Talk:Westlife/Archive 1

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

Random comments

Any one here interested in more info about Westlife? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missy Filan (talk • contribs) 13:23, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

from mongolia here s baagi i am student. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.72.245.131 (talk) 04:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

My Westlife's favourite video is "World Of Our Own"'s first one. I like especially watching them being seduced by two policewomen (Anonymous). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.18.14.4 (talk) 11:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Trivia

I think we should keep the trivia section. The music download chart fact is not very trivial (although trivia is trivial by definition). Perhaps if we're going to get rid of that section we could incorporate it somewhere else? ConDem 13:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I've incorporated all of it in the discography.While you said Radish originally recorded one of their songs, you (A) failed to disambiguate Radish, and (B) failed to mention at least 5 or 6 other Westlife songs originally recorded by someone else.205.188.117.73 04:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, ok, but actually, that wasn't me. i was just commenting on the edit after reverting a deletion. I think the person who put that fact there was either a Radish fan (whoever they are!) or thought it was significant because it was a rock band. ConDem 13:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Why edits erased

I edited this page yesterday with more accurate info, only to find this morning that it had all be erased. Not very nice, i spent ages doing that ;) hope you like the changes, i'll try and add a bit more info in a while, been working on the French version in the meantime. VirginieP 14:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You mixed together useful material with blatant fancruft, and I threw the lot out. That may have been too severe, and when I get a chance I'll try to do a more selective correction. Wasted Time R 17:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

That's ok, i saw the problem and i'm working on it ;) i'm new to wikipedia editing, that explains why. But the previous version wasn't that objective either, so i'm going to try and stick to the facts! Thank you for your help VirginieP 19:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Bad shape

This article is in truly bad shape, even by Wikipedia music article standards. Wasted Time R 15:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The structure and usage are much better now, and I've removed the cleanup tag. I can't vouch for most of the contents, though, so I've left the verification tag in place. Wasted Time R 00:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Have attempted a clean up - it says a lot about Wiki that someone who loathes boy bands has put personal feelings aside to do it!! Hope it reads better - I've moved the HTML tags further down to catch a bit more of the inappropriate stuff. doktorb 21:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Someone else deleted the commented-out material; that's ok. I've removed the verification tag as well, since enough people seem to have looked it over now. Wasted Time R 12:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I though there was a section originally in the article where Mark retracted his statement saying that he is a homosexual, what happened to that section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.215.116.234 (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of August 20, 2006, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Mostly npov, but not balanced in representation. There a couple fannish statments, here and there that could probably be neutralized, for example: "If the loss of a member usually means the beginning of the end for pop bands, this was not the case with Westlife." or "Having outlasted just about every other boy band, the members of Westlife continue to laugh off any speculation of a split-up."

2. Factually accurate?: Major issues here. Tons of "critical success" or "was generally considered" or like this sentence "recorded a song originally performed by country music legend Kenny Rogers, "Daytime Friends", which won them much praise" with absolutely no references or substatiation by a reputable source. In fact, I don't see much of any sources at all. All these statistics and claims could be entirely made up. At the very least, no researcher could read this article and efficiently confirm this article with it's sources, since there pretty much aren't any. Awards and chart positions don't need to be referenced, since those can be easily found at the source of the awards/charts. But special attention should be given to statistics, specific dates, and details. see WP:IC.

3. Broad in coverage?: More or less. But the personal life info should be broken off into a new section, and there should be included info about non-music related incidents: like any participation in humanitarian efforts, scandals, anything of note.

4. Neutral point of view?: This article is not balanced in presenting critique. The only downside was that they are not in the US market, but honestly, this band has some major bashers. This should be included as well, along with their undoubted success.

5. Article stability? Pretty good, impressive for a musician's page.

6. Images?: The charts need more attractive formatting, espcially those spaces nex tto the album pics. The album pics should also be smaller, less than 100px. It would also be nice to have some pics within the body of the article.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far. --Esprit15d 13:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

A note.

someone should put pictures in for the albums. (turnaround, allow us to be frank and face to face) it looks a little messy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleskittles (talk • contribs) 17:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

(Good to be) Gay

Isn't it notable that there are gay members in the band? I don't know which of them are gay, but there are some gays in there. A magazine here reported that two of the band members got married to each other. I'm sure this is a notable fact. ► Adriaan90 ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) ♪♫ 17:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Mark Feehily is gay. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh ok. I'm sure the person he married is gay as well. But I wouldn't know. ► Adriaan90 ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) ♪♫ 20:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

His article doesn't say he's married but he was dating Kevin McDaid from V. You might be thinking of Stephen Gately from Boyzone who married his partner, Andrew Cowles, in March this year. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

'Beautiful Arrangements'

Surely the 'beautiful arrangements' description in the opening lines is a little subjective for an encyclopedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.42.173.166 (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Re-removed farsi External Link

I have removed a non-English language website from the External Links section. The link (Westlife Persian Fans(farsi)) points to a site in farsi, which is not in line with the WP:EL#Foreign-language_links guideline. --The.Q | Talk to me 11:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Citations

I've made citation to every single line that was tagged with source request or similar tags. Please do not alter the numbers or other figure unless you can find a source to prove it.

This article has also been requested for another Good Article review so let's hope for that best! --Cahk 06:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Westlife-thelovealbum2.jpg

Image:Westlife-thelovealbum2.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 04:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Covers

At first it was cool to hear covers, but when they base their career off of covers, it gets really old. Michael Buble?! Come on, guys. Does anyone else feel the same? The alliance 23:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Altho I'm sure many people share your opinion, this is not the place to discuss whether you like their music or not. Wikipedia is for information, not opinion. Please read the notice at the top of the discussion page. Thanks! --Kaihoku 23:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism & the Major Re-Write

I've noticed that there's some vandalism that's appeared on this page. I'm in the process of clearing it up at the moment, just thought I should give it a mention. SunsetFlare 10:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Not only that, there was a complete re-write that seems to have been done by someone who is either not very familiar with editing on Wikipedia, or perhaps very young. It's going to take a lot of work to get this back to where it was, but slowly and surely, I'm going to make it happen. --Kaihoku 23:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

External Links

I've been watching this for a long time and I've seen that many fan sites are being added to the external links section... I've just removed them again and added a link to an official site (message boards) Please, people, this is not the way nor the place to advertise your site.

Thanks, Maaz. Figurefour 05:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheeky!

I just removed "Home" from the list of Westlife #1 Singles. As much as I personally think it is a fantastic song, we're getting a bit presumptuous, aren't we? If "Home" does reach #1, only THEN should it be put into the list. The song hasn't even been released on sale yet! SunsetFlare 15:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism???

and could not even match Take That's two week old single "Rule the World", selling just 68,000 units!

This line has been edited by myself. It sounded as though someone (perhaps a Take That fan or a Westlife hater) had put this in just to show us how bad Westlife music is... sorry pal... The line now reads : and Take That's two week old single "Rule the World", selling just 68,000 units

Another such sentence:

Some artists take months, even years to make themselves satisfied with a new record but Westlife spent only weeks in the studio working with producers including Steve Mac, Quiz Larossi, Jorgen Elofsson and Maratone. This may be the reason for the poor performance of the album and its lead single.

The album has only just been released and its chart position isn't yet known, still, somehow, someone managed to get this in.... I'm not much familiar with the Wikipedia guidelines since I'm a bit new to editing and all, but this looks like someone on purpose is trying to degrade this article by placing nonsensical comments... The album chart info isn't out yet, and I do not believe that one will be able to find any source that claims that the album has performed poorly...

Just because you do not like the band doesn't necessarily give you the right to do this...

I'm editing this article and I ask for other users to please keep checking this article coz I can't come online regularly.

Thanks, Maaz.

Figurefour 15:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

citations

Following complaints and tags on this article about information coming from nowhere, I've made a major effort to cite everything there is to cite in this article using sources like BBC, various newspapers, TV, Yahoo Music, etc.

Do not alter the sources unless you can find a better one (ie. Youtube videos to something newspaper based, etc) --Cahk (talk) 08:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Charts records

Gerry and the Pacemakers only had three consecutive number ones - and none thereafter. 17:34, 9 December 2005 86.143.206.

"Fastest selling UK act to have top 5 single hits" - what does it mean? First, they're not a UK act; second, the phrase simply doesn't make sense. Doesn't look like a real record to me. 77.102.34.25 (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Failed GA nomination

OK, I'll be honest. The article is nowhere near GA standard - and I apologise for being harsh or abrupt. I reviewed a few sections, and then just got sick of it - and I wasn't noting everything I picked up. Here are my notes - they are generally relevant to the whole of the article, so you can work based on them. Leave a note on my talk page if you have any comments or questions. Cheers, — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 02:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

"having sold 40 million albums in 40 countries. [1] [2]" - Remove spaces between full stop and ref 1, and between refs 1 and 2
"The group have proven extremely successful in Ireland and the United Kingdom, and rest of the Europe, and are also relatively popular in Africa, Australia and Asia" - add wlinks for the names of countries here
"Westlife has had 14 number one singles in the United Kingdom between the years 1999 and 2006[3] [4]" - Move these refs to the end of the paragraph, remove the space
"They are worth an estimated €28 million (about £20 million or $ 40 million USD) in 2005 [6] ." - Remove space between $ and 40, and put ref after full stop
The article needs a section discussing the band before their big break....formation etc.
"Smash Hits Poll Winners Party. [7]" - REmove space after full stop.
Refs 7 and 8 are the same
Second section of "Westlife: Big Break" section needs sources for charting etc.
"Coast to Coast was an enormous hit in the UK" - NPOV
"Coast to Coast" section's first paragraph is unsourced
"was crowned Christmas number one."....um, what's the Christmas number one?
"which was then covered by Gareth Gates[9] and Will Young [10] for Pop Idol" -Refs to end of sentence

— Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 02:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Since I nominated the article and fixed all the citations per GA criteria, I've fixed the problems described above except:

*Second section of "Westlife: Big Break" section needs sources for charting etc.

Chart records do not need sourcing based on a previous GA review. However, a citation to the BPI database was added for verification purposes.

--Cahk (talk) 04:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

All chart positions need to be sourced, you have unnecessary bolding for a TV Show, external links should be at the end of the article, "The members of Westlife appear to have successfully juggled their careers and their private lives:" is POV (article is on the band so this section seems pointless, heaps of lists (tours should be merged with the text, and heaps of one sentence paragraphs do not make for good prose. M3tal H3ad (talk) 05:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

~~To summarize on issues needing to be fixed:~~

heaps of one sentence paragraphs do not make for good prose--Cahk (talk) 07:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

There are still some bitty sections, and the most important things I see are external links to copyright violations (re: YouTube). Similarly, there are far too many WP:NONFREE images on the page. Lose most/all of those covers. The JPS ^{talk to me} 12:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I've added citations to the 2 tags you placed. As to images.. well, we shall see. In terms of external links, I do not see any copyvio, could you elaborate?--Cahk (talk) 17:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure: the links to YouTube in the references, such as 'Easy With Lionel Richie'. Non-free images are to be only used for critical commentary and sparingly. Actually, most album pages (in the entire project, not just Westlife) fail this criteria but people tend to be more lenient when it's the subject of the article, but not in an overview like this. The JPS ^{talk to me} 19:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. However, I still failed to see how a youtube video is a copyvio on Wiki - I can see you say it can be copyvio of the uploader of the video, but the link to the video which shows/indicate something happened, as a fact, would be strange to say to it's a copyvio.--Cahk (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works explains it. The JPS ^{talk to me} 22:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Failed

This article is on reviewRealist2 (talk) 06:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Im afraid this article fails for the following reasons.

Poorly written, the lead is shocking
To many album and CD covers, they should be on their own respective pages, they dont even have captions.
Everything is split into mini line paragraphs. It needs to all be joined together smoothly.
RED links
Not broad enough, the section on mcfadden leaving is like three lines long.
Headings are not formatted properly. No need for a capital letter for every new word.
There is a citation tag in the heading for world record, WHY!!!!!!!!!!
Get all spelling, grammar and pros sorted.

Dont renominate it until that point. Realist2 (talk) 06:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Some of my comments have still not been addressed, re the links to copyright violations, and excessive use of CD covers. For instance, the "Flying Without Wings" cover has no right to be located where it is as that section isn't even talking about the song, never mind giving a critical commentary. When justifying 'non-free images', ask "can the text be understood just as well without this image?" In most cases on this page, the images do not enhance understanding; they mainly make it look pretty. The JPS ^{talk to me} 09:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Claim in lead

This claim: "The band is considered to be the most successful pop group of the 21st century" is far too broad to be presented like this, or probably at all (the century's not even 10% through). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and a citation from East Coast Radio is not extraordinary. Tuf-Kat (talk) 04:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it's weaselly and subjective. --neonwhite user page talk 14:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

On review (Failed)

They described each of them with different vocal range and styles, Byrne (husky voice), Egan (rock), Feehily (R&B), Filan (pop), McFadden (pop, R&B). - remove
This variations in voices are considered by the band as one of their edge among other musical groups around. - remove
"Double-figures in shortest time" - what does that even mean
"[4][5][6][7][8][9][10] - ugly, the lead shouldnt be sourced, instead it should be sourced in tontent of article.
Source 11 is no good, you need a much better source for such a claim.
Way to much wikilinking of the same words, some things dont need wikilinking at all.
Current sources 13,22,33,35 not formatted correctly.
Current sources 1,6,10,11,12,44,47,58,59,60,62,64 need replacing they are not reliable.
Over linking to GMTV - find some other sources
- Please sort out these issues before i continue, the article is a long way off GA but i can take you through it step by step. For now its on hold, you have a week to sort out these issues. Cheers. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 15:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

GA fails again, its been 6 days and not even these small requests have been completed, even with these done it would have still needed a lot of work. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 15:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Links to copyrighted material

Please do not include external links to copyrighted material, such as videos clips hosted on the likes of YouTube. Such clips are only acceptable when a company uploads them themselves on an official channel. The JPS ^{talk to me} 14:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Discography

Curiously enough, this article doesn't have one. 58.167.40.86 (talk) 04:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup and NPOV

Chunks of the article appear to be pasted from a tabloid newspaper article, especially further down. I notice there have been problems with "fancruft" before, and it has failed GA assesments three times.

"The lads " "And boy band hunk Nicky Byrne has revealed" "or which ‘You Raise Me Up’ stars are famous. " --AleXd (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I've just removed a paragraph. You can identify the original source (a WL site) by googling a phrase. The JPS ^{talk to me} 14:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Good work! --AleXd (talk) 14:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

A Mistake in an Article

"In 2005, after a four-month break, they came back with "You Raise Me Up", a cover of a Josh Groban song" It's NOT Josh Groban's song!!! Somebody fix it. It's Brian Kennedy, who sang this song for the first time. Correct the mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.30.207.100 (talk) 17:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC) they did not get their 15th number 1 yet in the UK, they only as of now got to number 2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saskie1966 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

America

The band was disappointed when they heard of the news as they were planning on bringing that song (Flying Without Wings) to the American audiences in the near future

Yes, but that was 2003 - Westlife originally had the song in 1999 - and had had an American hit since then - what were they waiting for? Or is it that this info is fiction? I see no source for it.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

No information of them trying to have world-wide success and their reception in other countries America Australia etc.--Cooly123 23:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs)

Popularity and Criticisms section

This section looks like it was written by a four year old. No references, tenses all over the place and just bad grammar in general. Could do with a clean-up by someone who knows what they are talking about. Dylan (talk) 04:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, their first language can't be English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.132.90 (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

File:GravityHN.PNG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:GravityHN.PNG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 10 October 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Need more references

Some parts of the article may contain original research and should be removed. The most notable is the Artistry section. The Popularity section also needs more reference, as well as US market and Collaboration section. Krystaleen (talk) 06:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The article is way too bloated

This article is so bloated, and there's a lot of unsupported claims and fancrufts. It needs streamlining. Krystaleen (talk) 14:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Westlife "were?"

Oh please. Westlife was, or leave it out. A noun; person, place, THING. It's a band. "Westlife WAS a boy band. The members of Westlife WERE...etc."

Someone used this style with Boyzone too. Makes no logical sense. Blondesareeasy (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

It's British/Irish English. Read WP:BANDENG.--Krystaleen 02:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Westlife. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/6EEYfYVwc?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bpi.co.uk%2Fcertified-awards.aspx to http://www.bpi.co.uk/certified-awards.aspx
Corrected formatting/usage for http://bpi.co.uk/platinum/platinumright.asp?rq=search_plat&r_id=29350
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071119040257/http://www.crokepark.ie/page/venue_information.html to http://www.crokepark.ie/page/venue_information.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111021042509/http://www.rte.ie:80/ten/2011/1019/westlife.html to http://www.rte.ie/ten/2011/1019/westlife.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111106201128/http://www.rte.ie:80/ten/2011/1104/westlife.html to http://www.rte.ie/ten/2011/1104/westlife.html

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

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) 15:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Westlife. 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) 16:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Westlife. 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) 13:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)