Talk:The Game (Queen album)

Genre

It says hard rock now. Please tell me what song on this (shitty) album that is hard rock. As far as I'm concered, it's like this:

• Play the Game = Ballad
• Dragon Attack = Funk rock / Hard rock (Okay..)
• Another One Bites the Dust = Funk rock
• Need Your Loving Tonight = Power pop
• Crazy Little Thing Called Love = Rockabilly
• Rock It = Rock and roll
• Don't Try Suicide = Pop
• Sail Away Sweet Sister = Ballad
• Coming Soon = Pop rock
• Save Me = Ballad

You`re not right:

• Play the Game = Hard rock, ballad
• Dragon Attack = Hard rock, funk rock
• Another One Bites the Dust = Funk rock
• Need Your Loving Tonight = Hard rock, pop rock
• Crazy Little Thing Called Love = Rockabilly
• Rock It = Hard rock
• Don't Try Suicide = Rock and roll
• Sail Away Sweet Sister = Hard rock, ballad
• Coming Soon = Hard rock, pop rock
• Save Me = Hard rock, ballad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.122.25.111 (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

So, where's the "hard rock"? Sure, Dragon Attack is heavy, but it's the bass that does that. And A Night at the Opera ain't a folk rock album just because of '39. Or can't we add ragtime on Sheer Heart Attack? I mean, it got Bring Back That Leroy Brown. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gustav Lindwall (talk • contribs) 13:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

On "Play The Game", "Save me", "Sail Away Sweet Sister", "Coming Soon", "Need Your Loving Tonight" and "Rock It" there are many hard rock themes! qwertyqueenomann3

If you mean a song that is completely within the "hard rock" genre, then I would agree with you and say there are none to be heard here. However, Queen was known for genre-jumping within a single song...so portions of songs on this album are hard rock all the way. For example, the heavy parts of "Play The Game" (i.e. right before the solo), the electric guitar solo section of "Save Me," as well as the harmony guitar choir that ends the solo in "Don't Try Suicide."

While I agree with you that it is a very somber album when compared to Jazz or News Of The World, it isn't right to call this album shitty. I consider each Queen album to be a treasure. None are alike, but all are valuable and not trash...heck, I even like Hot Space! Brian May has said in interviews that this album reflected a very dark time in the band's history. He says they went to Munich to record this album and to try to escape the partying and the drugs, and to make a solid album, but those problems ended up intensifying. This was around the time that Brian's first marriage collapsed, and Freddie contracted HIV. 65.248.164.214 (talk)

Freddie didn't contract HIV until around 1986-1987--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 04:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe to classify this album just as "Rock", not "pop rock, funk rock"? --93.80.253.98 (talk) 15:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

We should be pointing to reliable sources for genre. Binksternet (talk) 20:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

"Pop, pomp rock, disco rock"??? Why??? As I heard, there is a consensus on Queen albums to classify them all as "Rock". --93.80.253.98 (talk) 09:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Save Me

Save me is absent in the singles' list. It should be added, this is not a list about the US only.VincentG 04:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Dragon Attack

Could we get this song as a seperate page and put a stub on it? There are more things that could be added on to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bansidh (talk • contribs) 17:18, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

I think only singles should get seperate pages (apart from "'39" and "Stone Cold Crazy"). --Candyfloss 19:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Original Research & Verifiablity

The article needs sources and per Wikipedia's verifiability policy "unsourced material may be challenged and removed." -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You tag that sort of content but you do not delete it without checking with the appropriate Project that covers these articles. I agree that the article is full of OR.. But it is OR that was merged from other articles by a Wikipedia Project so you must seek community/Project opinion on what to do next rather than using personal pov for progression. It is simple respect for the Wikipedia Project that covers this article. That's the Wikipedia way. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 04:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you didnt read the policy: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed" emph added. The Queen Project does not get to over-ride policy. Please revert yourself until the analysis is properly sourced. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Posted the concern on the appropriate Project discussion page. I informed them that if they were unable to rally a clean up crew that perhaps a league of loyal WP:ALBUM members could lend assistance to either cite the unencyclopedic bits or rm them completely. Tagged page to bring it to community attention. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 04:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Original research not allowed

The anonymous IP who keeps trying to return unsourced analysis to the article will continue to get reverted. All material in Wikipedia articles must come from published reliable sources. For descriptions of these policies, see: WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, sufficient time has been given since this was first mentioned on the talk page for the users editing this page to find sources, so I removed it again. Parts can be added but only with sources. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 21:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You can swear at me all you want

You can swear at me all you want, but that does not constitute a reliable source and your disruptive edits will be reverted. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand.--141.209.214.34 (talk) 01:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The "everyone" is you impersonating other editors. Such impersonation will get you blocked. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Request edit through protection

The article has been protected wrong version :-). There is much unsourced material that is not supported by our policies regarding original research and unsourced analysis. I suggest that it be returned to a version that does not so blatantly conflict with our policies, such as [1] -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry bitch, YOUR VERSION, is wrong. This one is right.--141.209.214.34 (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. — Xy7 (talk) 01:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC) The old version remains. Someone else can fix it if they want, otherwise wait until the protection expires. — Xy7 (talk) 01:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} I do not know if you can say that a Consensus has been reached, but the single editor voicing support for the current version does not seem to have any policy or guidelines to back his/her position. Is there a non-involved administrator that would consider changing to a version that does not contain so much unsourced material? -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

No bitch, this page will stay at its current revision.--141.209.133.178 (talk) 23:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the protection level to semi-protection for a one month period, since the only person who is contending that their edits are correct (despite what they say, as far as I can tell) is the IP, and those edits consist entirely of unsourced material. 141.209 (and anyone else watching), if the material you are wanting to keep is true as you say, then you should have no trouble finding sources for it. Do not continue adding unsourced material to any article when there are obviously other editors who disagree with those edits. As WP:V clearly says, any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be accompanied by a verifiable, reliable source. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 08:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Questioning the current article/proposal

The whole page seems "empty" without all the "unsourced" information.

I propose putting SOME of it back in (not ALL of it)

-We should revert the introduction back to the longer version -We SHOULD NOT however add a headline to each song -We should put some trivial facts in it

We SHOULD include information that we can find published in reliable sources, we SHOULD NOT include information that has not been published in reliable sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Impersonation

Watch out for imposters.--Thatcher (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: This is User:141.209.214.22, not User:Thatcher. E Wing (talk) 00:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Songfacts

Are sites like "Songfacts" or similar sites considered reliable?

Songfacts, according to the Wikipedia article, appears to be a Wiki/ community community forum with no editorial oversight / fact checking going on. So in and of itself, probably not. But those pages may refer and link to other places that would qualify. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

What is going on?

I come here one day, the article's one size. Then I come back, it's shrunk down. Then I notice reverts are happening between a "long" version and a "short" version.

Moving the "good version" bits here. So I can study them. People can analyze them if they want.

"Compared to previous Queen albums, the song arrangements are much simpler[2] (the album's sound is more "pop rock" rather than the progressive/hard rock hybrids of Queen's previous albums) but the album is responsible for propelling the band into global megastars.[3] Although the album was recorded over an 11-month period at separate sessions, the album is described as having a "slick cohesive feel" to it.[4] At approximately 35 minutes, The Game is the shortest of Queen's studio albums."

Song information

Mercury wrote "Play the Game" after breaking up with his male lover at the time. Mercury played piano and sang the lead vocals. Mercury started smoking cigarettes around this time--creating his husky tenor for the rest of the decade (Though he dropped the habit by 1990 due to his AIDS-related complications). The music video for this song marked the first time Freddie appeared on film with his trademark moustache.

"Dragon Attack" was a jam session by band members and crew, to which May added lyrics and the idea of alternating solos (drums, bass, guitar, and an almost a cappella chorus). The melody is similar to "We Will Rock You": compare "buddy you're a boy make a big noise" with "take me to the room where the red's all red". This song and Another One Bites the Dust are the two funk rock songs on the album. This song was only performed live in a shorter form, until the US leg of the Queen + Paul Rodgers Tour, where the entire song was played. It's also the theme song for WWE Legend, Ricky Steamboat.

Deacon wrote "Another One Bites the Dust" about cowboys, but then changed it to make it more suitable to the band. Mercury loved it and was instrumental in its inclusion on the album. Their roadies told them it'd be a good idea to release it as a single but they didn't believe them. According to Brian May and Roger Taylor on a 1991 interview with American DJ Redbeard on the show In the Studio with Redbeard about making of The Game, Michael Jackson ultimately convinced the band to release it as a single. They did it and it became their second #1 hit in the US. The song doesn't have any synths, the strange sounds were achieved via reversed pianos, and May's Red Special guitar through an Eventide harmoniser. It stayed at number one for three weeks in the United States. It is the only song to ever top the Billboard rock, dance, and R&B charts simultaneously selling over 7 million copies in the United States.

"Need Your Loving Tonight" was the other song by Deacon. Very Beatles-influenced in the melody (the "Oh, I need your loving" chorus is similar to "Eight Days a Week"), although it has a rocking guitar riff, giving the song a more power pop sound. Deacon played both rhythm and acoustic guitar as well as bass. On the live versions May sang backing vocals and Mercury played piano (both absent in the studio version). The song was released as a single in November 1980 and peaked at #44 in the US.

"Crazy Little Thing Called Love" was the band's first #1 single in the United States. It is the last rockabilly song to be number one. Mercury started it in the bathroom in June 1979 and then wrote the chords using his Martin D18 acoustic guitar. He recorded it with Taylor and Deacon after having some drinks, and the entire session lasted about half an hour. Shortly before releasing it as a single, May added backing vocals and a guitar solo using Taylor's Fender Telecaster instead of his Red Special. There are no synthesizers. It was the first time that Mercury's guitar playing made it onto a Queen record. Brian played a black telecaster in the video and live because Taylor's guitar was stolen.

"Rock It (Prime Jive)" was composed by Taylor, and it caused controversy in the band. Producer Mack and May suggested it'd sound better with Mercury on vocals. They demoed both versions and Deacon preferred Taylor's version. Finally they decided to leave Mercury doing the intro and Taylor singing the rest. Taylor plays rhythm guitar and bass, Mercury plays organ and Mack plays synth on this track.

"Don't Try Suicide" is a song by Mercury including some slap-bass playing by John Deacon and piano parts by Mercury. No synthesizers were used. It is rhythmically based upon 1950's classic rock.

"Sail Away Sweet Sister (To the Sister I Never Had)" was composed by Brian May. May sings the verses and choruses, Mercury took over the vocals for the middle eight. This song is based on the soft vocals by Brian May, it's tenure feeling and the sweet melodies on guitar and bass. During the Use Your Illusion Tour ('91-'93), singer Axl Rose of Guns N' Roses would often sing the chorus of this song as an intro to "Sweet Child o' Mine".

"Coming Soon" is Taylor's song, sung as duet between Mercury and himself, and featuring Taylor on rhythm guitar. It originated from the Jazz album sessions in 1978, although only a glimpse can be heard in the early demo from the final version.

Brian May wrote "Save Me" about a friend whose relationship had ended, and played piano, synths and guitars (electric and twelve-string acoustic) on it. This song, "Sail Away Sweet Sister", "Coming Soon" and "Crazy Little Thing Called Love" were recorded in 1979, the rest of the album was done in 1980.

Reviews

Do we really need the George Starostin review ? I mean, there are plenty of other reviews by professional reviewers whose reviews are actually published by reputable magazines and websites. On top of that, his reviews were written with the benefit of hindsight, which makes them far less interesting, because they don't exemplify the critical response at the time the record was released. Just because his reviews are long-winded and often disagree with popular opinion doesn't make them any more interesting than those of the next person with a website. Also, his scoring system goes up to 15, so showing the score here as "8 stars out of 10" is misleading. 84.198.246.199 (talk) 16:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

--93.80.225.185 (talk) 08:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

"Pomp rock"

Do I need to say any more!? As soon as I saw that the genre had been changed to "pomp rock", I thought it was vandalism / someone trolling! I then found out it re-directed to "arena rock". I then realised that "pomp rock" is a negative term for "arena rock", therefore should urgently be removed from the infobox. It's literally a term meaning "pompous rock", which CANNOT be included in the infobox. 86.165.113.217 (talk) 01:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I whole-heartedly agree. Seriously... pomp rock? Are people allowed to just add whatever peacock term a critic uses to an article nowadays? Furthermore, the redirect goes to arena rock which is not a musical genre. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

"Pomp rock" is cited in #Reception in case neither have noticed. The same source citing "pomp rock" is citing "pop". If you're suggesting we cherry-pick "rock" out of "pomp rock", then you'd be omitting a significant qualifier from the quote (WP:CHERRY-PICK). Find a source to support your change, or quit bellyaching. Dan56 (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't care if it's cited. Citing something in a Wikipedia article does not necessarily validate something. Something to consider from your favorite guideline WP:GWAR: "A BIG RED FLAG should be raised whenever a GW adds a genre to an infobox which redirects elsewhere- a bit of a giveaway that either they haven't thought it out, or the 'genre' is insufficiently distinct to be worthy of a mention in its own right." Where's the critical discussion about this so-called "pomp rock" genre? What other artists fall under this genre? When did it emerge and what musical characteristics define it? What did this supposed genre evolve from? As for a source that calls the album just "rock", what about the Allmusic review? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 15:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course you "don't care if it's cited"--a reliable source is an "alien concept" to you. Did you read the review, or just notice the word "rock" scattered throughout? It says "most of the album is devoted to disco-rock blends", and "...a grand, state-of-the-art circa 1980 pop album that still stands as one of the band's most enjoyable records. But the very fact that it does showcase a band that's turned away from rock and toward pop..." Dan56 (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

So, this album is a made up rock subgenre, but it's not rock? Got it. It's funny to watch your thinking process in action. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 04:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

So "pomp rock" is a rock subgenre now? There's no reason for this tone, dude, especially since you didnt address my last point and still haven't cited a source. You cant cherry pick "rock" out of "disco rock" or "pomp rock" or whatever else you personally don't agree with. Dan56 (talk) 07:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Several high-quality sources refer to "pomp rock" as a genre, including Martin Popoff (p. 29). Dan56 (talk) 04:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Why not just "Rock" as in most of Queen albums pages on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.80.225.185 (talk) 08:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Why not just "Rock" as in most of Queen albums pages on Wikipedia? --93.80.225.185 (talk) 08:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Genres listed in this article's infobox

The following discussion 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.

---

Which genres should be listed in this article's infobox? Content in the infobox is based on what is cited in the article; this aritcle's Reception section cites critics who call The Game a "pop album ... [that turned] away from rock and toward pop ... turning decidedly, decisively pop" and "disco rock blends" (Stephen Thomas Erlewine, AllMusic), and also "two slabs of Queen's usual symphonic and/or choral pomp-rock" (Steve Taylor, Smash Hits). Dan56 (talk) 05:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

1. I think the listing "Pop, disco rock, pomp rock" is how each cited genre should be given weight in the infobox. Dan56 (talk) 05:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Just call it "pop, rock". That's good enough. In my opinion, infoboxes should give a brief overview of the article in minimalist language. That means not unnecessarily splitting hairs over genre when a broad genre is just as good. Readers can, and are expected to, actually read the article if they want more detailed information. Furthermore, I agree with the others above who have objected to "pomp rock" as a genre. If one had to split hairs, there are better choices than that, despite its use by reliable sources. Reliable sources can be as informal and irreverent as they wish, but Wikipedia needs a more formal tone. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable sources. And I demonstrated in my last comment at the above section that several high-quality sources verify it is a genre, including Martin Popoff. Does "pomp rock" sound any less formal than "neo soul", or "Jazz", which was named after a slang phrase. I dont see how it matters that genres sound formal or what relevance the language chosen to title these categorizations has. Another point, it would be straying from the source(s) (particularly from the one that's quoted as saying it "turned away from rock"). Dan56 (talk) 08:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that articles should be based on reliable sources, but this strikes as more of a formatting/style issue than anything else. I think "pop, rock" accurately paraphrases and summarizes the reliable sources; I'm sure there are people who will insist on more specific categorization, but I am not one of them. If we were talking about established sub-genres, such as progressive rock, I might be persuaded otherwise, but these are entirely too informal. Like "cock rock" and "hair metal", I think "pomp rock" should be kept out of the genre field, though it is fine to quote in a reception section. When categorizing media, there are also issues such as these. When I create an article about a film, I'll often find contradictory sources that claim a film is obviously a zombie film and clearly not a zombie film, an American production or a Canadian-American production, or what-have-you. There's no way to satisfy the demands of every single source ever written, and that's why we avoid writing in Wikipedia's voice ("the album turned away rock") and instead favor attributing the statements to their source ("according to [rock critic], it turned away from rock"). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, "pomp rock" is synonymous with "arena rock", which pomp rock redirects to. Would "arena rock" be more appropriate to include in the infobox, @NinjaRobotPirate:? Dan56 (talk) 10:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. My first observation is that references are allowed in the infobox if there is nothing in the article to support the infobox fact. See WP:INFOBOXREF. Thus, Dan56's statement is not always true, that "content in the infobox is based on what is cited in the article". Binksternet (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I never said they weren't allowed. You're misconstruing what I said above; there is something in the article to support what's being discussed here about the infobox, so it is true in this case. Dan56 (talk) 21:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Pop. The genre for this album should be based on comments aimed at the album itself, not based on a composite of all the songs on the album. A lot of reviewers such as the Mirror and Rolling Stone comment on the widely varying song genres, comments which should be ignored with regard to this article's infobox. Regarding "arena rock", the Rolling Stone review says that this album is not bombastic, with no anthems. That means he saw no arena rock. The Washington Post review says that the album tries out a few song genres but nothing "sticks". The only reviewer I can see who determined that the album had an overall genre was Allmusic's Stephen Thomas Erlewine who said it was "a glossy, unabashed pop album",[2] and that Queen "rarely rock" on the album. That means Erlewine would say no to a simple "rock" genre, but would endorse a Pop music genre. Erlewine emphasizes the point by saying the album "finds Queen turning decidedly, decisively pop, and it's a grand, state-of-the-art circa 1980 pop album". That settles it. Binksternet (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Erlewine said that "most of the album is devoted to disco-rock blends", so why do you suggest this genre be ignored? Would "Pop, disco rock" be more appropriate in light of what this source says? Dan56 (talk) 21:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

That's easy! Because Erlewine was talking about "most" of the album, not all of it. When he talks about all of it he says "pop" emphatically. Binksternet (talk) 21:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why "most of" wouldnt warrant including it in the infobox. If the majority of the album is disco-rock, according to Erlewine, it wouldn't seem like undue weight to at least have it listed second to "pop", if that's Erlewine's primary categorization of the album. Dan56 (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

This kind of division and analysis of parts of the album, even major parts of the album, should be relegated to the article body, not the infobox. If there's an argument here for something besides "pop" then it's for nothing at all in the infobox genre parameter. The majority of reviewers assign no genre to the album as a whole. So my first vote is "pop" alone, my second and lesser preference is for nothing. Binksternet (talk) 23:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not really part of the album, like "some but not all of something". It's, according to Erlewine, most of the album, or nearly all of it. Dan56 (talk) 23:35, 5 October 2014 (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.

Genres again

Think that genres listed in the infobox are not correct. It says "pop, disco rock". But why?

In the reality:

"Play The Game" - rock ballad; "Dragon Attack" - hard rock with funk; "Another One Bites The Dust" - rock with funk and disco; "Need Your Loving Tonight" - upbeat rock with 60's influence; "Crazy Little Thing Called Love" - rockabilly rock; "Rock It (Prime Jive)" - definitely rock; "Don't Try Suicide" - soul rock; "Sail Away Sweet Sister" - rock ballad; "Coming Soon" - definitely rock; "Save Me" - rock ballad.

So, only in one song there are elements of disco, and there is no pop in this album at all (for example, Freddie Mercury's "Mr. Bad Guy" solo album is mostly pop, but Queen "The Game" is a rock album by any definition).

So, to my opinion, it would be right to characterize this album as "Rock, disco rock, funk", something like that. --37.145.241.120 (talk) 15:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

However, would need reliable source for that. 115.164.188.170 (talk) 15:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

This was already decided in the above discussion. In any case, the genres of an album are not automatically assembled from the genres of the contained songs. Instead, the album should be observed to have its own overall genre, published in reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 07:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

features another sound than its predecessor

"features another sound than its predecessor" is barely English. It certainly isn't good English. A radically different sound to its predecessor, maybe. --Elmeter (talk) 01:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Game (Queen album). 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/20120111074744/http://chartheaven.9.forumer.com/a/complete-uk-yearend-album-charts_post21.html to http://chartheaven.9.forumer.com/a/complete-uk-yearend-album-charts_post21.html

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) 02:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)