Talk:The Hollies/Archive 1

Archive 1

Origins

East Lancashire?!!! Don't get too technical, you mean Salford. They're origins are pretty specific and part of the story.

Hollies in the US

The Hollies in the US section sux. It lacks any history of concerts, tours, TV appearances, where, when, who, etc.

He Ain't Heavy...

Was "He Ain't Heavy" a cover song? I've seen several sources saying that it is, but not that give an original artist, nor can does allmusic.com list any recordings earlier than the Hollies' one. --Thomas 23:26, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It wasn't a cover song; the Hollies were the original artist. They didn't write it, but they were the first artists to record it.Raymondluxuryacht 19:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I always thought it was a Neil Diamond song. 86.137.158.221 17:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to correct this, before anyone else picks up this false claim, The Hollies were not the original artists of this song. The first recording was by an American artist named Kelly Gordon on his album "Defunked", which was recorded in January 1969 and released in May 1969 on Capitol Records. While visiting a music publisher, Tony Hicks heard the Kelly Gordon version, which was done at a slower tempo, and loved it (to the publisher's surprise). The Hollies then released it as a single in September of that year. (The Gordon version is on YouTube, if anyone wants to hear it.) -- AyaK (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Article lacks reference citations -- reference notes would help solve disagreements on Discussion page

Per Wikipedia non negotiable policy WP:V and per WP:CITE your article needs to cite its references for facts stated in article. Thanks. Mattisse(talk) 19:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

"Third Group"?

Exactly what polls and charts support this? Seems like unsubstantiated POV. And why is there even a trivia section? Theamazingzeno 17:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The Hollies are one of the most commercially successful pop/rock acts of the British Invasion, usually ranked in third place after The Beatles and The Rolling Stones.

In which universe is this statement true? Without question, The Hollies were a major British Invasion act, but offhand The Who and The Kinks each have a much better claim to be the "third" band. This silly statement should be removed post-haste. Any objections? 172.163.33.127 (talk) 23:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I would have to say, yes, remove it. Referencing the below-mentioned Allmusic.com Eder article below, he rates them just above Herman's Hermits. Jkolak (talk) 06:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

In STRICT UK chart terms up to 1970 The Hollies ARE one of the HIGHEST Hit singles Bands...and in THIS Universe too !

The Shadows commenced Recording as a solo Group in 1959...The Beatles began recording in 1962....most other bands the following year....up to 1970 their hits tally with "Official" singles in the UK charts is:

The Shadows - 23 Chart hits (1960 to 1967) The Beatles - 22 Chart hits (1962 to 1970) The Hollies - 22 Chart hits (1963 to 1970) The Dave Clark Five - 22 Chart hits (1963 to 1970) The Rolling Stones - 16 Chart hits (including "Street Fighting' Man" which carted AFTER 1970) The Kinks - 20 Chart Hits (including "Ape man" which actually charted in 1971) Herman's Hermits - 20 Chart hits (1964 to 1970) The Who - 12 Chart hits (Even if we include "The Seeker" ?) Manfred Mann - 17 Chart Hits (including "You Gave Me Somebody To Love" in 1966) The Searchers - 15 Chart hits (Including: "Sweet Nuthin's")

Note of these Bands The Rolling Stones & The Who actually score the LEAST UK Sixties Chart hits !

In the SIXTIES The Who were the SUPPORT band to Herman's Hermits on a USA Tour...while The Kinks were BANNED from touring the USA for Three years.

To date The Who have scored approx 22 UK hits (including a re-issue of "My Generation", "Relay" & a Live "Summertime Blues") ....while to date the Hollies have scored 32 UK Chart hits.

Worldwide in EACH countries charts...(i.e "Bus Stop" charted in 14 separate countries charts)... as far as is known - some countries Sixties chart details are missing - The Hollies have achieved 315 known separate International chart placings with singles and 62 Album International chart placings.

Between 1963 and 1970 The Hollies had MORE UK Hits than The Stones, Kinks,The Searchers, or Manfred Mann, ....Almost TWICE as many UK hits as The Who....Twice as many as The Small Faces, The Animals, and The Move...

The Hollies had more UK hits than The Moody Blues, Cream, Traffic, Jimi Hendrix, The Byrds, Jethro Tull, Deep Purple, Love Affair, Creedence Clearwater Revival....and MANY more

The Hollies have had MORE UK hits than The Byrds, Buffalo Springfield, CSN ( & Y)....plus as soloists...ALL put together.

Grella —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grella (talk • contribs) 12:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TheHollies2.jpg

Image:TheHollies2.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 04:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TheHollies1.jpg

Image:TheHollies1.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 04:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Songwriting

I couldn't help but be a little astonished that someone could actually claim that Nash and Clarke are "capable of holding their own against the likes of John Lennon and Paul McCartney, and Mick Jagger and Keith Richards (Eder,1996)." Who is "Eder" and how is that remotley valid. The Beatles and The Rolling Stones are the two biggest bands from the 60s; The Hollies do not fit in that category.

Is That above POV comment Accurate...? As pointed out above up to 1970 the Hollies in fact EQUALLED The Beatles actual Number of UK chart hits - 22 hits each - and BEAT by some way the Stones number of approx 15 UK chart hits...(even if you include "We Love You" & "Street Fightin' man" - issued after 1970 by Decca) - FIVE Hollies albums charted in the UK in the sixties...while "Hollies Greatest" TOPPED the UK Album chart in 1968.

Even after Graham Nash's departure The Hollies scored two Number 3 UK Hit singles ("Sorry Suzanne", "He Ain't Heavy...") and a Number 3 UK Album ("Sing Dylan") in 1969 with Nash's replacement Terry Sylvester.

Clarke-Hicks-Nash penned FIVE UK Hollies hits in the Sixties...while their songs "Pay You Back With Interest" & "Dear Eloise" were USA singles Chart hits (both Non UK singles) in addition...

Tony Hicks "Too Young To Be Married" was an overseas chart topper in three countries in 1970 (a Non UK Single) Clarke's "Long Cool Woman (In A Black Dress)" made Number 1 / Number 2 in USA ("Billboard" / "Cashbox") in 1972....and his song "Curly Billy" was a 1973 UK hit & Overseas chart topper.

Thus Worldwide The Hollies own composed songs...which continued to chart overseas in the Seventies...WERE successful, their Sixties penned hits such as "Stop Stop Stop", "On A Carousel", "Carrie Anne" etc were VERY Big selling singles ....and in terms of Worldwide records SOLD the Hollies ARE in the same League as The Beatles & The Rolling Stones....especially in the Sixties.

In 2001 "The Hollies Greatest Hits" CD dislodged The Beatles "One" collection at Number one in New Zealand.

Three of The Hollies (Clarke, Hicks, Nash) contributed to "Little By Little", "Can I Get A Witness", & "Now I've Got A Witness" on the first Rolling Stones album issued in 1964 - check Bill Wyman's Book "A Stone Alone"...while Graham Nash & Tony Hicks are among those thanked by Andrew Loog Oldham on the cover of the Stones' compilation Album "Metamorphosis" (1975).

Tony Hicks was among the Stones guests backstage at the Free Concert at Hyde Park in July 1969.

Bill Wyman states The Stones & The Hollies "Became great friends"...in his book "A Stone Alone"

Grella 30 April 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grella (talk • contribs) 08:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

---

We have a problem here. Researching this question led me to find Eder is the co-author of The Hollies article at allmusic.com. Just quickly comparing the opening paragraph of this Wiki article to the opening paragraph of Eder's article, there are word for word plagerisms. As I would imagine that Allmusic is copyrighted, I would imagine that this Wiki article constitutes a Copyright Violation. Jkolak (talk) 06:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It's worse than that. This article is almost entirely lifted from Eder's Goldmine article, which is posted on the Hollies official site. This is as blatant, and as shameful, an act of plagarism as I've ever seen. 99.254.220.44 (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

---

"In time, too, Sylvester proved a capable substitution for Nash as part of the band's songwriting team."

This is POV and exactly the opposite of my POV: I thought the Hollies' songwriting quality plunged after Nash left the group. I realize that a strict adherence to NPOV makes for an almost unreadable article, since it would then just be a recitation of facts; but this is not a forum for would-be rock critics either. Better to take this out or say that "some listeners believe..." while "others, loyal to Nash, began to lose interest in the Hollies and preferred the music of Nash's new group, Crosby, Stills, and Nash." Meanwhile, Nash's stature has only grown over the years while Sylvester is all but forgotten. 70.19.20.44 (talk) 17:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Larry Siegel

That above comment is POV too....Terry Sylvester holds 5 platinum. 9 Gold and 6 Silver Discs...He had a STRONG Reputation in Liverpool's Merseybeat circles....he knew each of the Beatles....George Harrison congratulated him at Abbey Road in 1969 on his having joined The Hollies... Sylvester was originally in The Escorts (a second generation Merseybeat band - who scored a UK hit with "Dizzy Miss Lizzy" in 1964) then was in The Swinging Blue Jeans (1966 to 1968), Sylvester has recorded both solo albums & an album with James Griffin ( Ex-Bread), plus performed shows as a soloist, with Joey Molland (Ex- Badfinger), and took part in the Soft Rock Cafe tours....most recently Sylvester has appeared on the latest Yusuf Islam (Cat Stevens) album....Sylvester also sang a track on the Alan Parsons Project album "Tales of Mystery & Imagination"

Sylvester provided key High Harmonies on the two MOST famous Hollies songs "He Ain't Heavy...He's My Brother" (1969) & "The Air That I Breathe" (1974)....and contributed to TWELVE Hollies Studio albums (as opposed to the Seven cut with Nash)...The Hollies albums such as "Confessions of The mind" (1970), "Distant light" (1971) - which included "Long Cool Woman in a Black Dress" (a USA No.2 hit - popularised in the USA at the time by Sylvester who sang it on the Hollies USA Tour & on USA Television appearances ...as Clarke was then temporarily out of the Hollies at that time ) and later "Romany" (1972), "Hollies" (1974) "Write on" & "Russian Roulette" (1976) are considered by many to be their STRONGEST albums...full of original material - the latter two were not issued as originally presented in the USA.

Comparing the Hollies & CSN is not valid in that they were VERY Different acts....CSN (&Y) were hailed by the Rock Press as "Sun Gods"....tho' later CSN got a Critical Mauling by the UK Rock Press....something the Hollies never got...CSN(Y) were never a set group really....there was about 20 years between studio albums "Deja Vu" & "American Dream" ! - Young has always been a soloist primarily....the quartet later split in half...each went solo (with varying degrees of success)...then CSN later came back together....occasionally joined by Young.

Nash of course has a higher profile than Sylvester (Based in Canada) in the USA...but you can say that re other members of MANY top bands ( Chris Hillman of the Byrds/Manassas.....compared to Crosby)...Richie Furay compared to Steve Stills etc...

CSN also went for a number of considerable periods WITHOUT making records as a trio....while by comparison The Hollies were a far more consistent recording act throughout the seventies....but it's quite unfair to compare such differing acts....The Hollies were always a Pop/Rock band....CSN (Y) were all about very personalised & Political themed songs - I rate very highly both CSN (& Y)...and Hollies/Byrds/Springfield !

Sylvester gave The Hollies a more Mature harmony sound based on his crafted Emotive High Harmonies (which suited the Seventies era)....while Nash had given more Dynamic & Haunting high harmonies to the Sixties Hollies - plus BOTH Nash and Sylvester gave an additional solo balladeer dimension to the Band. 29 April 2009, Grella. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grella (talk • contribs) 09:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Fan Page

For people ostensibly as hard working and talented as this crew their corresponding Wiki article is a disgrace. Rather than search out citations for all the fan mag nonsense this article is littered with I suggest someone else with more brains, sensibility, tact, and taste rip it all up and start anew. I've only discovered this crew because of recent telly adverts but I can attest they're worth better than this disgraceful mess.

Since the above critique was written an attempt has now been made to ACCURATELY report the Full Hollies Band History from 1962 to 2010 as correctly as possible - ALL Chart details, song Recording dates, release dates, Special guest musicians appearing on Hollies recordings & various aspects of the group's story are CORRECT - The resulting article is now of course very long...(and requires dividing up into more separate paragraphs) but the Band's Career has just entered it's SIXTH Decade.... The Hollies to date having achieved charting releases worldwide (including compilations) in FIVE different decades so far....and have continually performed as a touring band (since December 1962)...for over Forty Seven years...

I see wiki have now edited the accurate and complete Hollies article back down to a mere skelental overview....it's a waste of time trying to put complete information on here...i guess the average "Attention span" is simply just far too weak these days....ah well alot of ACCURATE information has just been thrown away by wiki....it will NOT be put back by this contributor !!!

Citations & References

See Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the <ref(erences/)> tags Nhl4hamilton (talk) 05:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyright

This article, tagged as a copyright problem on August 7th, contains substantial infringement on a 1996 Goldmine article reproduced here. Infringement seems to have first been introduced in this edit, which mingles original material with sentences and phrases duplicative of that source. Additional infringing material was introduced by an IP editor, here. I am investigating to see how best to extract the copyright violation without disrupting legitimate material. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from this URL: http://www.hollies.co.uk/goldminearticles.html. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Given the extensiveness of the violation and the length of time it has been here, it might have been preferable to delete the article and restore the earlier version. Whole paragraphs of this article were copied from the above source, and given that much of the other material in the article was added in substantial chunks by the same editor(s) who introduced the violation, it is quite likely that other material was copied from an unidentified source. Please be extremely careful in revising any of this removed material for restoration to guard against inadvertent return of copyright violation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

What a shame

What a shame that a band as important and influential as the Hollies has such a terrible and, it seems, unfixable wikipedia article. The only way this could be salvaged is to stub it and start from scratch. 24.20.200.67 (talk) 07:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I vote we revert it to the version from around 10th December which will get rid of most of the extraneous stuff, virtually all of which was added by one user. MFlet1 (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

....and I have just found out that the same user is now doing the same to The Moody Blues article as well. Not sure what can be done about this, since it's probably being done in good faith rather than being vandalism as such. MFlet1 (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Nobody seems to be objecting to my suggestion about reverting the article. Will give it a go and see what happens. MFlet1 (talk) 12:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Well done ! - all you had to do was split it up into paragraphs (I had tried without success to do that) .....and you had a DETAILED ACCURATE Hollies history.....as opposed to all the Error filled RUBBISH about the band that is featured on so many websites...

In fact as a result of predictable "Robotic" modern editing (you could easily have messaged me) a lot of TRUE FACTS have just been thrown away by Wiki - The FACTS re The Hollies that have been DELETED could ALL be VERIFIED (I tried to provide these) if reference had been made to the Booklet that came with "The Long Road Home" Box set ...umpteen Hollies fanzine magazines and from information I had obtained DIRECT from Band members ... plus EMI Official session Listings & Anthologies of band members solo works, Compact Disc booklets, & many International chart books from around the world, and many concert booklets, which I HAD duly advise Wiki of...!

A longtime Hollies group member (whom I have known for years) recently told me by email he was delighted with all the ACCURATE info I had put now on.... correcting a good few ERRORS in the process...now all lost....

by the way you have mis-spelt the drummer's surname...it should be ELLIOTT !!

...and it's ALAN not "ALLEN" Coates....!

Also...please note that Tony Hicks has NEVER played keyboards for The Hollies....yet ANOTHER error still on the site...!

...plus the final Clarke-Nash-Hicks song on a single was not as stated...it was "Survival of The fittest" in the USA in 1970 !

...AND the final sixties Hollies single to feature Graham Nash was NOT "Jennifer Eccles"...it was "Listen To Me" released in September 1968

WHO RE-EDITED this....making it FULL of errors ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grella (talk • contribs) 17:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Likewise re The Moody Blues - again alot of ACCURATE info is now on there...no doubt you will automatically just revert that to an inaccurate skelental overview again !

however if you prefer to have these mere skelental error strewn overviews (which included a good few errors) then fine....just stay with the errors and all the vast gaps in the band's histories....I assure you this was NOT any kind of Vandalism....but ACCURATE FACTS for the benefit of any visitors to this website...I can see Wiki's er "reputation" is not apparently without foundation ...and MFlet1 can rest assured there will be NO further (Factual) contributions on here from this user...!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.252.184 (talk) 11:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure the edits by that anon were totally in good faith but he/she seems to not understand the purpose of wikipedia 24.20.200.67 (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of wikipedia seems to be to include error strewn mere skelental overviews....FOUR Errors at least have still to be corrected.... ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grella (talk • contribs) 11:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Discography

hello i read your article what i mean is very good and i see the discogrphy. I'm german and have the german Version or the german published from the Single "Daddy Don't Mind" what is in 1976 # 31 in the german charts, but the german published from Polydor with the order# 2040 157 the german publishig have in the B-Side the Song "Another Night" -- Uwe Steffen (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The posts in this section are very frustrating, because they generally seem to be little more than rants directed at past versions of the Hollies article. However, as far as I can tell, the problems that have been raised above have been corrected with the exception of the question regarding whether Tony Hicks ever played keyboards (in addition to guitars, banjo and mandolin). Does anyone have a credit showing Hicks on keyboards? -- AyaK (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I would also like to add that some of what the well intended editor was adding would be identified as original research as the info was from emails sent to her/him by a former band member. No matter how "accurate" this kind of information may be, it cannot be included in an article without some form of reliable citation from a reputable 3rd party source. I understand that this may be frustrating, but it is necessary for articles so there is a way to verify the "facts" presented in the articles themselves.THX1136 (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Lead vocals.

Please, post information of who sang lead vocals music by music, album by album. Much fans dont know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.8.96.84 (talk) 04:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Such information is beyond the scope of an overview encyclopedia article such as this one. However, some of that information is in the articles on the individual albums. -- AyaK (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

James Stroud has never been a Hollies member

Sorry , the person who wrote the article did a good job. However, James Stroud is not a former Hollies band member. That must be: Steve Stroud Who can change that on the right hand side of the article ?83.128.19.208 (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Ray Stiles

It may be coincidence but bass player Ray Stiles ... the same bass player once playing in glam rock band Mud? 83.83.119.239 (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

It's in the article. What's your point? Cresix (talk) 22:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)The latest Hollies photo on this article says it's The Hollies in 1965, but that photo is from the photo sessions for their second album; 'In The Hollies Style' and dates from late 1964 not 1965. Grella

Another Night??

Perhaps this is an oversight or maybe the single did not chart, but there is no mention of this single b/w Time Machine Jive - Epic Records, 8-50110 released in 1974/5 in the US. Both tunes were quite good and certainly rank amongst some of their better work. (my opinion obviously)THX1136 (talk) 01:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Hollies. 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/20100117033406/http://www.rockhall.com/induction2010 to http://www.rockhall.com/induction2010

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) 12:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Needs html editing introduction section

Irishstones (talk) 03:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Hollies. 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/20080417071527/http://home.online.no/~kskyberg/ to http://home.online.no/~kskyberg/

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) 22:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)