Talk:Myxobolus cerebralis/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

World map?

Unfortunately, the only map I've been able to find of the parasite's worldwide range is sitting in a library 100 miles away. Can anyone find it (or a complete list of affected countries)? Thanks in advance, Dave (talk) 23:40, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Have you got the refernece and I can see if its in my library.--nixie 00:04, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
    • It's this book. First chapter by Bartholomew and Reno. There's a page that has about 4 maps, showing the known range of the parasite at different times since its discovery. Thanks in advance. Dave (talk) 00:51, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • Incidentally, that book is great for other stuff, too. There's all kinds of primary research on the parasite, and the first chapter (Bartholomew and Reno) has a lot of stuff on the history that we can add to the article if you find the book. Dave (talk)

Good ideas

This page has some neat things, like the susceptibility of various salmonid species to infection table. I uploaded a pic of an infected fish Image:Whirling disease-2.jpg for the article too. --nixie 00:04, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Great edit (intro plus picture). You forgot to link to the page, though :-( Dave (talk) 00:53, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
Its difficult to get the balance right when you are talking about an organism and the disease, I think the naming/classification info should probably move from the lead too. No luck on the book, we don't have the parasite in Australia yet so there are no books on the subject here. We could probably cobble a map together from the infomation in the other literature, there are heaps of outlines on the commons, all me need to do is color in the sites where the parasite is known. --nixie 01:02, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
The article you sent me says that there are 26 countries with it. I think we know all the non-European ones, but I don't know if Liechtenstein has it or not, for example. Thanks for looking for the book, though. I'm going to try to find an appropriate barnstar for your work here.
As far as the classification stuff, I'm not really sure what's best. If you want to make your changes, I'll let you know what I think. Dave (talk) 04:38, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
I made a map from the info in a 1990 article I got from the library, I am seriously avoiding work today. --nixie 04:52, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
I know the feeling. In a way, I'm lucky my laptop broke just before final exams--it kept me off this site. The map is great. Dave (talk) 05:00, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

The map looks good. Could you give me the reference? The Lom and Dykova book (down in the cited literature now) has it down as being present in Australia, but it doesn't give a date of finding or cite its source for that, so I don't know if I trust it if there's a better source which says it isn't present. Anilocra 08:50, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

The reference is on the image page, its not available as a pdf :( According to Australian information the parsite isn't present here yet, and measures are employed to make sure it doesn't get imported from Canadian or New Zealand fisheries--nixie 10:45, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I think I've got that at work, I'll go have a look later. I can't find any other sources that suggest it's been found in Australia, so I guess we can ignore that book... Anilocra 08:25, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Map

It looks like there are a couple of mistakes with the map, and I wanted to confirm them before fixing them:

  1. Israel got filled in along with Lebanon. It's not on the list of countries. Should it be?
  2. Germany isn't filled in, and it should be. Maybe you filled in a different country by mistake? Do you know which one?

I can fix them, but I want to make sure I don't make any mistakes. Dave (talk) 16:18, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • Can't believe I forgot Germany, also there is not report of the parasite for Israel unless it came after 1981. Fixed the errors--nixie 00:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I coloured in all the former Yuogslav countries since I don't have the report saying where it was found in Yuogslavia, I didn't color in all the former USSR countires, we may be able to clarify where it is known in eastern Europe by some web searching. Its easy to edit just save it and upload it to the same file name when your done (make sure the capitalisation of the file extension is the same)--nixie 22:53, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Whirling Disease Initiative

I just got permission from Amy Rose of the Whirling Disease Initiative to use any information from their site (including maps) in the article. I thought you might want to know. I'm going to start looking through their stuff some more. Dave (talk) 17:47, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Anyone know how to make tables on Wikipedia? There's a couple of nice ones here. Dave (talk) 23:43, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • Tables are pretty easy, which ones did you have in mind? I can have a go later today--nixie 00:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I was thinking about using the susceptibility one, but only if it doesn't take up too much room on the page. I remember reading something about automatically converting the HTML, but I'm pretty ignorant about this sort of thing. Dave (talk) 03:16, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Here's the table, the converter didn't work too well, so I've learned lots of new things about tables :). All the things that can be wikilinked should be. I didn't think the full binomial was necessary since that should be on the species page. The article will probably need to cover susceptibility in more detail if we add it--nixie 03:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Taxobox

No more redlinks! (except for Hofer, but we shouldn't let him bring the mood down...) Anilocra 21:51, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

good work :-) Dave (talk) 22:44, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
All gone now! Woo! Anilocra 23:17, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


References

I think we may want to consider pruning the reference list to include only the works cited in the text, and other improtant sources. The list is very long and may things on it bear no direct relatioship to the text. Also in place of the inline references we may want to consider changing to Wikipedia:Footnote3 --nixie 05:08, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the table of susceptibility is a great idea, as is changing to Wikipedia:Footnote3, and I'd almost finished reformatting the article to this end when my laptop crashed. Arse! Anyway, I noticed as I was previewing that the numbering of the references starts at 2. Anybody else have this problem? I'll have another go later if I get the chance. Anilocra 09:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm all for pruning the references, but I think all of these get used (though some don't get used more than once). The only problem with Footnote3 is that it's a pain when references repeat--you have to have each source listed multiple times (as in Pope Benedict XVI or abandon numbering of the references (as in libertarianism). I'll do the footnotes in the style of the libertarianism article (sources unnumbered and in alphabetical order) and if we want to change it, we can. Dave (talk) 15:23, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

I've formatted it for Wikipedia:Footnote4, which is manual. But I don't want to get into edit conflicts, so I'vehttp://www.comparative-legumes.org/lis/ The Legume Information System (LIS) just stored it in my userspace, here. Anilocra 15:36, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't get your message until I submitted my version. Dave (talk) 16:10, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Looks good, but it is numbering from 2 rather 1. A few more things to work on:

  1. micro paragraphs, there are a couple of these that are about 3 short sentences, on a 15 inch monitor they only look like they're 2 lines long, we need to expand the paragraph or consolidate into another one
  2. The lead is still a bit clunky
  3. Is anyone good with photshop/paint? The life cycle could be improved to make the illustration more clear

I'm going to include some stuff in the impacts section on the estimated cost to Australian and Canadian ecosystems/aquaculture and and the extent that they go to to keep the parasite out (I just got a 427 page report on the parasite in Australia). Some information on PCR detection, and hopefully there is some information around on the impact in Europe/New Zealand etc. I'm not incredibly attached to the table, but it was pretty good in text since it lists all the affected species, it won't look so weird if the text gets longer.--nixie 23:10, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I'll have a go at photoshopping a cleaner life cycle diagram. Should be able to find something on costs to the UK/EU later in the week. I still can't get the references to number from 1, though. Anilocra 00:02, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Dave's comments:

  • references' numbering: The references numbering issue is fixed: the problem is that external links like [http:www.google.com] don't play nicely with the references since they share the same numbering. The link from the map of the U.S. got labeled 1 and the references were then 2, 3, 4, etc.
  • Impacts: If you can get stuff about the impacts on your continents, I can get stuff about mine.
  • The table Do you prefer having the table in the text as opposed to at the end? I think we could do it either way, if you prefer. I just thought this made it easier to read.
  • Life Cycle The new chart looks great. I was thinking about asking for permission to use someone else's, but yours is good. This is the best one I've seen so far. It's from the Nickum article.
  • Other stuff: I'll see what I can do about the lead (possibly adding a taxonomy section?) and "micro" paragraphs. I'm really pleased with everything you two have done with the article.

Dave (talk) 04:21, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Update: I think the numbering problem was actually a result of being in the image frame, rather than of being a link. Either way, it's fixed now. As it is now almost 1:30 in the morning here, I'm going to sleep. There are still some micro-paragraphs and the text is choppy from all my cuts-and-pastes, but it's better organized in terms of sections. If it's not fixed when I next take a look, I'll do some work on it then. Dave (talk) 05:25, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Life Cycle Diagram

Comments?


Anilocra 01:37, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

That looks awesome, there are more pics here if you need any, including some good worm pics [1]. Do you think its worth including birds as vector on the diagram? --nixie 02:02, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

v2.0

I've added the birds and a picture of the worm. Anilocra 12:18, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Once again it looks great, the is a lifecycle that Dave linked to above that has three sections, in fish, in transition, and in worm, it breaks down very clearly the movement of the parasite between hosts. I'm not sure its necessary, but its the only change I could think of that could be considered--nixie 23:15, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

v3.0

Ok, I hadn't noticed that link. I like the transmission thing and I've added it in here. I'll link it into the article in a moment... Anilocra 12:04, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

A few more things...

Ok, there's a few more things I think this article needs. Some of which I've got, some I don't...

1. I think it could do with a picture of the pathology in the cartilage of an infected fish, if possible. I'd guess it causes some, but I've never seen a case of this, so I can't say for sure. I don't have one, and I can't see one on fishdisease.net, so if anybody can get one, that'd be useful.
2. I've got a slide of a nice clear line drawing of the actinosporean stage from my boss that he's happy to contribute. I'll upload it in the week when I get hold of a slide scanner.
3. Is there a policy on colour in maps? I'd like to make the U.S. and world distribution maps match in colour.
4.Other than that, it's looking pretty good. I think the intro could still be a bit punchier, and I'll have a shot at that.

Anilocra 23:14, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

1, there are some histology pictures here, but they are unlabelled, since you work in the field you might be able to work out if there is anything suitable [2]
3, as far as I know there is no policy on map colouring, colour them however you like.
4, the whole thing probably needs a good copy edit with all the cutting and pasting that has gone on, ;)
--nixie 00:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, that was just what I was looking for. A good copyedit would be no bad thing. Sort of a Request for disinterested person review :) Anilocra 12:32, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I can do the copyedit. Making the two maps match in color sounds good. Everything else seems great. This may be featurable. Dave (talk) 20:14, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Do we want to mention intermediate steps in the morphology section? Sporoplasms and germ cells and amoeboid stages and so on? Dave (talk) 20:24, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
Ok, that's the maps matched up, and I've also centered and cropped the picture of the deformed char. The clean up seems to be working - I see we're back under 30Kb again. I think the morphology section could be split into subheadings for the myxosporean and actinosporean stages, but it might get a bit choppy with a subheading for each intermediate step. Just looking at it again, how about moving the taxonomy section up to before morphology, as it explains the two different forms thing quite nicely, as compared to just starting talking about the morphology of the different forms. What do you think? Anilocra (talk · contribs)
The fish picture cropping is a huge improvement, as is your life cycle chart. I followed your suggestion for the order of the sections. I don't really know anything about the intermediate forms of the parasite except what's already in the article, so I don't know what we can add about the other forms. Maybe a quick "other forms have not been well-studied and are briefly discussed in the life-cycle section" or something. I don't know. But it seems weird to leave them out entirely and not mention them at all. I think with a bit more information on the U.S. (where it's probably causing the biggest impact) and some more touch-up, this is featured-article quality. I'm really pleased. Dave (talk) 23:17, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

What shall we work on next?

I fixed a few litle things on the world map. I should probably delete all the unused/preliminary images, any objections? And it's definately featurable :) This was heaps of fun, what should we work on next?--nixie 00:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

No objections. I wish all the articles I worked on turned out this well. I'll work on whatever you want to work on, though the only areas I really consider myself competent in are mammals, parasites, and certain areas of evolution and ecology. In a few weeks, I'll start some classes on math in biology (things like population dynamics and maximum likelyhood analysis) and maybe I could put that stuff up. I'll work on whatever you want to work on. I've been really pleased with the way the three of us have worked together. Dave (talk) 00:18, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
One of the liver flukes might be interesting (gross too), on the plus side there are lots of PD diagrams. There are also the other fish parasites/virus Anilocra has written about, and the fish that are affected, most of the fish articles are fairly stubby.--nixie 02:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Wow! I've made all the drugs turn blue. If you're looking for something slightly different but still vaguely biological, Brent Spar is the first big article I worked on. It's outside my field, but I remember it causing a big stink in the news about 10 years back. I didn't reference it at the time I wrote it, so it needs a bit of a fact-check. It's quite long and vaguely controversial (nobody came out of the affair looking good, not even Greenpeace), but I think it would make an interesting featured article. Its only really got a UK perspective at the momentAnilocra 12:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't know anything about it, really. I just got a very oddball idea that could be a lot of fun: use of rodents in demining. See remote-controlled rats and pouch rats. It seems like a great article waiting to be written. I think I'll make it my next project and I'd love to work with you two, if you're interested. If you prefer liver flukes, that works, too. Dave (talk) 14:52, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Funny

This page may no longer be up when you see the link, but [getgourmetrecipes.com] hosted our article for a while. It's gone now, but the cached version remains on Google. I wonder what they were thinking. Dave (talk) 21:36, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Heh... :) Anilocra 21:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Mabye its some kind of delicacy ;) --nixie 23:51, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Whirling Disease Initiative

I asked them to review the article. They may have some ideas we missed. When they get back to me, we can submit this to WP:FAC, and it should have no problem. Dave (talk) 03:17, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Actinomyxon drawing...

Here's that line drawing of the actinomyxon stage. I'll write something for the morphology section on the intracellular stages when I get the chance, then I think I'm happy with it. Work's a nightmare just now, so might not get a chance to do much more until the weekend. Anilocra 12:47, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
ps. sorry, it's got a crappy name - I was in a rush and didn't look...

I hope you're not like me and that you can actually get work done... Good luck. Dave (talk) 13:28, May 18, 2005 (UTC)


Do you think the diagram should just replace the photo it's more informative, and the page looks kinda busy with both.--nixie 08:58, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking that. It is a bit crowded down there. I don't seem to be able to jiggle them around to make it less so. Anilocra 09:12, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

While I'll remain agnostic whether one picture or the other, or both, is best, I've converted both the pictures you're talking about to much better suited formats, Image:Fdl17-9-grey.jpg (I meant to do Image:Triactinomyxon.jpg, but forgot) and Image:Actinomyxon.png. If you're going to improve the line drawing, it would help if you converted it to an indexed image, a 16-colour grey index is just about right but greyscale is decent too, and definitely save it as PNG rather than JPG, which both takes up a lot more KB for line drawings, and introduces some ugly artifacts.
I won't bother reproducing it here in the Talk:, because it looks pretty much identical for all intents and purposes, especially in thumbnail. -- John Owens (talk) 13:39, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

"probably via the blood or lymphatic system"--outdated?

I noticed a line in the "sporoplasm" morphology section that said M. cerebralis moves through the blood or lymph. I thought that the parasites migrated along the nerves (according to the Hedrick and El-Matbouli 2002 article) but I could be wrong. Could the 1989 source that said this originally be outdated? Am I remembering wrong? What do you think? Dave (talk) 19:24, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

It could well be. That paper was published in 1989, and then the statement was repeated in Lom & Dykova (1992) and a couple of later works. I haven't seen the Hendrick and Matbouli paper, so I couldn't compare, but it should take precedence if it contradicts the earlier work. Anilocra 19:40, 26 May 2005 (UTC) (my own feeling is that it's got to be a bit of both, and that you can't get from a fishes skin to the cerebral cartilage without migrating through a number of tissues - I'll word it more vaguely until I've checked).

Map redux

In the U.S range map, while otherwise the marked range follows the generally arbitrary state borders, the lower part of Michigan is coloured in, but the Upper Peninsula is left out. Was this on purpose, or an oversight? Seems to be a bit odd to make an exception to following the borders for just that one state, even if it is split in two.

Also, much like my comments about the other pictures, this might be better done as a PNG than a GIF, though for different reasons; GIF patent freedom status is kind of fuzzy, while PNGs are in the clear. As far as filesize & quality goes, they'll be roughly similar (assuming you choose your indexing appropriately). -- John Owens (talk) 13:46, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

It's a mistake. Sort of pathetic, since I'm from Michigan and should know that my home state has two peninsulas. I don't have the ability to make PNG images, so if you want to change the format and color in the UP, that would be great. Thanks, Dave (talk) 12:41, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
OK, will do. Just gimme a few minutes.... John Owens (talk) 15:41, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
All done now. Didn't even reduce file size by half, but like I said, that's not so much the issue with that type of picture and GIFs.
If you want a quick lesson on which file formats are best suited for what, and how to get the most of them, I might recommend Wikipedia:Preparing images for upload. And if it makes you feel better, it seems the USGS people who put the original black & white map together had even less of a clue. ;) -- John Owens (talk) 16:21, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
Now that I think about it... the same question goes for Alaska and the North Island of New Zealand (and that little bitty speck to the south of the South Island, I suppose) in the global map, Image:Worldwide distribution of Mcerebralis.png. Any idea whether Alaska or either half of New Zealand is vermin-free? -- John Owens (talk) 16:50, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
Oh, I just found Myxobolus cerebralis#Impact in New Zealand, so never mind that part, the map's fine there. Still scratching my head about Alaska, though. -- John Owens (talk) 17:14, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Alaska and New Zealand are judgement calls. The parasite is not present in Alaska or in part of New Zealand, but then again, it probably isn't ever found throughout a whole country, and we filled those in entirely. I have no opinion on whether we should change the map for Alaska and New Zealand, so if someone cares one way or the other, they're welcome to implement their version.

By the way, thanks for taking care of this. Dave (talk) 16:10, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I figured it'd be best to leave AK & North Island alone, all things considered, so all I did was reduce the number of colours to just the ones necessary. -- John Owens (talk) 00:03, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

Translation

Dear all, i just translated this article for the german Wikipedia and will now start to integrate some Sources of the List of Literatur and the pictures. I just want to say "thank you" to all of you, you have done a great work here. Best regards from Berlin, Achim Raschka 5 July 2005 11:28 (UTC)

Featured article review

I have listed this article as an uncontroversial article for Featured Article Review, as it has only undergone minor changes since becoming featured (I guess nobody cares about fish parasites). Dave (talk) 08:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Featured article review of January 30, 2006

This review resulted in the passing of a new version of the article.

Self-nom. I, along with User:Petaholmes and User:Anilocra wrote most of this article, with some help cleaning up from other users. Still, I feel okay putting this here myself because all the changes are extremely minor.

Here is the diff:[3]. About half of them are me fixing spelling mistakes that made it through the FA screening somehow. The other half are mostly grammar fixes and other minor changes like category changes and image formatting from other people. All appear to be improvements. If anyone disagrees, or thinks that I shouldn't nominate my own article, I'll accept that. Dave (talk) 08:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I think its still in good shape, someone should probably take on the monumental task of converting it to a numbered ref/note refernce system.--nixie 10:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I'll take a stab at it. Dave (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Partway. You can see what I've done here. Unfortunately, I decided it would be a good idea to cut off the years, so now we don't know which Markiw document I'm talking about in each case, but I think that can still be fixed fairly easily. Dave (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
    • All the footnotes now work, but I think we should double check that they all point to the right place. See Myxobolus cerebralis/Footnotes for the fixed version. Dave (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
      • You might want to thump me, but the new system described here m:Cite/Cite.php would reduce duplication a lot.--nixie 17:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Converted to inline refs

I converted this article to inline refs. I did not consolidate all duplicates, but I got most of them.--SallyForth123 07:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Myxobolus cerebralis. 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) 13:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

"Also, fish infected with worms have lower body mass and may be discolored."

Under the pathology section there exists the sentence:

Also, fish infected with worms have lower body mass and may be discolored.

This sentence is tagged with a reference to an article "WHIRLING DISEASE OF SALMONID FISH: LIFE CYCLE, BIOLOGY, AND DISEASE" which is not open access. This sentence is found in a paragraph that is mostly about worms, but describes the symptoms of the disease in fish. More importantly perhaps, though, whirling disease is not about fish being infected with worms, it's a disease caused by a cnidarian parasite that invades the bodies of both fish and worms and causes different symptoms in each host. I'm wondering if this sentence is simply a mistake, and either should say "Worms infected with spores" or "Fish infected with spores". Either interpretation would make sense and they could even both be true (though for separate reasons). Could someone with access to the source track down the refernece and see if the sentence we have now in the article is accurate? —Soap— 21:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Noting that I went ahead and removed it after waiting for a few weeks. —Soap— 03:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Myxobolus cerebralis. 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) 03:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Myxobolus cerebralis. 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) 22:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Myxobolus_cerebralis/Archive_1&oldid=1038584103"