Talk:Mount Shasta

Shastina
Article states that if Shastina were to be considered a separate peak, then it would be the third highest in the Cascade Range (Rainier, Shasta, Shastina). However, if Shastina is considered a separate peak at 12,330 feet elevation and 450 feet of prominence, then Liberty Cap on Rainier (14,112 feet, 492 feet of prominence) must also be considered a separate peak. Therefore, Shastina would have to be fourth.

Nsjackson (talk) 03:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Good point, and thank for noticing that. If you can provide the references, why not edit the article accordingly? Cullen328 (talk) 05:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I actsidentally deleted something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.3.63.108 (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Bergshrund?
The article states that a bergshrund is a hazard on the Avalanche Gulch climbing route. Bergshrunds occur only as features of glaciers, and Avalance Gulch has no glacier. There are several glaciers on other areas of the mountain, but only snowfields in Avalanche Gulch. I propose to remove this statement. Comments? Jim Heaphy (talk) 08:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've done some additional research and discovered that my concern last September was misplaced. Although Avalanche Gulch itself has no glacier and therefore no bergshrund, the route comes close to the top of the Konwakiton Glacier after leaving the gulch at the Red Banks, so there is a bergshrund danger under certain conditions when crossing a snow bridge. - Jim Heaphy Cullen328 (talk) 05:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Status
So is it inactive or active? Just a simple Yes or no answer would be appriciated, no long descriptive answers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.213.89.2 (talk) 18:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes there are no simple "yes or no" answers. Shasta is classified as "dormant" but may have erupted as recently as 1786. It is one of the major Cascade volcanoes. Two others, Mount Lassen and Mount St. Helens, erupted in the 20th century. Shasta will erupt again, but it is not active at this time. Jim Heaphy (talk) 08:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

elevation
Well, 14,179 is certainly not well-known. Have you corrected the height number in every reference to Shasta thoughout Wikipedia? Are there other similar errors for U.S. mountains?

NorCalHistory 06:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

every quad map i've seen uses 14,162

Elevations on the USGS quad maps are not the most up to date elevations, because they are only updated every couple of decades or so.

To find the best elevation of a mountain, visit the National Geodetic Survey web site http://www.ngs.noaa.gov. Click on "datasheets". Click on the "DATASHEETS" button. Click on "Radial Search". Now, you can search for benchmarks near any spot in the US.

For Mount Shasta, enter N412433 for Latitude, W1221142 for Longitude. Click the "Submit" button. Click "Select All". Click "Get Datasheets". Scroll down towards bottom of page. See where it says NAVD 88 ? That's the elevation in the NAVD88 coordinate system, as of the epoch date (here, 1991). It says 14179 feet. That's the latest, most accurate, elevation.

-- hike395 13:25, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

--- thanks for the good information

Looks like we're revisiting this issue again --- the 14179 foot elevation is from the NGS, in the NAVD88 coordinate system. I've reproduced the datasheet, below, as evidence. I'll revert back to 14179.

1       National Geodetic Survey,   Retrieval Date = AUGUST 13, 2006 MX1016 *********************************************************************** MX1016 DESIGNATION -  MT SHASTA MX1016 PID         -  MX1016 MX1016 STATE/COUNTY-  CA/SISKIYOU MX1016 USGS QUAD   -  MT SHASTA (1986) MX1016 MX1016                        *CURRENT SURVEY CONTROL MX1016 ___________________________________________________________________ MX1016* NAD 83(1992)- 41 24 33.10572(N)    122 11 41.59809(W)     ADJUSTED MX1016* NAVD 88    -      4321.8    (meters)   14179. (feet) VERTCON MX1016 ___________________________________________________________________ MX1016 EPOCH DATE  -        1991.35 MX1016 LAPLACE CORR-          -8.40  (seconds)                    DEFLEC99 MX1016 GEOID HEIGHT-         -23.40  (meters)                     GEOID03 MX1016 MX1016 HORZ ORDER  -  THIRD MX1016 MX1016.The horizontal coordinates were established by classical geodetic methods MX1016.and adjusted by the National Geodetic Survey in March 1994.. MX1016.The horizontal coordinates are valid at the epoch date displayed above. MX1016.The epoch date for horizontal control is a decimal equivalence MX1016.of Year/Month/Day. MX1016 MX1016.The NAVD 88 height was computed by applying the VERTCON shift value to MX1016.the NGVD 29 height (displayed under SUPERSEDED SURVEY CONTROL.) MX1016 MX1016.The Laplace correction was computed from DEFLEC99 derived deflections. MX1016 MX1016.The geoid height was determined by GEOID03. MX1016 MX1016;                   North         East     Units Scale Factor Converg. MX1016;SPC CA 1    -   730,521.333 1,983,705.772   MT  0.99994479   -0 07 38.8 MX1016;SPC CA 1    - 2,396,718.74  6,508,208.02   sFT  0.99994479   -0 07 38.8 MX1016;UTM 10      - 4,584,496.046   567,290.909   MT  0.99965572   +0 31 57.2 MX1016 MX1016! - Elev Factor  x  Scale Factor =   Combined Factor MX1016!SPC CA 1    -   0.99932624  x   0.99994479  =   0.99927107 MX1016!UTM 10      -   0.99932624  x   0.99965572  =   0.99898219 MX1016 MX1016                         SUPERSEDED SURVEY CONTROL MX1016 MX1016 NAD 83(1986)-  41 24 33.10402(N)    122 11 41.59988(W) AD(1984.00) 3 MX1016 NAD 27      -  41 24 33.55600(N)    122 11 37.56700(W) AD 3 MX1016 NGVD 29 (07/19/86) 4320.0    (m)        14173. (f) VERT ANG MX1016 MX1016.Superseded values are not recommended for survey control. MX1016.NGS no longer adjusts projects to the NAD 27 or NGVD 29 datums. MX1016.See file dsdata.txt to determine how the superseded data were derived. MX1016 MX1016_U.S. NATIONAL GRID SPATIAL ADDRESS: 10TEL6729184496(NAD 83) MX1016_MARK LOGO: USGS MX1016 MX1016 HISTORY     - Date     Condition        Report By MX1016  HISTORY     - 1952     MONUMENTED       CGS MX1016 MX1016                         STATION DESCRIPTION MX1016 MX1016'DESCRIBED BY COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY 1952 (WRH) MX1016'THE STATION IS LOCATED ABOUT 10 MILES AIRLINE EAST OF WEED, 9-1/2 MX1016'MILES NORTHEAST OF THE TOWN OF MT. SHASTA, ON THE HIGH NORTHWEST MX1016'SPUR OF MT. SHASTA. MX1016' MX1016'THE STATION IS A STATION OF THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND WAS MX1016'NOT VISITED BY THIS PARTY. A FLAGED TARGET OVER THE STATION WAS MX1016'INTERSECTED.

Volume
This article says that Mt. Shasta is the most voluminous volcano in the Cascade Range at 450 cubic kM, yet the article on the nearby Medicine Lake volcano states that it is also most voluminous volcano in the Cascade Range at 600 kM. I don't know which is correct, but it should be resolved.
 * According to (Wood 1990) Shasta is the largest startovolcano at ~350 cubic km while Medicine Lake is the largest volcano at ~600 cubic km. I'll look into making updates. --Burntnickel 23:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't need to make any updates as the articles are both already correct. --Burntnickel 00:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Mount Sisson?
I think someone was confused when they said Mt. Shasta was once called Mt. Sisson. The town was once named Sisson, and renamed to Mount Shasta, but the mountain has been known by some variant of its current name since the mid-19th century (see http://www.shastahome.com/visitors.htm and http://www.siskiyous.edu/shasta/bib/B14.htm) Gwimpey 02:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Images
Needs to wait for a ==History== section to be placed in this article.

Perhaps an image of Shasta as viewed from the north end of the Valley (Red Bluff, Willows, in there) would be demonstrative of its visibility. I don't think I have one, myself ... Kmmontandon (talk) 00:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to mess anything up, but it looks like the images are throwing off the spacing in the Description section badly. I'd fix it myself, but I don't know how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.193.213.191 (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific? I can't see any issues. Brycehughes (talk) 00:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Anonymous Editing
Dear Anonymous Editor (IP 209.232.215.253):

Please do not make anonymous edits, and then refuse to discuss your point of view. Please see Resolving_disputes.

NorCalHistory 21:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Corrected rank in California
The previous rank was based on peakware.com, which is a very unreliable source. Look at fourteeners for the relevant other peaks (look for "California"). -- Spireguy 04:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Added to Cultural References
I have come across something that might be helpful to the cultural references section, so I added that.
 * Forgot to sign. --RainStarDragon 00:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Climate chart
Two questions: (1) would the climate chart be more appropriate at Mount Shasta, California? The weather station in question is not on top of the mountain, after all. (2) Is the chart a copyvio? I don't think so, since most of the content is purely factual (the numbers) and the format has been changed a bit---it's not the exact same HTML. But I didn't want to move it myself before I heard other opinions. -- Spireguy 14:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Repeated removal of references by anon IP editor
NOTE: Three lengthy sections of this talk page have been moved to /Archive 1, in order to refocus this page on discussion about improving the article. Any further reference deletions or disruptive edits by that anon editor should be reported to WP:AIV, along with a link to the detailed list of the anon IP's edits at /Abuse. Thanks. --Seattle Skier (talk) 04:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

However, one should read the archive and duly note the controversy surrounding some of the edits by Seattle Skier. 75.10.53.124 01:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If you have problems with a particular edit to the article, feel free to discuss the substance of your concerns, but please do not misrepresent others' actions. I believe the "controversy" was primarily about misleading edit summaries (whether intentional or not) in a series of anonymous edits aiming to remove certain references from the article. -- Avenue 01:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Never the less, readers should explore the controversy and form their own opinions. Canned opinions like the ones above are dangerous to individual thought. 75.10.53.124 07:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: Seattle Skier is currently being investigated for fabricating his academic achievements and is not a viable editorial source. 63.207.227.105 18:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do not make unsupported, irrelevant personal attacks. -- Spireguy 19:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE - One of the references in the June 07 discussion has been removed again several times by another anonymous IP address. Consensus last time was that the ref should be kept, if you disagree with that please discuss it here first rather than removing it again. Eve (talk) 11:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Lemurians
"Many people clain to have encountered Lemuians on (Mt.) Shasta" needs a citation. By the way, what kinds of plants grow there? Pustelnik (talk) 02:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Indigenous name
Why is only the Karuk name, which doesn't look/sound like "Shasta", featured in the intro only? There are other indigenous names, I'd think (Modoc, for instance). This paragraph:
 * ''The historic eruption of Mount Shasta in 1786 may have been observed by la Perouse, but this is disputed. Although perhaps first seen by Spanish explorers, the first reliably-reported land sighting of Mount Shasta by a European or American was by Peter Skene Ogden (a leader of a Hudson's Bay Company trapping brigade) in 1826. In 1827, the name "Sasty" or "Sastise" was given to nearby Mount McLoughlin by Ogden. (The name was transferred to present-day Mount Shasta in 1841, partly as a result of work by the United States Exploring Expedition).

...gives a notion as to the origin, but why did PS Ogden give it this name? Was it from an indigenous informant, and from which language?Skookum1 (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And how it was the Spanish, who did not cross the coastal ranges or even get to their summits, were able to "perhaps" see Mount Shasta.....its plume maybe, but most likely it would look just like a big thunderhead....especially from as far away as the coast.Skookum1 (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Climbing Mt. Shasta
Hi, I am the author of the book titled Climbing Mt. Shasta at www.climbingmtshasta.com. I would like to have my Climber's Guide at www.climbingmtshasta.org linked with your external links on the the following page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Shasta. The Climber's Guide was the first ever online website about climbing Mt. Shasta and it's been online since 1996. I do have a link to your site on my home page too. Thank you so much for your consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.192.83 (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Lighthouse of the Pacific
I've never heard of Shasta being the lighthouse of the Pacific. Rather, I (and the WP article) think that Izalco is the lighthouse of the Pacific. Shall I just remove it or wait till someone comes up with a citation? -- Guan long   wucaii  14:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I recommend removing this statement. Shasta is so far inland from the Pacific, and the coastal ranges to its west are so prominent, that this seems dubious at best.  Cullen328 (talk) 04:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Though Shasta is indeed high enough that it can be seen from ships at sea, without a good reference the phrase may as well be removed. If it turns out a reference is found later, it can be re-added. Ikluft (talk) 04:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * And its gone. What is freely asserted can be freely denied. Somebody said that before only I think it was in Latin.&ensp;– droll  &#91;chat&#93;  08:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "Mt. Shasta: history, legend, and lore" by Michael Zanger states: "Repeated claims over the years of sighting Mt. Shasta from the sea, or seeing the ocean from Shasta's summit, finally caused the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey to scientifically examine the possibilities. In 1928, the survey concluded it was mathematically impossible to see Mt. Shasta from the ocean, or visa versa: a line from the summit tangent to the ocean's surface would be blocked by the coast range of mountains"
 * —hike395 (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Editoriasing
I removed some editorialising, in particular the phrase "as noted above", per MOD:NOTED. I also removed a few instances of "see image ...", once again because I think it is editorialising, but also image placement is somewhat dynamic - what appears just below left on one person's screen may appear to be much further away on other screens. It also seems some images have been moved since the "see image..." text was added. Astronaut (talk) 08:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Those changes are all improvements.  Uh, is the section title meant to be *Editorializing*?  Otherwise, it's all good work.  Thanks!  —EncMstr (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, it is supposed to say 'Editorializing' - though, like many Brits, I prefer to use "s" instead of "z" (to me, "-ize" seems very much like an Americanism, even if it is the correct spelling in British English).  Astronaut (talk) 10:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Reverting from a list
I have restored the article to its previous state, as there was a lot of valuable information lost when it was converted to a list, which is now at List of peaks named Shasta.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree: the volcano in California is clearly the dominant meaning. It makes sense to have a mountain SIA as a separate list article. —hike395 (talk) 23:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree as well. This ill-advised move and the scramble of several editors in response resulted in the main article being inaccessible for a while. The editor who started this is doing the same thing to many mountain articles. Cleanup is needed. Thanks to Jasper Deng for helping out.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  23:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks to Hike395 and Jasper Deng for fixing the article and saving the GNIS entries as a separate, appropriate named article. I hadn't noticed the initial problem until a few minutes ago.  Sorry for the trouble.  —EncMstr (talk) 00:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Religious undue weight
I'm going to delete the Lemurian stuff. Seriously, that's just based on a fictional book. Mt. Etna doesn't have a section on its legends, and at least the legend formed there has more historical and literary basis than this. Journey to the Center of the Earth, I believe, had the characters exiting from Mt. Etna Mt. Stromboli, which doesn't mention it in its article. Mt Rainier lacks this. Mt Baker too. Why this one? Is it because we Californians are so into this New Age junk? I think the whole section is silly and gives WP:WEIGHT to nothing that has to do with the volcano and geology. Seriously, why isn't this put into some POV fork that deals with Crap Myths that Have Nothing to Do with Science and Geology? But seriously, if we're not doing this to other volcanoes, why with this article? Even Minoan eruption, which references the Atlantis myth, only gives it a couple of sentences, and moves the reader to the Atlantis Myth article. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The article should cover whatever other people have decided is relevant to the mountain's history. In that regard, Google shows 152k hits or "Mount Shasta new age".  (Presumably the real # of hits related to New Age "junk" is higher since not all such sites will use the term "New Age" in tehir own literature.) Granted that is a small percentage of the total hits for Mount Shasta (about 4%), but more than enough to give the New Age attention a few sentences - I believe it has 2 sentences currently, which seems about right.
 * "Mount Shasta Lumeria" comes is with 40k hits, so perhaps the one sentence it has been cut to is a good amount. Please note that the vast majority of the myth stuff has been forced into a separate article already.  I'm not sure why stating there is a legend associated with the mountain is a "POV fork" unless you are claiming labeling it as legend is POV (which clearly you are not asserting). An article about a mountain, is not comparable to an article about science proper.  A mountain has scientific elements (geography, geology, history, etc.), sure, but it is also part of society meaning it has popular cultural elements as well.  In this case that includes a bizarre legend of a lost people.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm just saying if you're right, then we're missing a lot of legend stuff in other articles. Myths mean so little to me as an educated person, and they mostly represent the unscientific beliefs of those who lack intelligence, if I owned Wikipedia, they would all be gone.  But I see your point, though google hits should not define what we write.  In fact, I recall when trying to figure out how to edit Wikipedia I saw some policy/law/guideline/recommendation/something about not using google hits as an argument  to define what should or shouldn't be written in an article.  But I won't fight this anymore.  I think it works, even if anyone believing that Lumerians actually exist ought to have their head examined.  :)  SkepticalRaptor (talk) 00:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I checked a couple of those articles and none of them seem to have any cultural information (real or legendary), so yes those articles are incomplete. Science doesn't have an exclusive claim to truth (and I'll also point out that the study of human culture is a part of science) and Wikipedia is general purpose encyclopedia, not a science only encyclopedia.  (No I am certainly not claiming the Lumeria legend is true, but the legend's existence, as legend, in RS is certainly a fact.)
 * You are correct that Google hits are not equivalent to notability. Technically, one should read every reliable source in its entirety and proportion the article to the weight the totality of RS. Obviously, that is not practical for many subjects and thus GHits can function as a quick rough guide to how popular something is. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * IMHO, cultural references of significance certainly have a place in articles about landforms. In my experience, articles often include such information. If material is of encyclopedic interest then it should be included. I'm not sure the information in question can be considered trivia but MOS:TRIVIA seems to set a very low standard for what can be included in an article.&#32;– droll  &#91;chat&#93;  02:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You say cultural reference. I say crap.  My point is that this is one of the very few volcano articles that has this "crap", compared to more significant myths (still crap) associated with it.  I have never heard of the Lumerians, which I know isn't the definition of what's important.  But once again, the description of Santorini has a small couple of sentences about Atlantis, a myth of cultural significance.  Anyways, we'll not fight over this, even though putting cruft into real science articles just drives me crazy.  But that's why Wikipedia is so lame at times.  SkepticalRaptor (talk) 02:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Droll. Short summaries of significant (if unscientific) beliefs about a landform belong in its article, to maintain WP:NPOV, as long as they are supported by WP:RS. Let's be careful not to use Wikipedia as a platform for skeptical advocacy. For what it's worth, I had heard of the Lemurians before --- they have a significant presence in rural San Diego County. —hike395 (talk) 05:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Abbreviations
There seems to be an incipient edit war brewing over unit abbreviations in this article (and also in Mount Whitney and Mount Whitney Trail). User:SkepticalRaptor seems to prefer unit abbreviations, while User:Droll seems to be referring to WP:MOSNUM when expanding all of the abbreviations.

I believe there is a simple compromise that may make both editors happy and still obey WP:MOSNUM. The relevant guideline is:


 * In prose it is usually better to spell out unit names, but symbols may also be used when a unit (especially one with a very long name) is used many times in an article. However, spell out the first instance of each unit in an article [...], except for unit names which are hardly ever spelled out even in publications for general audiences.

I expanded the first use of feet, miles, and cubic miles in this article, and left the rest abbreviated. Hopefully this will satisfy both editors. —hike395 (talk) 09:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Travel guide and citations needed
I slapped a bunch of citation needed tags and a travel guide warning on the article. It really isn't at the quality of some of the better articles that have been written on Cascade Range volcanoes. Kind of sad. Some of the writing seems to have been taken right from a travel guide or pamphlet. I just can't tell, but the writing isn't very encyclopedic. It's also missing tons of citations. Hopefully, someone from one of the projects will jump in, and clean it up. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 18:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Mt.Shasta is at an elevation of 14,179 feet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.154.156.13 (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Just Shasta?
Among locals - or at least the few I have come across in Redding - it is universally 'Shasta' without the 'Mount' appendage. In the same way as, among mountaineers, it's always 'Everest' and not 'Mount Everest.' But, for example, I have been in Portland OR and I have never heard their local peak as anything but 'Mount Hood.'  Not sure if there is any style rule here, of if it is just usage. Cross Reference (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mount Shasta. 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/20080513031851/http://www.siskiyous.edu/shasta/bib/B21.htm to http://www.siskiyous.edu/shasta/bib/B21.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080513033110/http://www.siskiyous.edu/shasta/bib/B27.htm to http://www.siskiyous.edu/shasta/bib/B27.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006114702/http://www.siskiyous.edu/shasta/bib/B11.htm to http://www.siskiyous.edu/shasta/bib/B11.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mount Shasta. 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/20120919063057/http://www.siskiyous.edu/shasta/fol/lem/index.htm to http://www.siskiyous.edu/shasta/fol/lem/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mount Shasta. 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/20100829195745/http://www.siskiyous.edu/shasta/his/ to http://www.siskiyous.edu/shasta/his/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)