Talk:Archery/Archive 2

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

Entertainment section[edit]

Not convinced about the new "entertainment" section of the article, with its focus on impalement arts. Is this really archery? Mr Barndoor 10:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely is archery within the general definition of the word - ie. to quote from the first sentence of the introduction, "the practice of using a bow to shoot arrows". Obviously it is not part of archery as a sport - and a significant part of what I wrote was aimed at ensuring a clear distinction between archery as a sport and archery as a circus entertainment. I can understand the point of view of sporting archers (I used to be one) who would perhaps regard their practice as "serious" archery and see circus acts as somehow flippant and not worthy of mention. However, as someone who also has an interest in the history of circus arts, it seems clear to me that impalement arts performers are skilled professionals whose dedication and ability makes them worthy of mention. I accept that on simple numerical measures, such as the number of practitioners, competition archery is the main form currently practiced. However other incarnations, such as hunting or warfare, seem worthy of inclusion, if only as a paragraph or so.
Circusandmagicfan 11:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan[reply]

primitive archery[edit]

Do not merge. Include a short summary in the relevant section, but this article is long enough as it is. ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as potential and available information on traditional archery - as this should be known instead - is relatively low and will leave the article underdeveloped, until we can expand the section-to-be into a more elaborate article. Ariedartin JECJY Talk 10:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that user 65.29.27.250 has taken it upon themselves to do this merge without discussion. Edits are being reverted.

Merge and delete as the information fits neatly into a history of archery (indeed, most of it seems to be on the archery page already) but is more difficult to identify as a subject on its own. Richard Keatinge 14:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


Roving Mark Scoring[edit]

The current Finsbury Mark scoring is 20 points for hitting the mark, then 12, 7 and 3 for being within 3, 6 and 9 yards respectively. Note that this differs from the text stated on the main page, which indicates the distance boundaries are cumulative rather than inclusive. This means that as written the main page is incorrect; what I don't know is whether the modern scoring system is the same as the original (although I do know it used to be for pennies, rather than for points). I'll check with the Captain of the Marks when I shoot with members of the Finsbury Mark next week, but a clarification would be useful.

Vandalism[edit]

The last part is clear vandalism of this page. It needs to be fixed. Page has been reverted for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Limaye (talk • contribs) 02:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I observed that the vandalism was small and thus instead of reverting to the previous version of the page, I only edited out the vandalism on this page. Limaye (talk) 03:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You missed out on the header, which was also added by the vandal. I've removed it for now. Cheers, GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 04:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

history - too long[edit]

For a section that has a main article, it's overly long. I believe this article would be improved if it were tightened and shortened significantly. ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or alternatively, delete the history page altogether - it's very poor.
With that much material, Richard Keatinge, I think it needs a separate page. Could always use improvement though. ⇔ ChristTrekker 18:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point. I have moved most of the content of that section to History of archery. A summary remains in here.Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. It's a much more "manageable" size now. ⇔ ChristTrekker 13:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amazonian tribe photos[edit]

I've put the reference back; it seems that the pictures were perfectly real but it wasn't "first contact". "The story is not a hoax, and none of those involved in working to protect these Indians’ rights have ever claimed they were ‘undiscovered’.

In response to the allegations, Survival International’s director Stephen Corry today issued the following statement:

‘The Observer article claims to ‘reveal’ that the tribe photographed was neither ‘lost’ nor ‘unknown’. The reality is that neither Survival nor the Brazilian government claimed they were:

• When Survival published the photos, we quoted José Carlos dos Reis Meirelles, the Brazilian official who released them, saying, ‘We did the overflight to show their houses, to show they are there…’ As Mr Meirelles said when the Brazilian government released the photos, the Indians’ territory has been monitored for twenty years.

• These Indians are in a reserve expressly set aside for the protection of uncontacted tribes: they were hardly ‘unknown’!"[1] Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

I was able to place the Fred Bear reference that had been removed from the article using this diff.

..but the Becker reference may need consideration since the article appears to have been revised a good deal since it was added. The original addition of that ref was here.

If someone would like to work it back in...

<ref>Becker, Lou. "The Roots of Primitive Archery", ''Primitive Archer'', Vol. 15, Issue 1, Feb./Mar. 2007. pp. 42-48.</ref>

Cheers,⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Structure criterion not met?[edit]

I notice in the Military history WikiProject box at the top of this page that it has "Structure: criterion not met". What does the article need to meet that criteria?

Would it be beneficial to get have this article reviewed? Looks like it's close to making B-class.⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Small error[edit]

In one of the sections it has the poundage of the bow written in kilograms, kilograms being a measurement of weight not force. the poundage or pound force, of the bow are there as it's a measurement of the force the string is physically holding from the limbs, just a small correction.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.23.132.168 (talk • contribs)

And you're wrong on some points, yourself.
  1. Weight is force.
  2. The kilogram isn't a measure of weight, it's a measure of mass. — NRen2k5(TALK), 15:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aiming Methods[edit]

The definition of Instinctive Aiming is "aiming without the use of sight pins." All that other stuff is confusing and irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FlameHorse (talk • contribs) 20:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:21st-century archers[edit]

I have proposed the deletion of Category:21st-century archers.

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 25#Category:21st-century_archers, where your comments would be welcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archery in war?[edit]

I find it strange that there is very little mention on any of the pages about archery of its use in warfare. I came to this page looking for information on soldiers with bows but I can't really find much on them. There should probably be a page focusing on this use of archery, what sort of training they received, the tactics involved, etc. 118.209.4.6 (talk) 10:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd see that as something for the History of archery page rather than this page. Also, getting into details about tactics and training may be too detailed for an encyclopaedia entry - such detail is best handled by specialised sites and publications. Mr Barndoor (talk) 10:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Try History of archery, English longbow, Turkish archery, and Mounted archery. Not that much evidence exists for most of it. I've added some main article tags to the relevant places in History of archery. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fowling Blunt[edit]

There's no information on Wikipedia about fowling blunts. I've read books that refer to a "fowling blunt" as a type of arrow. If anyone has information, I'd love to see it somewhere on Wikipedia. -- TimNelson (talk) 06:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a brief mention in Arrow, slightly more in the Traditional Bowyer's Bibles. It's a rather small subject, but I suppose a picture would be reasonable. I don't have any traditional blunts to show, but perhaps a rubber one would do. There is already a picture of a judo point, which is a modern form of blunt, in Arrow. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Described, although not under that name, at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flu-Flu_Arrow>. Perhaps you could cross reference them? 78.149.29.153 (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Villavar[edit]

I've been making some edits to the Kerala article, mostly on origins and early history and culture; Villavar (which I've tagged for clarification) currently redirects to this article. It should probably redirect or pipe-link to History of archery#Indian Subcontinent but as in the Kerala article, nothing there explains the term. Does anyone (Richard K, for instance?) know of reliable scholarly sources on archery's role in Villavar culture? (I've placed a similar request at History of archery) Haploidavey (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

article breakout[edit]

I'd like to breakout sections 7 through 9 into a separate article. Modern competitive archery through International games which include Archery that is. They have but a few refs (enough to stand on its own as an article). I believe the article is a bit long and those subjects could be treated as a standalone article. What do other editors here think?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it! Perhaps the section on Stabilizers - not something I'm an expert on - could also be broken out? This article would then head for what I see as its manifest destiny, an overview with lots of main-article links. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think those sections should be edited down to remove some of the very detailed information, but I think they should remain in this article. They give a flavour of what forms archery takes these days, which is useful to non-archers. Mr Barndoor (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm intending would leave summary paragraphs which would lead them to the more detailed info...it wouldn't be a complete removal. The stabilizers section is being worked on in that direction (see this on my talk page). At the present the article is assessed as a C class. By breaking out some of the sections into articles of their own, we can then focus on improving it to B class...we need more refs and it will be easier with a lesser volume of writing to do that with. Check your bookshelves. :) I plan to help but I'm digging in the dirt today and just checking in.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have split Stabilisers as requested above. I also split out Release Aids, I trust this meets with approval. I suspect the lede sections and summaries need the attention of experts thoughOp47 (talk) 11:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

nonsense usefulness in the 21st century[edit]

An article about someone getting killed by a poisoned arrow is used as a source for the usefulness of arrows even in the 21st century? It only mentions a poisoned arrow in the [5] source at all. What if they used a blowpipe? Or threw it? Anyone know how many people got their head bashed in with sharp rocks in the same time? So is stone age weaponry still useful in the 21st century?

93.135.71.190 (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Archers effective and in action in 21th century[edit]

Under the section "Decline and survival of archery" is the following sentence: "However, archers are still effective and have seen action even in the 21st century." As source a web article is given that refers to civil unrest in Kenya. This article does not mention archers or bows of any kind and is not only irrelevant but certainly does not prove the given statement. Given the fact that a few sentences earlier it is explained WHY gunpowder weapons made archery in warfare obsolete (approximately half a millenium ago) it is even more suprising that now the exact opposite is stated. Today's firearms have significantly developed since and are available even in countries without sufficient food supply. Archers are NOT effective anymore and have not been for a long, long time. If you do wish to prove the opposite then please do provide some better evidence. --79.249.99.217 (talk) 14:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to delete the statement from the article. Here is what I will delete from the source: However, archers are still effective and have seen action even in the 21st century.<ref>{{cite news | title = FEATURE-Athletics-Unrest threatens Kenya sporting hopes |work= Reuters | url=http://www.reuters.com/article/africaCrisis/idUS120100751372 | accessdate =2 April 2010 | date=22 January 2008}}</ref> --79.249.99.217 (talk) 14:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the source I find: "second athlete, marathon runner Wesley Ngetich, had been killed by a poisoned arrow..." I agree, not quite as definitive as one would like, but I suggest that a weapon system that kills people is not well described as ineffective. A quick Google search also finds some rather better sources:

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Bows_and_arrows_deadly_weapons_of_rural_Kenyas_war_999.html

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1718460,00.html

http://www.ogiek.org/election-war/election-war-4.htm

I propose to use these instead of the current one. What do others think? Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good sources. The Kisii-Kalenjin conflict's probably one of the best-known examples for the modern use of the bow in warfare. And by the by (in response to one of the IP's comments above) firearms may be widely available but that doesn't mean they're universally affordable - or even preferred; the bow's cheap, silent, and remains a weapon of choice in central and southern Africa for some subsistence hunters. And some poachers. Haploidavey (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have used them and I hope that the comment is now a bit less likely to be taken to imply that bows are likely to win conflicts against modern guns. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I am glad that efforts are made by you to improve on this issue. However, I am not completely happy with the way it's going. In the article it now reads "However, the bow and arrow are still an effective form of violence, and archers have seen action in the 21st century." How do you define effective? A pillow can be an effective form of violence - against weak or unconscious people. So it depends on the circumstances. The circumstances here are violence on a sub-national level, and it seems that modern weapons are not available to the combatants, making bows indeed effective weaponry - compared to the machetes and clubs that the linked sources mention. However, my impression is - and please correct me if I'm wrong - that lack of access to guns is a special case, not the rule, which makes archers ineffective compared to standard weaponry available and in use today - even by rebels, militias and civil war parties elsewhere in the world. The sentence may lead to a false impression with persons who do not know much about weaponry and want to inform themselves by using Wikipedia. I suggest to change the sentence to "Bow and arrow have seen use in the 2007-08 Kenya crisis." Or something along these lines. That is (probably) undisputable true and does not suggest more than you can reasonably uphold. --87.151.248.87 (talk) 09:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC) (same person from above, provider uses dynamic IPs)[reply]

I think that I see what you mean. I don't think that anyone would try to imply that bows are serious competition for modern weaponry, so they are indeed ineffective as armament for a modern army; they are relatively ineffective. On the other hand they work just as well as they ever did and they kill people and large animals all over the world; the Kenyan crisis was as you say a special case in which they were widely used in inter-ethnic fighting. In absolute terms they are as effective as ever. What would you think of "More modern weapon systems are far more effective than bows. However bows have been used in conflict even in the 21st century and bowhunting is a widespread practice in several countries."
Incidentally, have you considered the advantages of registering a name? Painless, makes it difficult to geolocate you, but does identify your place in a conversation. Anonymity is easily available; you certainly don't have to edit under your own name as I do. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strange entry concerning Indigenous Americans[edit]

The article states "and American Plains Indians (after gaining access to horses)" were adept at archery. Archery in the Americas existed before the European conquest of the Americas and the introduction of horses to the indigenous societies. Why is it necessary to bring horses into the equation when mentioning the original Americans? I would edit this to make it more rational, but I don't want to initiate an edit war before hearing the rationale behind this statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lungboy (talk • contribs) 03:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that wasn't very clear and I hope it's better now. I have put in a reference to pre-contact use of archery in the present USA, and moved the bit about mounted archery (which was only post-contact of course) to its own sub-heading. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia archer pic available[edit]

I put this on wikimedia through wikiversity years ago. It shows use of finger tab, with index finger above and two fingers below the arrow. It also shows alignment of the string with tip of nose and placement of index under the center of the chin, which is a useful technique for target archery.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiversity/en/f/f5/Archerpic4.JPG

Please, I don't have time to re-upload this picture, set all the formatting and so on. So please, if someone would like to use this it's there, already put into wikicommons I think, just has to be added in the proper section here. I think its useful for illustrating shooting technique. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.195.209.2 (talk) 09:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting technique and form[edit]

Where I come from, teaching new archers to shoot right-handed or left-handed according to eye dominance is an idea that went out with the ark. However, I appreciate that this may differ in other countries around the world.

There are two references to the hand with the "greatest dexterity". Now, last time I checked, we humans have a maximum of two hands. These should, therefore, read, "the hand with the greater dexterity" and "whichever hand possesses the greater dexterity".

Having said all that, I feel the whole description could be improved. When shooting, it is not so much a question of which hand possesses greater dexterity as it is an overall feeling of whether it is more natural to shoot left-handed or right-handed. For example, I am generally regarded as left-handed because I write with my left, and I was a left-handed archer, yet I play golf right-handed (because that's what feels natural to me) and I throw right-handed, even in darts. It is therefore not a question of "dexterity" but more a question of what feels natural to the individual.

Might I suggest the following rewrite (if not the removal of the whole explanation immediately before "Modern form"):

"The standard convention on teaching archery was once to hold the bow depending upon eye dominance. Therefore, if you were right eye dominant, you would hold the bow in the left hand, and draw the string with the right hand. This is regarded as shooting right-handed.

"Not everybody agreed with this line of thought. A smoother, and more fluid release of the string produces the finest and most consistently repeatable shots, and therefore determines the accuracy of the arrow flight. Most archers now believe that it is better to shoot left-handed or right-handed according to what feels more natural to the individual. Either eye can be used for aiming, and even the less dominant eye can be trained over time to effectively become the more dominant. This can be achieved by retraining with the use of an eye-patch over the dominant eye as a temporary measure, or simply closing the dominant eye. The hand that holds the bow is referred to as the bow hand and its arm the bow arm. The opposite hand is called the drawing hand or string hand. Terms such as bow shoulder or string elbow follow the same convention."


Under "Modern Form" it states that "the body should be at or nearly perpendicular to the target and the shooting line". I'm sorry but the target (or more correctly, the line to the target) is perpendicular to the shooting line, so the only way to be perpendicular to both would be to lie on one's back! That, clearly, is nonsense. There's much preamble about stance, with a reference to "the leg furthest from" - now we have more than two legs as well as more than two hands? This whole paragraph should be replaced with something more simple and correct, perhaps along the lines of, "To shoot an arrow, an archer first assumes the correct stance. The feet should be placed astride the shooting line with body roughly perpendicular to a line to the target."

In the following paragraph the description of loading the arrow into the bow is not just confusing, it is made ambiguous by referring to a slight clockwise tipping of the bow. Clockwise as seen by whom? The right-handed archer? I don't think so! It must be clockwise as seen by a bystander facing the archer. As I said, it's confusing and ambiguous. Not only that, it's superfluous as it has already been stated that the bow is pointed toward the ground. I suggest replacing that sentence with "To load, the bow is pointed slightly downward and the shaft of the arrow is placed on the arrow rest or shelf." This is simpler, clearer, and does not contain inaccuracies.

There are many more issues within this article but I do not have time right now to deal with any more than I have already. I shall come back to this as a later date.

I'm sorry that I cannot give any references to back up my commetns, though I can state that I have represented my country in target archery so I do know a little bit about the sport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deemacphotos (talk • contribs) 02:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missing info[edit]

I can't find any info here about how far an arrow can travel.77Mike77 (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Depends a lot on the type of bow used and who you ask...

GhostInTheMachine (talk) 13:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. Someone should add it to the article.77Mike77 (talk) 00:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Protective equipment[edit]

An image of a finger tab appears here with text below stating, "A left-hand finger tab to protect the hand while drawing the string."

There are two issues here: first, it is a RIGHT-HAND tab that is pictured, as is evident from the gap in the tab between forefinger and third-finger. Second, it protects the fingers, not the hand. So, the text should read, "A right-hand finger tab to protect the fingers while drawing the string." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deemacphotos (talk • contribs) 01:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be pedantic about it, but the finger tab's use is when the string is already drawn. The section should read "while drawn". I'll change that now :PanacheCuPunga (talk) 11:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flight Archery[edit]

I quote: "Flight shooting is one of the oldest archery sports. It's not hard to envision two cavemen with bows betting on who can shoot and arrow the furthest. Hand bows to a couple of 5 year olds and leave them unsupervised for 2 minutes and they’ll be seeing how far they can shoot. That is the essence of flight shooting, to see how far they will go." from "Introduction to Flight Shooting", http://www.usaarcheryrecords.org/FlightPages/FlightIndex.htm, retrieved 22-06-14@12:17 Western Australian Standard Time.

How about putting "Flight Archery" back into the article so as to line the article up with the at least one reference in the rest of Wikipedia? 203.161.102.82 (talk) 04:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It needs a mention, with a link to the main article when that is written. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One Breasted Archers[edit]

I understand we're talking mythology here but Amazons in popular culture are depicted as one-breasted warriors in order to better shoot an arrow. Why is this? Around the world and throughout recorded history there have been plenty of female archers who never had to resort to self-mutilation. Indeed, we have world-class Olympian athletes right now who are able to shoot a bow and arrow just fine with two breasts. Had the ancient Greeks (from where the myth comes from) never heard of of breast guards? I don't ask this in jest, why has this bizarre idea that one-breasted archers are some how superior survived for so long? Xenomorph erotica (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant move request[edit]

There is a move request at Talk:Archer that watchers of this article may be interested in. Egsan Bacon (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Archery. 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, 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) 06:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Archery. 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) 14:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citations and Content[edit]

This page does a great job explaining the basic use and history of archery as a whole, but it would be great if more citations for information provided were available. There are many warnings about them all through the page. More information on equipment would be a great addition as well. The focus seems to be more on how archery was used in wars and mythology, and not so much about its origin and the scientific period of time it was born from. Thank you for considering these points!--Madeline860 (talk) 05:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenarntson (talk • contribs) [reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Archery. 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) 15:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Archery/Archive_2&oldid=1142383799"