Talk:Xoloitzcuintle/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Xolo mistaken for Chupacabra

Here in Albuquerque, there's a wild canine running loose on the northwest side of town. Local CBS affiliate KRQE made a big deal about it, running ads all week "is there a chupacabra loose in Albuquerque?"

http://www.krqe.com/Global/story.asp?S=7334863

They came to the conclusion that it was probably a Xolo mix or a coyote with mange. --68.84.150.36 03:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Say what?

"Laws concerning Animal Rights in the country controls this situation harshly."

I'm not sure I know what the author was going for there. Can anyone help clarify? --Leodmacleod (talk) 08:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

What....?

I deleted this because it didn't seem to make any sense:

(following a comment about socialization and training): , rarely attained by the specific Boucher strain of this, or any species. The Klyne strain, however proves to be a more intelligent, complex, and attractive branch of this, or any strain

If this makes sense to Xolo enthusiasts, feel free to revert; if not, does anyone know what it does mean? --Worldwalker (talk) 01:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Another Chupacabra case

I think another one of these dogs has been mistaken for the legendary El Chupacabra. Video link BrenMan 94 (talk) 23:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

EXACTLY. There have been several pictures and video, and it's just this dog. Nothing remarkable at all.

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.153.38 (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Genetics

If hairlessness is a recessive trait controlled by a single gene for which there are two alleles, one dominant and one recessive, as the article makes it sound, the description of what offspring to expect isn't right: coated to coated (hh x hh) will only produce coated, as the article says, but coatless to coatless could produce just coatless (HH x HH, Hh x HH) or it could produce any combination of coated and coatless (Hh x Hh). Does anybody know more about the hairlessness gene? Audiosqueegee (talk) 05:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The article makes the following claim: "According to standard genetic ratios, one out of every four puppies should be born coated." Either the article is incorrect or there is missing information. Breeding coatless to coatless will only result in a 25% coated population assuming that both parents are heterozygous (Hh). A few possibilities jump to mind: 1) HH don't exist, as the mutation is fatal when homozygous; this would ensure that all crossings of coatless are indeed of heterozygous parents, though the result would be 33% coated (as a 2:1 ratio of Hh to hh would be the norm), and the statement is inaccurate, but correct in implying that all crossings have a chance of producing coated pups; 2) HH are infertile, allowing 25% of all successful litters to be coated pups, as only heterozygous coatless can mate, making the claim correct; 3) HH are fertile (and thus coatless crossing can occur with no chance of coated pups provided one parent is homozygous coatless), and the statement is incorrect. Anyone have any idea if the HH is viable/fertile? --Synaptophysin (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Of the options you presented, 1) is the correct one. I'll update the article. – Ocolon (talk) 11:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Tijuana Football Team

HDear Wikipedia, Tijuana Mexico has a Soccer team named after this dog. I would add someting to the page, but I haven't trained myself how. Can you do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.172.177 (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I've added a sentence about the team in the trivia section of the article. Thanks – Ocolon (talk) 23:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Move Request

User:vanzetti requested this article be moved to Mexican hairless dog, since Mexican Hairless is itself not the official name of the breed. Are there any objections? Respond with Support or Oppose.. ACG 03:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. It is "Mexican Hairless" for KC [1]; it's "Mexican Hairless Dog" for FCI; for AKC, UKC, and CKC, it's "Xoloitzcuintli"--I think that almost no one except aficianados of the breed will think of the latter name first; I think that most folks will think simply "Mexican Hairless" first and I don't know that there's an overwhelming reason to go with FCI rather than KC/common terminology. (Yeah, FCI represents lots of countries, but I'll bet most of them don't refer to the MH as "Mexican Hairless" but have their own terms for it...) Elf | Talk 04:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree Support : There is a difference between oficial terms and terms that are used in common language. In al structures all over the world concerning dogs, also in Wikipedia, FCI rules are the rules to look at. In an official, worldwide encyclopedia, my bet is, to use the mostly used oficial name, worldwide. Which is Mexican Hairless Dog. Other names can be used to refer to, but not as title?

On the other hand, the name Mexican Hairless can lead to confusion. Mexican Hairless does relate to many other things as only dogs. Imho an encyclopedia should use terms that not lead to confusion.

If we look at the origins of the word, that derives from Mexico the names used for this breed are "Xoloitzquintle" or Perro Sin Pelo de Mexico". The latter means just Mexican Hairless Dog. It isn't "Sin Pelo de Mexico".

Should we look to changing the name in : or Xoloitzquintle or Mexican Hairless Dog? (this previously unsigned vote was by Vanzetti)

Re: Xoloitzcuintli: I vehemently oppose renaming it to this primarily because generated links to that article with current wiki technology prevent us from being able to change its appearance to "Mexican Hairless". So, e.g., it would show up in Category pages as "X...." and I still argue that 99.99% of the people in the english-speaking world wouldn't have a clue what it was and would look under "mexican hairless" in the list and, not finding it, be confused (at best). It's like "oophorectomy" showing up in category pages for medical-related issues. I've been around dogs and had four of them spayed over the years and I'd never heard the term until I finally found the article under this obscure name. The goal isn't to hide info from people, no matter what the "proper scientific name." Elf | Talk 17:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm cross-posting a notice that you're asking for a vote at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dog breeds and Talk:List of dog breeds. Elf | Talk 17:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Elf. Don't you think that 99.99% of the people don't even think at looking for an Mexican Hairless Dog? The search function in this wiki is great, and can handle a lot. So I think it wouldn't be a problem. Xoloitzquintle is a very well known name in the Hairless Dog scene, there is nothing scientific about it. Altough I could understand some rather would like to see Mexican Hairless Dog. And I dont oppose against that. I only oppose against the name "Mexican Hairless", because name should be clear and easy to understand. And Mexican Hairless could lead to confusion. Besides the fact that it's not an official name in the showing scene.

Jp (this previously unsigned comment was by Vanzetti)

Weak Support : honestly, i'm 50/50 on the issue. Google says that a search for ("mexican hairless" and dog) has about 45,000 (54,000 - 9000) hits and ("mexican hairless dog") has about 9000 hits. Sounds like mexican hairless is somewhat more popular online. FCI calls it MHD and the KCUK calls it MH. It's a toss up. There are two reasons I'm weak support as opposed to neutral is that I think "mexican hairless dog" sounds a little better, and that if there turns out to be some other mexican hairless thing like Mexican Hairless Guy :), we'd end up with a disambg statment on the dog page or someone would start arguing that this article should be renamed to Mexican Hairless (dog) (and I really of hate that). So, why not claim a nicer title and get the move done now. The only other negative aspect I see is the work in moving it - If we get consensus either way, I'm willing to do the move, put a redirect from Mexican Hairless, and all the double-redirect fixing work myself. If some other mexican hairless thing comes along, then the redirect page can be a disambg page. - Trysha ^(talk) 22:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. In that case we can rename it Xoloitzcuintle, its official name. The Germans do. --Vizcarra 18:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Re:To me Xoloitzquintle is fine. But Elf was thinking another way.

For what I know about the Mexican Hairless Dog in the UK, it isn't regognized oficialy by any KC. So even if the KCUK has a name for it, it wouldn't make much sence. Or are I wrongly informed about that? ~~jp~~ --Vanzetti

Result

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 05:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to comment that the breed Xoloitzquintle, now registered in several kennel clubs is a name made up for the purpose of renaming Mexican Hairless dogs by the original people who bred them and set the standard for the breed club(s) for entering registries. It is a breed name, not a type name. Mexican Hairless dogs are a type of dog still found unregistered in Mexico and the SW US. They are not of the Xolo breed, but they preexisted and still exist outside the registry. These dogs are often short legged and sometimes out at the elbow. This was the type used in the Aztec food markets as reported by at least one early Spanish account. Diego Rivera painted these dogs over and over in many murals and owned some, all of the short legged more stocky variety. Even though it may rile some, the hairless gene was used to create an elegant, refined dog of great beauty, compared to the average Mexican hairless; it did not come that way. ~~Quetlin~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quetlin (talk • contribs) 22:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Xoloitzcuintli as food, etc.

Vanzeti, The reason I keep reverting the sentence about Xoloitzcuintli being kept as pets is that it is not sufficient to say that they "are believed" to be kept as pets by the Aztecs, you need a source. In other words, who believes this? At least provide a source for this. Otherwise it reads as your opinion. Also I have reverted the sentence about a lot of people currently believing they have healing powers. I am from Mexico, and have travelled extensively in rural parts of the country. While the article states that Xoloitzcuintli are still consumed as food, I have never ever come across Xoloitzcuintli meat in any market. The Aztecs primarily raised two types of animals for meat, turkeys and Xoloitzcuintli. After the conquest turkey replaced Xoloitzcuintli for the most part. Therefoe, it is quite incorrect to say "many" people still believe them to have healing powers, again, if you want to leave this in please provide a reliable source that states this. Finally, the part about them having "alien (gray)" powers is complete nonsense and does not belong in an encyclopedia. Pretzelogic 00:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC) Though I disagree mexican hairless dog has any alien powers In what way you are a specialist in Xoloitzquintle?

I talked to a lot of people in Mexico, and the first thing they come up with, talking about xolo's is the healing powers of the breed. Therefore it is correct to say, many people believe in this. It is just not some people.

Fair enough I don't know about the alien aspect. I do believe 40-50 percent mexicans believe in UFO's,there are a decent amount of sightings in Mexico City . About the Xolo eating, I don't know. And as I'm well I didn't change this. It seems to me a bizzare thing, and cannot believe it either.

As for the pets thing. It's a well known fact that dogs like the xolo (hairless) didn't have problems like flees and parasites. Therefore it doesn't seem unlogic to me that these dogs might have been used as pets. It is enough to say this, like this. Btw, I'm not the one who placed this article, And didn't wrote this, so it never can be my opinion.

Please be aware that a lot of other things in this article are said, that can be assumptions as well. But it are logic assumptions.

If you really are an expert on Xoloitzquintle, please let me know. I know a lot of them, but don't claim myself an expert. vanzetti 08:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on Xoloitzquintli, but I grew up and lived in Mexico for most of my life, and know quite a bit about pre-columbian cultures. However, you need not even be an expert in pre-columbian cultures to know Xoloitzquintli were raised as food, all you need is one visit to the National Museum of Anthropology and History in Mexcio city and there you will learn that Xoloitzquintli were raised and traded as food. This is also mentioned in the early Spanish descriptions during the conquest. From what I can tell, there is no anthropological evidence that they were kept as pets, I think the concept of a "pet" is fairly modern, no matter how friendly and flea-free these dogs may be. I may be wrong on this last fact, but no mater how logical something sounds, it really needs a source, since this is still someone's random conjecture. And yes there are a lot of other random conjectures in the article. As far as how widespread the belief that they have healing powers, your sampling of a few Xoloitzquintli lovers does not necessarily constitute a majority. I bet you if you take a random poll of Mexicans, most people won't agree. It all sounds like some "new-age" nonsense incorrectly ascribed to the Aztecs, like the people who climb up the pyramids with their little quartz crystals during Summer solstice. However, "some" and "many" are all relative terms, so I guess it is OK to leave it as such until we can find a more authoritative source either way. Pretzelogic 14:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess you are correct about the pet thing, I just read that Moctezuma II apparently kept over 100 Xoloitzquintli as pets, however it was more for religious reasons rather than companionship as we currently think of. Pretzelogic 15:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC Did you that in Vietnam,grossly enough,lower class Vietnamese people will actually eat dog!! The Japanese,Korean,Chinese also considered dog food,is that weird or what.

I've been reading America's First Cuisines and I can find no humming and hawing about whether Aztecs ate dogs or not. According to Spanish accounts cited in that book, there was no question that they did serve dogs. The Spanish even tried them and found them to be quite tasty. I've stated this more clearly in the article, as the previous version tried to muddle the issue based on modern conceptions on the appropriateness of eating dog. What's really odd about it, though, is that it was immediately followed by a link that actually confirms that dogs were raised for food.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Concerning the "healing powers" of this dogs... (I found to my surprise, being Mexican, that it is Written Xoloitzcuintli. I had always known the name as Xolotzcuintle, that is, no i after the second o). I heard (still hear) from my father recounting that their high body temperature was used as "therapy" for rheumatitis. Anyway, I have no authoritative literature to support this. Although the term "healing powers" does sound esoteric. Ha! All the best, Aldozamudio

The myth that hairless dogs have a higher body temperature than dogs with fur is incorrect. Probably this misconception stems from the fact that a dogs fur insulates both ways. Ie if you shaved off all the fur of a dog with fur, it would feel just as warm to the touch as a hairless dogs. So, while the body temperature may not be any higher than any other dog, they feel warmer to the touch, since you're touching the skin, and not the hair.

As for having healing powers, miscellaneous ways of applying heat(water bottles, heat pads) to alleviate arthritis etc. is well recognized. It therefore makes sense logically, that the heat from the dog can help alleviate some of the pains from such conditions. So, while the dog does not possess some sort of mystical healing powers, they can be therapeutic for persons suffering from rheumatism-like illnesses. Jerazol 15:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Now the article contradicts itself. Did Aztecs raise these dogs for meat or didn't they? Destlund (talk) 12:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 05 December 2014

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Mexican Hairless Dog → Xoloitzcuintli – The AKC, UKC, and CKC recognize the breed as Xoloitzcuintli and it is more commonly known as such. Relisted -- Calidum 06:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC) Xochiztli (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. Common name. The British Kennel Club still calls it a Mexican Hairless Dog. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Support. Common name. If multiple kennel clubs use Xoloitzcuintli, that one uses Mexican Hairless Dog instead does not make Mexican Hairless Dog the common name. Additionally, a quick search of Google Books suggests Xoloitzcuintli is more often used in printed sources (3050 vs. 1830).Egsan Bacon (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

If you search for "'Mexican hairless' -cat" instead of "Mexican hairless dog," you get 5990, and they are all about the dog as far as I can tell. Here's the Ngram. Dekimasuよ! 07:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

A better Ngram with both "hairless" and "Hairless" coming out on top. Dekimasuよ! 21:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

That's worth bringing up, but I would say that it suggests that it supports saying that the common name is "Mexican Hairless", but it does not support saying that the common name is "Mexican Hairless Dog". Here's an n-gram showing that "Mexican Hairless" was, at least as of 2008, still a bit ahead of "Xoloitzcuintli", but that both were well ahead of "Mexican Hairless Dog". So we have one basis for saying the common name is "Mexican Hairless", and we have one basis for saying it is "Xoloitzcuintli", but we don't have any for saying it is "Mexican Hairless Dog", and the only (formal?) oppose !vote is basing said opposition on the name not being what the breed is called by one organization. Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Support. Majority of kennel clubs use Xolo. --TKK! bark with me! 22:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- By which you surely mean "Xoloitzcuintli", I assume? "Xolo" is a nickname for the breed among its fancier, like "meezer" for Siamese cat. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 11:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Support per actual common name; a hold-out kennel club on a different continent from where the breed originated and is most numerous doesn't overrule the evidence of the rest of them. It's also a superior article name to "Mexican hairless dog" for some other reasons, since it's less ambiguous (it can't be mistaken for a dog-shaving fad in Mexico), and less apt to be confused with a species (English unfortunately uses "dog" both for various dog breeds and for several non-domesticated species of canid). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 11:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - I'm not convinced by this one, from a cursory glance I think the two names are reasonably equal in terms of common usage. Doing a Google book search for Mexican hairless without Xoloitzcuintli yields 6,350 results, while the inverse search, Xoloitzcuintli without Mexican hairless yields just 2,600. Added to that, the proposed name is an extremely odd looking word that is not easily pronounced in English; while not a valid reason on its own, this adds to my feeling that the current title is correct. I think the capitalisation is wrong though, per WP:NCFAUNA it should be located at Mexican hairless dog. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 10:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- NCFAUNA addresses species and subspecies, not breeds. MOS:LIFE would probably also de-capitalise this (while it does not address breeds specifically, it applies to nonscientific names of organisms generally). However, pretty much every single article we have on formal, standardised breeds of domestic animals uses caps because most breed-focused publications do so. This may be a case of WP:Specialist style fallacy, but for the time being, if this specific article were not moved to Xoloitzcuintli, it should remain at the present name for consistency with other breed article, at least unless/until an RFC determines to de-capitalise them en masse (I'm not sure how I'd !vote on that; some rationales for/against capitalisation of breed names differ from those with regard to species names, as I outline in my notes at User:SMcCandlish/Capitalization of organism names#Capitalization of breeds and cultivars. PS: One editor's feeling that a non-native English word is awkward is simply individual subjectivity; some other might feel precisely the same way about Affenpinscher, Villano de las Encartaciones, and Lipizzan, yet there those articles are and it's highly unlikely they'd be renamed. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 03:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think the article should be moved to Xoloitzcuintli, but I support moving to Mexican hairless. Per Dekimasu's evidence, it appears that "Mexican Hairless Dog" is less common than Xoloitzcuintli, but "Mexican hairless" is more common than both. This dog is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the name; "Mexican Hairless" dog gets 5650 hits on Google Books, far greater than the combined hits for "Mexican Hairless" cat (1,290) and "Mexican Hairless" Toadies (27).--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm still inclined to oppose the proposed move to Xoloitzcuintli per that data. As for whether the article should be at Mexican H/hairless D/dog/~~dog~~, it seems like that should follow whatever naming convention is most applicable. Dekimasuよ! 19:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Needs updating based on past article on expected future events (source is also a dead link)

The passage is "The breed will be moved into the AKC Studbook in December 2010 and will be eligible to be shown in the AKC Non-Sporting group as of January 1, 2011.[8]" Citation 8 is a dead link, and the events referenced have either happened or they haven't, and should be a matter of fact at this point, not an expected event of the past for which no new information is available presently.
Thor214 (talk) 17:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mexican Hairless Dog. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Photo change

I reside with two xolos, one hairless and one coated, and I thought it would be nice for the following reasons to also have a photo that showed both types.

The visual comparison of the two varieties enhances the appreciation of the breed. My Michael and Misty are siblings, yet even those familiar with "Mexican Hairless" dogs often mistake her for a different breed because of her coat.

Coated xolos often receive short shrift since they lack the distinctiveness of their hairless fellows, yet they account for roughly 25% of the breed.

Finally, those who've heard of the breed through shows may be more familiar with the coated variety, at least in America. In my admittedly limited experience, coated xolos win more shows than hairless ones.

Here's the photo:

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shmigget (talk • contribs) .

There is room for more than one photo here, it's a good one. I just added this to the article. - Trysha ^(talk) 20:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Suprisingly I knew about Xolo's since I was ten,I found out about them while searching for a Sphynx cat breeder page to look at pictures.

Does anyone remember why this photo was removed from the page? It was the only one with a coated Xolo, a good visual to represent approximately 25% of the breed. Shmigget (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Dunno, I would just add it back. Sometimes IPs like to fool around and remove things that don't need removal. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mexican Hairless Dog. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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) 07:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715205652/http://la.rsmjournals.com/cgi/reprint/27/1/55.pdf to http://la.rsmjournals.com/cgi/reprint/27/1/55.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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) 11:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)