and the rest of the South Philadelphia Sports Complex. This info belongs in those other articles.

I propose replacing this sentence with simple, on-topic, declarative sentences:

"The Spectrum was once the centerpiece of the South Philadelphia Sports Complex. When it closed, The Spectrum was the oldest of the four facilities there."

• The number of facilities built over the history of the South Philadelphia Sports Complex is covered, as it should be, at South Philadelphia Sports Complex
• The location of the Spectrum is given later. The location of the overall complex belongs at South Philadelphia Sports Complex, much as articles about City Hall discuss its location, not details about the location of the city.
• Other facilities built at the South Philadelphia Sports Complex are discussed in South Philadelphia Sports Complex.

- SummerPhD (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The Spectrum, its history, and its cultural place in the sports and entertainment life of Philadelphia does not exist in a vacuum. The information I have provided about its relationship to the rest of the Sports Complex in which it was located, and the history of the grounds which the Complex occupies, is relevant to understanding the place both have had in the cultural history of the city. Some of this information can, or course, also be found in other Wikipedia articles, but that does not mean that it is not appropriate here as well. I originally added this section to this article on January 1, 2007 -- more than four years ago -- to provide a contextual precis to aid readers in understanding these relationships without their having to rummage through a variety of other articles to figure it out on their own. I also contributed this material from the perspective of one who personally attended, covered, wrote about, officiated, and/or broadcast more than 2,000 events held at the Spectrum between 1967 and 2009 as well as almost another 750 events at the Wells Fargo Center that replaced it.

Also "arenas" are not "by definition" always indoor facilities. See for instance Harvey's Outdoor Arena, an open air concert venue located at Lake Tahoe, NV. Outdoor equine show riding facilities are also referred to as "arenas". A Google search for "outdoor arena" also returns well over one million hits. Centpacrr (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. How about the proposed change to simple declarative sentences: "The Spectrum was once the centerpiece[vague] of the South Philadelphia Sports Complex. When it closed, The Spectrum was the oldest of the four facilities there."? (We'll have to get back to the off-topic material.) - SummerPhD (talk) 23:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest. I have, however, explained above my reasons why I first wrote the section more than four years ago (January, 2007), why I consider all of the information I included to be not at all "off topic" but essential to understand the Spectrum's connection to Sports Complex, and how all of that relates to the sports and entertainment culture of the city. I don't see any reason to change it further. Centpacrr (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Who wrote it and when are moot points. The sentence is needlessly complex, hard to comprehend and should be fixed. Additionally, your edit summaries are less than descriptive. This edit carries the summary "mladj". I'm not sure what you intend that to mean "Remove helpful link to related article, remove cite request without comment, return implication that the Spectrum was moved at some point, add unsourced claim that the Well Fargo center is the Spectrum's replacement, change a few other words for whatever reason." That's a remarkable amount expalained by those five letters.

I'm returning the {{cn}} tag. If you wish to remove it, please add a cite for the claim, remove the claim or explain why you feel the fact does not require a citation.

I'm returning the Wikilink. If you feel it is out of place or otherwise incorrect, please explain.

I'm again clarifying the plainly absurd implication that the Spectrum "originally sat" somewhere other than where it is.

Thanks! - 01:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• While edit summaries are not actually required, I often use abbreviations (as do you with the "c" you used here which I presume to mean "comment") as interim notes to myself while I am doing an extended series of edits.
• The wikilink to "South Philadelphia Sports Complex" was removed as redundant because the term is already wikilinked earlier in the article.
• "Originally sat" referred not to the spot where the Spectrum "sat" with relation to itself, but in relation to JFK Stadium. The Spectrum "originally sat" north of the stadium until 1992; after 1996 it "sat" north of the Center. Centpacrr (talk) 03:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries are not "required" but using them is certainly good practice. They are helpful in explaining what you are doing to an article (which cannot be explained in the article itself and is often not obvious). On a talk page, where I do use "c" for comment, or "r" for reply, the edit itself is an explanation -- a difference which should be obvious. That we have a standard template for use with editors who do not use edit summaries should make it clear that it is, in general, strongly encouraged. I strongly encourage you to use meaningful, descriptive edit summaries.

The Spectrum always sat in the same spot. "Originally sat" blurs that. Your repeated objection to any change to this seems odd to me. I see you have now changed my suggested wording to have it "overlooking" JFK. Honestly, it's beginning to seem that you feel this is your section as virtually all changes made or suggested are rejected... - SummerPhD (talk) 22:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• As I explained above, the abbreviations I used in some edit summaries are intended as interim notes to myself when I am engaged in the process of doing an extended series of small, often transitory edits, over a period of hours or days. I have been contributing actively to Wikipedia for more than five years and have always use edit summaries extensively including quite detailed ones especially when I have finished with with a long series of edits. In over 9,000 contributions that I have made since September, 2006, however, you are the first (and only) editor to ever even bring up this subject to me let alone complain about it. I would appreciate it if in the future you would please assume good faith in this area.
• I am puzzled by your suggestion that I have "objected" to any changes that you have suggested. I have, in fact, made a great many changes based on your comments such as removing "centerpiece", "originally sat" (which I also explained to you), deleted some material on the history of Municipal Stadium, etc. (What your apparent problem with "overlooking" is escapes me, however.)
• If you were to look at my overall edit history over five+ years, you will see that I primarily work on a relatively small number of articles, but do so over long periods of time (often years). The subjects of the articles I work on are ones on which I have particular interest and expertise such as ice hockey (in which I have worked professionally for more than 40 years as an executive, writer, and broadcaster, and about which I have written three books), railroad history (about which I have also written and/or edited four books and have a 10,000+ page website), aviation (I am also a pilot), transportation, and various topics relating to American history about which I have also written professionally. The Spectrum is certainly one of those areas in which I have great interest, experience, and knowledge having attended, officiated, covered & written about, and/or broadcast more than 2,000 events in the building between 1967 and 2009. (I have been editing and contributing to the Spectrum article since late 2006.)
• The vast majority of my contributions to WP are in the form of researching, expanding, and adding new material (including many images of relevant artifacts, documents, and other historic materials in my collections) and sections to the articles which I choose to concentrate on developing. On the other hand, it appears to me that much of what you do on WP is to delete and/or revert the contributions made by others, post various templates and/or comments on other editors' talk pages, and seek to have articles deleted altogether from Wikipedia. While this is a useful activity as there are far too many vandals and other purveyors of unhelpful postings on WP, I again urge you to assume a little more good faith in the process.
• That being said, thank you for your interest in the Spectrum article. Your comments have helped me make my contributions to this entry better and more focused. Centpacrr (talk) 03:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Nickname

As a former resident of the Delaware Valley, and a habitue of many an event during the 70s, I can attest that nearly everyone I knew referred to the building as "the Rectum". Gimelgort 14:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gimelgort (talk • contribs)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Spectrum (arena). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081023230911/http://www.philly.com:80/inquirer/columnists/michael_klein/20080918_Inqlings__Spectrum_last_blasts__Deafening__of_course.html to http://www.philly.com/inquirer/columnists/michael_klein/20080918_Inqlings__Spectrum_last_blasts__Deafening__of_course.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090130122510/http://www.philly.com:80/dailynews/sports/20090129_Nice_parting_gift_for_Spectrum__Villanova_beats_No__3_Pitt.html to http://www.philly.com/dailynews/sports/20090129_Nice_parting_gift_for_Spectrum__Villanova_beats_No__3_Pitt.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090317065947/http://www.philly.com:80/philly/sports/sixers/20090314_Sixers_edge_Bulls_for_thrilling_Spectrum_finale.html to http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/sixers/20090314_Sixers_edge_Bulls_for_thrilling_Spectrum_finale.html

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

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)