Talk:Macclesfield Bank

Map request

Map request has been fulfilled (feature map, overview map) --Ratzer 08:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

China and Taiwan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Is there any good reason not to simply use the countries short and recognisable names? CMD (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Before you make changes to any other article, I urge you to admit that "short and recognisable" has no place outside of titles. There is no reason to oppose the clear formulation ROC (TW), which is used here instead of ROC alone. GotR ^Talk 16:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I urge you to understand that, as an encyclopaedia, we try to use good prose. Good prose is concise and understandable. CMD (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I urge you to understand that, as an encyclopaedia, we try not to imitate a newspaper, instead aiming for precision. Good precision is more understandable than quick abbreviations. GotR ^Talk 16:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Proper names are precise. There's no need to use "Republic of the Philippines" when we can just use "Philippines". CMD (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The parallel you give is so ridiculously idiotic that I don't have to point out its flaw. Every area (apart from Mongolia a few fringe areas in mainland China) claimed by the ROC also has a competing PRC claim, and you know that. Thus your formulation is both a highly politicised and incorrect one. GotR ^Talk 22:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

No, the parallel is bang on. The competing claims elsewhere have nothing to do with this discussion, so I fail to understand why you brought it up. My formulation (using short country names is now a formulation?) is completely apolitical. It uses the names of the countries for the names of the countries. CMD (talk) 23:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

When the Taiwan/ROC RM discussion ended, it was stated that the article title and some article contents would change, however it wouldn't affect how the article would be linked elsewhere, and that ROC would still be used when referring to the political entity as opposed to Taiwan in general. When dealing with territorial disputes, it makes sense to use the name ROC, since we're dealing with politics. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 23:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

As I remember it, and as GotR so flamboyantly phrased it here, there was a general agreement in discussion that the move didn't automatically cause changes in other pages. Further discussions can still be made on other pages, as they have, with various results in different places. The main argument for using ROC is in situations such as state organs where some official institution/title has been continuously carried on from before the retreat to Taiwan. What is being dealt with here is simple country claims. There's nothing here which makes using ROC over Taiwan any more useful. It's not an official title or anything, but a description. X country claims Y land. X country is China/Philippines/Taiwan. Y land is Macclesfield bank. CMD (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

RfC

Should the non-Philippine claimants to Macclesfield Bank be discussed/listed under the names People's Republic of China/Republic of China (Taiwan) or China/Taiwan? CMD (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• It should be PRC/Taiwan, as "China" should indicate that claims originate prior to the Chinese Civil War (such as Ming Dynasty, Qing Dynasty, or unified ROC) -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 03:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• I generally support the use of short names, but in this case Taiwan's territorial claims come from its claim to inherit the legacy of imperial China, so it is more useful to use the formal Republic of China name. Shrigley (talk) 12:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I've bulleted this and the IP comment above to make it clear they are individual responses. CMD (talk) 00:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• I also, as elsewhere, support the use of common, short-form names, as per Wikipedia practice and guidelines and per overwhelming real-world practice. I understand the arguments in favour of an exception here, but it seems to me that that is better dealt with by using "Taiwan" (and "China") and then explaining briefly in text the basis for any Taiwanese claim. That is both clearer to the average reader at the outset - and is consistent with contemporary use of the word "Taiwan", even in this context, eg here - and also offers more background detail and explanation subsequently. Isn't that what encyclopedias are meant to do, on both counts? N-HH talk/edits 18:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
• The common, recognisable names of China/Taiwan should be used here. The dispute in question is a current dispute. There isn't a prior-1949 claim and a Philippine claim. The governments of China, Taiwan, and the Philippines all independently claim the territory (and others), and all have their own independent control over one or more islands in the area. As for the reasoning behind the claim (which for China and Taiwan is the legacy of Imperial China), this doesn't affect the names of the countries currently competing over the territory. We don't list the Hala'ib Triangle as disputed by the Kingdom of Egypt, despite the claim being based an agreement between the monarchy and the British. We don't list the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic as claimed by the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic. In essence, the examples aren't that useful, because a name has absolutely no reflection on the history or claims of the countries; calling it one thing or the other doesn't affect the legitimacy, or illegitimacy, of a claim. We should simply use the short and recognisable country names, as explained by N-HH. CMD (talk) 20:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• Common names should be used here (China/Taiwan). I acknowledge Shrigley's point above that using the formal title may help explain the reasoning for their claim, but I don't agree that the simple designation of the countries involved needs to explain anything relating to the reasoning of those countries. In the same way we don't try to explain the reasons behind why a country is called what it is in the article title, we don't need to explain the reasons behind a country's claims in the name of that country in prose. We can easily write a subsequent sentence or paragraph that explains the strength and basis of each country's claims in a much clearer manner. – NULL ‹talk›
  ‹edits› 00:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
• Current usage of "People's Republic of China" and "Republic of China (Taiwan)" should remain. My reasoning is similar to Shrigley's that the ROC claim is based on the claim to be the ruler of China. Also using "Taiwan" would be a bit strange as most Taiwanese likely couldn't care less - it is an issue the government of Taiwan cares about, not an issue Taiwan cares about. Readin (talk) 01:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
• I think Republic of China (Taiwan) or similar is sensible here as there is significant extra clarity gained by using that name as per Shrigley and Readin - and the Economist uses Republic of China in this context whereas they don't normally. Therefore I think People's Republic of China is therefore probably worthwhile as well, though China would be OK too. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

But that Economist piece does use "Taiwan" - then explains it by adding in parentheses "as the 'Republic of China'" (ie per my suggestion above, albeit explaining directly afterwards rather than possibly at some remove in the text). As noted by others above, I don't see that trying to explain - or rather imply - the basis of the claim simply by the word used for the country actually adds any clarity in respect of the claim itself, or is appropriate; and it certainly loses clarity to the extent that it uses unfamiliar and obscure terminology to describe what the world knows commonly as "Taiwan". Again, I don't see why this is one of the exceptions to preferring that general, common use. N-HH talk/edits 09:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• I support the use of "China/Taiwan'" compared to other options since many outsiders are not even aware of the other name "Republic of China" for Taiwan.It's the first time I come to hear the name ROC; to distinguish the difference between PRC and ROC, I had to refer the given wiki-links. Such non-common titles should be avoided in the Lead of this article. --AshLey ^Msg 09:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The usage of Republic of China (Taiwan) over Republic of China alone addresses that concern for you. Otherwise, your own ignorance (which amounts to WP:IDON'TLIKEIT) is not a valid reason. GotR ^Talk 17:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Ashley's comment doesn't amount to WP:IDON'TLIKEIT as far as I can tell. She's just saying we're supposed to communicate to laymen, not experts, and saying that in experience a typical layman (using herself as an example) won't be aware of the "Republic of China" name. That's perfectly valid and indeed reflected in the fact that Republic of China now redirects to an article using the name "Taiwan".

I agree that "Republic of China (Taiwan)" or "Taiwan (Republic of China)" should be enough to address Ashley's concern. If the reader is unclear, he can follow the link (that's what it is there for) as Ashley did. Readin (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

But if, as noted, the link for ROC directs to Taiwan - which also implies we know that's the name used for the place in 2012 - why not just use Taiwan in text as well? That's what our naming rules call for. Agree with the general point though that WP is meant for a general, lay audience. I'm also not sure it's helpful for GotR to talk about another editor's "ignorance" on account of their using the standard, common terms here, which are also the ones used by serious media and most other reference sources, as well as by the <holds nose> general public. Some of us are much cleverer than that though of course, and we should endeavour to show that at all times, especially if it confuses the thickos. N-HH talk/edits 07:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• I support the usage of PRC/Taiwan. United States Man (talk) 02:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
• I think that the Economist source is an excellent resource in this discussion. It uses 'Taiwan (as the “Republic of China”' which is close to the current usage in the article, and consequently I'm OK with the current usage or switching to "Taiwan (Republic of China)". FWIW, here is another source that makes the connection explicit ("Those claims are mirrored by Taiwan, because the island considers itself the Republic of China"). Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

So, of the two sources cited so far, BOTH use simply "Taiwan" and then go on to explain in text. Neither use "Republic of China" from the off. We don't have much concrete real-world support so far for sticking with the current formulation (and I'm not sure why you're citing those BBC and Economist sources in part-support of maintaining what we have?) ... N-HH talk/edits 11:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

One option would be to say "Taiwan" in the infobox, and explain the "Republic of China" aspect in the body of the article in connection with describing Taiwan's position. The fact that two sources make this point indicates it's something worth mentioning in the article. --Dailycare (talk) 12:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Philippine claim

I've just edited the article to say "Macclesfield Bank is claimed, in whole or in part, by the People's Republic of China, Republic of China (Taiwan), and the Philippines.", adding the clause I've bolded here. This change was mainly motivated by what looked like a need to clarify the extent of the Philippine and PRC claims. I made this change after noting the following:

• The cited NYTimes article says, "To reinforce its claims, China also announced that it had raised the level of governance on three island groups in the sea: the Spratlys, the Paracels and the Macclesfield Bank, known in Chinese as the Nansha, Xisha and Zhongsha Islands." That source, then, includes what the PRC calls Zongsha islands in what it descrbes as the PRC's Macclesfield Bank claim.
• This article lists geographic features contained "the elongated atoll", then says the following:

The PRC's term Zhongsha Islands for the Macclesfield Bank has a wider meaning than the geographic feature or atoll; it includes some geographically separate features: -

To the east, near the Philippines are:

• Scarborough Shoal (Nanyan Dao 南巖島 or Huangyan Dao 黃岩島; 15°11′N 117°46′E)
• [...]

• The Philippines claims Scarborough Shoal (see Scarborough Shoal#Claim by the Philippines).
• The Philippine Inquirer article cited in support says, "The Philippines claims parts of the Spratlys and Macclesfield Bank, ...". (emphasis added)

Call that reasoning WP:SYN and/or WP:OR if you want, but please think twice before reverting the clarifying change I've made to the article here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Macclesfield is not enclosed in any territorial legislation of the Philippines as collated here [1]. These are already Philippine statutes submitted before the U.N. Would these be less credible than an Inquirer article? This particular subject requires a primary reference, or an official information from the Philippine government. -- Namayan (talk) 00:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that there's a fuzziness about the precise geographic definition of Macclesfield Bank. It is not clear to me that a universally accepted precise geographic definition exists.

It seems to me that this article is currently incorrect when it says, "The PRC's term Zhongsha Islands for the Macclesfield Bank ...", and that this is a source of confusion. As far as I can tell, the (probably Mandarin Chinese) term Zongsha Qundao (Zhongsha Islands in English) is not the PRC's term for Macclesfield Bank -- it is their term for a similar geographic area which often conflated in English (not entirely correctly) with the term Macclesfield Bank and which apparently overlaps or encompasses what is thought of by non-Chinese as "Macclesfield Bank".

I found a source which seems to clear up some of the confusion.

• Keyuan Zou (2005). "4. Dispute over the Scarborough Reef". Law of the Sea in East Asia: Issues And Prospects. RoutledgeCurzon. pp. 61–70. ISBN 978-0-415-35074-7. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help) (see particularly the bottom of page 61)

See also note 38 in [2]. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Content appears to be verified by reliable source(s), and should remain. It is appropriate to tag content as has been done, however I would oppose removal of the content.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I may have to guide you on the decision of the Supreme Court of the Philippines regarding the definition of Philippine territory as per New Baseline Law, where the petitioners questioned that law because of territorial diminution, why would the petitioners against the law not concern about Macclesfield Bank, when they are worried about Philippine claims to Spratlys and Scarborough Shoal? -- Namayan (talk) 13:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Whatever those petitioners are concerned of are beyond us. A source (taken as reliable) publish a claim, it's verifiable (but not necessarily the truth), so it gets included here in Wikipedia because no policy in this encyclopedia bars it from being done. The claim by the Philippines cannot be removed for the reason that several secondary sources published such claim, but such information was not derived from a primary source itself. If it's inaccurate or false, then that has to be determined separately. Editors might feel like something should be done in a certain way because they believe that's the way it should be done but unless WP policies rule in their favor, then no, it's not the way it should be done. Xeltran (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Vietnamese claim

This is the first time I've heard that Vietnam claims sovereignty over the Macclesfield Bank. The NYTimes article does not mention Vietnam as a claimant to these islands, and Vietnam doesn't even have a native name for these islands. DHN (talk) 07:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I checked the cited sources. I couldn't confirm the assertion in [3] and I {{fv}} tagged the cite. [4] confirms the assertion in footnote 27 on page 14. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

These are good illustrations: [5] [6] of the claim lines. -- Namayan (talk) 11:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Those are great illustrations, particularly the first one. If they pass WP:RS, and at first glance I don't see any reason why not, I would say that they they probably ought to be cited in this article, in the Territorial disputes in the South China Sea article, and in other related articles. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with DHN. I think there must be a mistake in [7]. I can guarantee that Vietnam has never claimed sovereignty over the Macclessfield. If you can read Vietnamese, you can see in here [8] that all the names of the islands and reefs are the Vietnamese names for those of the Paracel Islands only. The site also says that the total area of the islands and reefs in Hoàng Sa is only 305 sq. kilometers, while the area of the Macclesfield is over 6,000 sq. kilometers.

The Vietnamese language source which you mention lists the islands which comprise the Hoang Sa island district. It is silent regarding claims by Vietnam to territory not a part of that district. It is also silent about whether or not that district includes territory in which no islands are present. It could probably be a useful source for the Hoang Sa article. The 1995 U.S. State Department report which you mention does explicitly assert in footnote 27, "15°50’N, 114°20’E. Macclesfield Bank is also claimed by the Philippines and Vietnam." Per WP:DUE, I have added the info about this assertion (back?) into this article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Vietnam’s recent Maritime Law only declared sovereignty and jurisdiction over the Paracel and Spratly Islands, not including Macclesfield. STSC (talk) 03:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

That may be true. If so, and if a reliable supporting source for that information exists, the article should probably contain that information in order to refute or update the reported claim to the contrary supported by the the cited 2005 US State Department source. Since that would remove Vietnam as a country of interest in this article, perhaps all mention of Vietnam should be removed from the article as rendered. In that case, however, I would suggest that info and sourcing re the 2005 US State Dept source saying that VN is a MB claimant and the recent VN law saying it is not be left in the article as an WP:invisible comment; otherwise we're going to go through this repeatedly as editors google up the State Dept source. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

All the recent press reports about the dispute between China and Vietnam had not mentioned Macclesfield was part of the dispute, e.g. this report. I agree to the inclusion of an invisible comment in the article. STSC (talk)

It seems that you're arguing that since no source has turned up in recent news reports agreeing with the 2005 US State Dept source, that source must be in error and assertions supported by it should be removed from the (rendered) article. That seems contrary to WP:DUE and similar to arguments made in the #Philippine claim section above and in the discussion at WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 38#Macclesfield Bank, South China Sea Islands, where it was argued that the Philippines does not claim Macclesfield Bank and that sources supporting claims that it does must be in error.

I see that some other articles (List of territorial disputes, South China Sea Islands, perhaps others) will need to track any changes made here re MB and the Philippines and/or Vietnam. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

My point is the timing aspect of the sources. Maybe Vietnam now in 2012 decided not to include Macclesfield in its claim, so the US State Dept source in 2005 could be out-of-date. STSC (talk) 06:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

All identified reliable and verifiable sources must be given appropriate weight in an article. The US State Department source could be out-of-date, but it could be not as well. We can't discriminate one source from another just because we feel one source is true while the other isn't (unless proven otherwise). Verifiability over Truth (WP:V). Xeltran (talk) 07:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I totally accept the argument about verifiability not truth (which is also a very good policy, however odd it might sound to some), but the only source in respect of the Vietnamese claim is a minor footnote in a seven-year old report from another country. None of the other sources we have seem to include Vietnam in a list of claimants - which is not mere non-confirmation, but effective contradiction. The solution we have - ie to cite and attribute the reporting of the claim - seems reasonable in principle and policy-compliant but just looks plain odd, especially in the lead. Sometimes, surely, we have to make a judgment and conclude there is indeed an error in a source or that it is out of date; or at least wait for corroboration before including something that is asserted in only a single source and hence not really "verified" at all. N-HH talk/edits 07:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Since we currently don't have a very convincing source regarding an alleged Vietnamese claim, perhaps we could move the US State Department report allegation on a section separate from the lead. The report, after all, is self-published. Xeltran (talk) 09:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. I have no problem with that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The information from that source is clearly incorrect which should not be included in the main article. See WP:EXCEPTIONAL. STSC (talk) 14:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Claiming underwater features

From what I understand, Vietnam's position is that these areas are underwater and according to international law cannot be claimed by any country. DHN (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Could be, but see WP:OR and WP:V. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I've just inserted the subsection header above and am moving the following here for discussion

May scholars raise questions regarding the legality of these claims since the bank is entirely underwater and there is no way under international law to claim title over a submerged feature as if it were an island.

That was inserted at the end of the lead section in this edit.

I'm no expert in legalities regarding claiming of territory or in the law of the sea, but see the Benham Plateau article and "UN approves PH territorial claim to Benham Rise". Philippine Daily Inquirer. April 28, 2012. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

There is more info on the Benham Rise claim in "Benham Rise: How the shelf was won". ABC-CBN News. July 28, 2012. I recognize that the Benham Rise is claimed to be a part of the continental shelf of the Philippines, and my understanding is that Macclesfield Bank is not. Still, it appears to me from this that the assertion, "there is no way under international law to claim title over a submerged feature as if it were an island" is a bit overblown. That assertion appears to have been taken nearly verbatim from here, and appears there to be a statement of opinion by one Gregory Poling, Research Associate, Southeast Asia Program, CSIS, while making an argument that ASEAN claimants should fully codify, both in domestic legislation and in a multilateral framework, what is and is not in dispute under international law. It seems to me that presenting the "no way" assertion in this article as established fact stretches it too far. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

How is that statement inaccurate? It said that there are many scholars (with three citations given) who are dubious of these claims of sovereignty due to the reason given (specifically their understanding of Article 60(8) of UN-CLOS). It might need some minor tweaking, but the gist is there and I see no reason to remove it. DHN (talk) 00:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I have not asserted that the statement is inaccurate. I see that it appears to have a confusing typo, and I think that it needs a look with WP:UNDUE in mind.

I think that the word "May" in the text I've moved here was probably intended to be "Many", and that it should be replaced with the word "Some" if that content is to be retained more or less intact. Also, I think that this content would be more appropriately placed as an intro for a new article body section, perhaps headed "Claims" or "International claims", rather than being placed in the lead section. The body sections currently headed "The definition of Zhongsha Islands" and "Other claims", then, would become subsections of this new body section. Also, this intro should give due weight to the viewpoint expressed in the articles I've mentioned above re Bernham Rise that cases exist where there are ways under international law to claim title over a submerged feature (though "to claim title" probably isn't the correct term here "to have sovereignty recognized" is probably closer). There are probably better ways to add this content to the article than what I've suggested here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

It is indeed a typo that I didn't notice. I don't think it's undue weight since the lead already mentioned that certain countries claim this area, we should also mention the view that these claims are not valid (this is hardly a fringe view). I'd also debate whether "some" or "many" should be used since these are not the only scholars who doubt the validity of their claims. DHN (talk) 02:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Wtmitchell because the lead is about Macclesfield Bank the place but your point of view is about the claims for underwater features; it would be more appropriate to be mentioned under another section e.g. "Challenge to the claims". STSC (talk) 15:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that wherever we mention the claims, we have to mention the challenges to these claims, whether it's in the lead or in a subsection. Otherwise we'd not be treating these views equally. These are not fringe views. DHN (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

According to MOS policy, generally the lead should not include specific information that is not in the body of the article. I propose to move the whole passage regarding the territorial claims to a new section of "Territorial claims". STSC (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. DHN (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Code of conduct for the South China Sea

See this thread at ANI. GotR ^Talk 16:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Separate article for Zhongsha

Our article makes clear that "Zhongsha Islands" refers to an area wider than Macclesfield Bank, including other features that have their own article, such as Huangyan Island.[9] Is there any good reason why we shouldn't have a separate article for "Zhongsha Islands", or why Zhongsha should be considered synonymous with Macclesfield on Wikipedia (by redirect)? Shrigley (talk) 02:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Good question. Offhand, I don't have a good answer. I note that the Sansha article describes that as a prefecture within the bailiwick of the PRC, and says that Macclesfield Bank and Zongsha Islands together make up one town in that perfecture. Googling around, I found Zou Keyuan (2005). East Asian Laws of the Sea: Issues and Prospects. Psychology Press. p. 62. ISBN 978-0-415-35074-7., which comments about this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

"Bankok" Shoal

Is this a typo from "Bangkok" or is it actually "Bankok"? Sowelilitokiemu (talk) 23:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The latter, apparently. See [10], [11], [12]. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Macclesfield Bank. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.spratlys.org/history/spratly-islands-history-timeline.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/365375/saan-siya
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121106210603/http://sowf.moi.gov.tw/stat/year/y05-19.xls to http://sowf.moi.gov.tw/stat/year/y05-19.xls

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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:17, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Macclesfield Bank. 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/20040408131150/http://vm.nthu.edu.tw/southsea/english.mid.htm to http://vm.nthu.edu.tw/southsea/english.mid.htm

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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)