Talk:McMansion/Archive 2

This is not encyclopedic

(in its current state). As many have pointed out, it needs a lot of work towards becoming NPOV. Basically, this is one of the worst articles I've ever read on Wikipedia, and I have no idea where to begin to improve it.

The lead section makes it NPOV. Most people who say the article is POV are not familiar with the terms used in the lead section, in particular the terms pejorative and idiom. Please click on those links and be sure you fully understand what they mean. The rest of the article just documenting a pejorative idiom and is thus NPOV. We are not here to debate if the term is appropriate or not, or debate if people who use the term are right or not, that would be original research. -- Stbalbach 15:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

you obviously have a lot of personal feeling invested in this article, but do you realize you have been defending it against people who feel it is POV for YEARS? It IS POV, it is NOT encyclopedic. I submit to you that you examine your motives for keeping it POV and defending it for YEARS. Is this issue THAT important to you? Apparently it is. This article should be ONE paragraph. It is not a description of the term (which would not take much at all). It is a DEFENSE of the term. There is a huge difference, but one you apparently cant see because, surprise surprise, you agree with the POV of the article. Pick something you would NOT agree with and imagine it written the way this article is and then ask yourself HONESTLY if you wouldnt be complaining. Imagine if the article on islamofascism that was written in a way that droned on and on explainin all of the good reasons why Muslims are fascist and was then defended by people saying "hey, its a pejorative term... we're just explaining what it means and why people use it" Wouldnt be tolerated. But this is a little niche and an unimportant thing and, for whatever reason, your pet peeve so it stands. Thats reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.191.228 (talk) 04:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment on the term

Original title:"McMansion" Not Only Suggests Being "Generic" and "Culturally Ubiquitous;" But also: "Bland," "Safe," "Standardized" and "Assembly-Line Produced" (I fixed the grammar and put the new title in as this was just way too long (--- Jeremy (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)))

That's the gist of my comment on this valuable Wiki item on the term "McMansion." Lewis Mumford's important two volume work, "The Myth of the Machine," points to at least three elements that disconnect modern life from that of what he regards as a more humane past: Mechanized production, standardization of what people make, and a dehumanizing giantism. McMansions exhibit the first two all the time, and even the third on some occasions.

DeToqueville points out somewhere in "Democracy in America" that Americans typically value a multitude of pocket watches of inferior quality, factory made, to to a superior-quality, handmade one. That enduring aspect of American economic values also applies to the "McMansion" tag.

Likewise, there is a suggestion of a cheap imitation of an original in the term, "McMansion" - of an "ersatz mansion," even as a McDonald's hamburger may be characterized as an "ersatz hamburger." McMansions, crowded together in a suburban tract development look (to this writer) as though they might have been "extruded," so to speak, by hastily, by underpaid hourly workers an assembly line rather like that in the back of a "Mickey Dee's" wherein "associates" with no particular involvement in what they are producing churn out soggy, microwaved versions of "the real thing," an authentic all-American hamburger.

68.162.8.212 00:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Louis Massano

Examples of houses that are NOT McMansions?

How about including some pictures of houses that would NOT be considered McMansions? I think this article tends to classify the majority of larger homes as McMansions than not, so some pictures of what some non-McMansion homes would be quite helpful. -BrandonR 07:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

YES! thank you. i was reading this and i was plauged with the same question. what the heck isnt a mcmansion?

is it-----example: miami styled home from the 1940's...IN miami???

user:bassman600

Some of the homes included as picture examples are obviously not McMansions - but typical modern suburban housing. I wouldn't call pictures of homes that are easily under 3000 sq ft a "McMansion." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.162.253 (talk) 01:10, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Some examples of homes which would NOT be considered McMansions, even though many of them are large. The principal issue is one of stylistic integrity: http://home.comcast.net/%7Earchitrave/kane/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.111.43 (talk) 04:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Dorchester??

I challenge anyone to tell a Bostonian that "Dorchester" is an "upscale" sounding name and not make them burst out laughing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.116.179 (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Source about construction costs

I tried to access the first source, "The McMansion Next Door: Why the American house needs a makeover" in Newsweek. It wasn't there. Within the mag, I searched for mcmansion. One article within 23 days of the date came up. That's an indication that the date for the supposed article is wrong too, because it should differ by a multiple of 7 days.

Anyway, what I was looking for was the claim that real (constant $) construction costs on a "per same" basis is the same from 1970-2006. That would mean that the real increase in housing is due to land. I think labor & building materials have gone up too, in real terms. 68.180.38.41 (talk) 10:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Common feature: small or nonexistent eaves

One common feature that I have seen on McMansions (at least here in Australia) are the unusually small eaves. Often, these houses have no eaves at all, with the roof gutters flush with the wall. Other houses may have some eaves, but often too small to be useful. See in particular the McMansion illustrated here, which lacks eaves. I think it may be worthwhile to include this in the article, but I am reluctant to do so because I do not know if it is really a common feature or if it is just a regional tendency. -- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 23:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

POV article

As others have pointed out, this article should not even exist other than to document that "McMansion" is a pejorative term for certain (poorly defined) types of houses. Any other information should be in a general article about single family home architecture. Contrast this article with Islamofascism which is about the term only. Articles like this are further proof of the left wing bias of most Wikipedia contributors.

99.201.150.79 (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

While i empathise, i cannto agree... McMansion is entirely confined to be a perjorative term alone redinfing another concept. It does hold a variety of relevant information pertaining mostly to the specific's of its deviaion from tract housing into a certain category. Indeed, a McMansion by the roots of its "style" (or lack there-of) is a class of tract-housing... namely one that is mass produced to be large and impressionable with the illusion of a style not actually inherent in the build itself (looks like brick... but a facade, looks like tudor... but a facade, looks like xxxx, but a facade). I cannot find a term to describe such a category of housing aside from McMansion (though i wish there were one, then we could happily redirect McMansion to it and have a truely Non-POV article). The houses themselves, like anything else, can be seen as good or bad entirely depending on what your value considerations are... i personally wouldnt mind a big ass house that looked awesome and didnt cost as much as buidling that same said house from ACTUAL STONE. In any case, the information is relevant... and no matter where/how it is merged or moved into another article (if so) there needs to be a preservation of the relevant info to the terms applicable (in this case MCMansion) (Lionvision (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC))

I am getting a little sick of this NPOV rant of people's, fix the parts you think are faulty and stop complaining already.

I, and others, spent allot of time cleaning up this article, taking out a good deal of the parts that made this a rant instead of an article. I think this article is a hell of lot better than it was just six months ago. It is almost at the point where the NPOV tag can be removed. The McMansion is a pejorative term that many use to describe the trend of large houses that they feel disrupt communities. We can only layout what these individuals feel makes up the term and let others decide for them selves. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 19:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite needed?

This article is excessively choppy (a large number of very small paragraphs), contradicts itself in many places (does a McMansion have a porch and a dining room or doesn't it? Is is 2200-3500 ft^2 or 3000-5000 ft^2?), and has very few sources. I would call NPOV but I can't even identify any particular POV. Personally, I think that it needs to be totally rewritten from as NPOV (and sourced!) a viewpoint as possible and then the debate can resume from there. 66.93.12.46 (talk) 06:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I took a quick paragraph or two stab at it. But here is what I think.

• Change the title to "Mini Mansion" or "Upper Middle Class Single Family home" and skip the perjorative altogether
• Heavily chop the criticism, and place the McMansion title there
• Mention that it is not an architectural style, but a life style (The architectural styles and derivations of the various regional forms should be listed)
• Source and Ref and Ref and Source

Group29 (talk) 02:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

  Common Features section: "Most McMansions eschew porches..."
  Exterior styles --> Entrances subsection: "A grandiose porch or portico is common."
    MAKE UP YOUR MIND!!!!!!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.21.167.13 (talk) 07:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC) 

Merge

Merge Faux château and Persian palace?

• AGREE - with more weight to Faux château than Persian palace, but both should have their own sections. Group29 (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Actual style

What is the actual style of this house shown in the article? I realize that McMansion encompasses a number of regional styles. This particular style can be found in many Midwestern cities, with high sloping roofs and multiple gables. Is it colonial? See also House of the Seven Gables which is labeled as a colonial mansion.Group29 (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit late, but often these types of home contain vague references to historical architectural styles, such as colonial revival, there's some of that here, or Second Empire and the French Chateaus, etc. Not sure exactly what we're looking at here but it really has no particular style and a few elements that could probably be associated with some type of style or "neo" incarnation of a style. --IvoShandor (talk) 06:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Gold Coast, Queensland

I was interested that my reference to McMansions in the Gold Coast was deleted, since they are endemic there. It could in fact be described as a "McCity". Millbanks (talk) 09:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no way that thing's colonial or colonial revival.69.252.186.130 (talk) 02:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you've lost me. Millbanks (talk) 17:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Size?

>"A McMansion is a house with a floor area of between 3000 ft² (280 m²) to 5000 ft² (460 m²) in size"

Is there some official definition? Something that specific should be cited. Are you saying that a 2999 sqft. house with all of the other characteristics indicated would not be a McMansion? TheHYPO (talk) 05:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This artcile seems to be confusing actual 'mansions' with 'McMansions'

That's my main concern with this article. I think this article should be very short about with only infomation about the phrase 'McMansion' with the technical infomation moved to another article. (Perhaps the one about mansions?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sawyer1990 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

McMansionizing?

Reading from a discussion on HAIF, there was something that mentioned that someone could turn a previous non-McMansion home into a McMansion. Is that possible? Can a McMansion be de-McMansionized? TheListUpdater (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

"This mansion is indeed very large; but to us it appeared like a gathering together of little things.

Is this necessarily a criticism? It's pretty common practice now to break-up, modulate or texture the facades of buildings to makes them appear less overpowering and monolithic, giving them something of the appearence of a cluster of smaller buildings. At any rate, how does this really relate to McMansions? All it really seems to be saying is that two hundered years ago, some people didn't like some buildings, just like now. Or possibly to imply that architectural tastes are mutable and that McMansions will be regarded in the same light C18th stately homes are now? I don't think so, somehow.86.1.196.156 (talk) 13:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Bias

This article is extremely bias, and extremely messy. There are scattered facts all over, and a bunch of opinions from bias people. I’m sure most of you are aware of this, but the "watching like a hawk" issue needs to stop. There needs to be edits made. First off the article should not be as long as it is. The article is explaining "McMansions"; NOT explaining an individual’s opinion because there jealous of wealthier people. "McMansion" is a term coined by some thickheads. It’s an opinion of something that can’t be classified.

I’ll give an example: If your wealthier than some people, and you want a larger home, but not a 20,000sq.ft. home, then you build a 5000sq.ft. home in the year 2005. This is not a huge home nor is 100 years old. So, does it make it a McMansion? The inside may be opulent, or not; depending on the taste of the architect.

This article needs to be about their coined term, NOT the object! It should be short and sweet. Most of these homes are just classified as upper middle, or upper class homes without the old charm. Realistically, most of what’s on the page belongs in a section of the Mansion article. There should be a section there that talks about modern mansions.

This article is bias, opinionated, insulting, and needs a cleanup. Thank you for adding a NPOV.

As a matter of fact, there should be an article titled Luxury Home. It would classify these perfectly. Azcolvin429 (talk) 13:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

good article to include

• http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20090106/ts_csm/amcmansions

I don't have time to do so right now, but I did want to pass the link along. tedder (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Reuters article

This article (McMansions irk neighbors by towering over them) has pretty good info (criticsm) of McMansions, peeps can look through it and pull out whatever they want. -M.Nelson (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Monster home redirect

"Monster home" should not be redirected here, it's not the same as a McMansion; the usual Canadian/Vancouver usage is Monster house so maybe there is a difference between what's meant in California and waht's meant in British Columbia, where hte phenomenon was associated with the mid-1980s influx from Hong Kong and a parallel one of Sikhs from Punjab; originally it was an upper-class phenomenon on Vancouver's posh West Side, but now is typical of new construction in the whole of Greater Vancouver. Maybe Monster house (Canada) could be written separately...a McMansion in Canada is a tract-style house often made of cheap slap-dash construction; Monster houses were full-blown 8000 sq. ft. mansions, infamously built right to the edge of the lot and typically destroying the arboreal and garden characgter of the neighbourhoods these were plopped down in, replacing dignified older upper-end housing with crass displays of un-stylish bad architecture, and were meant to capitalize the value of the lot, i.e. a house and lot which was bought cash for 400,000-600,000 would be torn down, the yard stripped of trees and gardens, and replaced with a bulky, usually pink stucoo and semi-castellate/imperialesque massive house, looming over adjoining housing and without fitting into the character of the neighbourhood. The term fell into disuse in recent years as ethnic-wealth organizations and spokespeople complained that the term was "racist", as they felt it portrayed the owners as "monsters". The "monster" reference was to the size and cultural destructiveiness of the house, not to the owners or their ethnicity, but ethnic paranoia always trumps all else in Canada....they are now typical in newer upscale developments; but they were never cheap construction, rather quite the opposite, with interiors that were very plsuh, typically marble, gold, crystal, columnbs, balustrades, multiple bedrooms and bathrooms, meant to house extended families, especially in the case of the Sikh-built ones.....anyway IMO the Monster home redirect shouldn't come here or maybe there shoudl be Monster home (California) and Monster home (Canada), with the former redirecting here and the latter being its own article or redirect to Monster house (Canada), as they are apparently two different phenomenaSkookum1 (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Got any sources to back your analysis? We would need some to show notability of the canadian "monster home" as a seperate entity/article topic. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there should be any issue proving notability. I'd never heard of a McMansion - but Monster homes, dominated the media for at least a decade, and neighbourhood and city councils. It's a huge issue, very prominent and everyone knows what a monster house is here. I'd say they aren't always high end, and are often not on the westside- also common in suburban areas. Usually very oversized, stucco or vinyl siding, and at least 3 car garage. Often gated, very boxy in style and right to the property line.

A slightly smaller version from the same time period is the Vancouver Special. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.102.56 (talk) 15:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

ORIGIN OF MCMANSION

THOUGH I DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE THE ORIGIN OF THE WORD, I THOUGHT IT MAY BE FROM THE BOOK 'GENERATION X' BY DOULAS COUPLAND PUBLISHED 1991. I DID NOTICE THE ARTICLE PUTS IT'S FIRST USAGE IN 1990 BUT DIDN'T SEEM TO BACK IT UP.

THERE ALSO SEEMS TO BE A LOT OF DEBATE ON THE ARTICLE EXPRESSING A BIT OF A BIASED POV INSTEAD OF A NEUTRAL ONE, BUT I DISAGREE. AS ONE PERSON PUT IT THE SUBJECT MATTER ITSELF HAS A JUDGEMENTAL POV BUT I DO NOT THINK THE ARTICLE ITSELF HAS ONE. --174.51.90.38 (talk) 06:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)ROBERT TONEY 10/16/2009 12:41 AM (MOUNTAIN TIME)

ridiculously POV article

This is still a ridiculously POV article. The comments about the planetarium, and about killing off the turkeys were the most egregious examples, but the whole thing has an air of negative POVness about it. I'm not familiar enough with the phenomenon to be able to change much (not too many of these in rural Ohio), but I'm sure there are people who could actually write an NPOV article on this. Acheron 18:02, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

McMansion is a POV term. It's very name is critical and negative. We can still write about POV terms however (see Dark Ages for example, a highly POV term). Much of the article is NPOV, but perhaps it could use some higher level context such as the origin of the word, how it came about, who uses it and why. That remains to be done.Stbalbach 18:18, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, and since those other terms have been responsibly addressed with neutral, well written, articles, they dont get the POV tag. Nice try though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.200.167 (talk) 03:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree. The article is dripping with disdain. It's one long sneery whinge that sounds like it was written by the kind of character lampooned by the 'stuff white people like' blog. For example, the fact that a better finish is used on the frontage of these houses is something they have in common with houses built since time immemorial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.212.232 (talk) 21:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I had to see what people said after reading this. This article just slams the suburban lifestyle without any opposing perspectives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.178.171 (talk) 07:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I managed to gut most of weasel wording and blatant POV from the entry without having it immediately revised back by the self-appointed opinion masters. The entry is now about 1/5 the size it was 4 years ago, and is actually readable and informative. 70.95.153.8 (talk) 08:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It still needs reliable sources, though. tedder (talk) 08:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

"The most vehement criticism frequently comes from people that are actually unaffected (not living in an area that contains these homes) by the construction of what they deem to be a "McMansion", but oppose them on philosophical grounds. Commonly these criticisms stem from a socio-political viewpoint of one form of collectivism/environmentalism or another that find such homes to be blatant displays of wealth and consumerism. These criticisms frequently include demands for the homeowners to live in "more appropriately" sized homes and to live smaller lifestyles that include living in dense urban centers and using mass transportation. " This is POV of the opposite type. It attacks the criticism but still doesn't have any sourcing. I placed it here so it can be replaced in the article if it is sourced.Bsirvine (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue is unfortunately pretty subjective and appears to be overwhelmingly a matter of architectural taste. Trained graduate architects don't like McMansions. The residential real estate buying public can't seem to get enough of them.Bsirvine (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

ORIGIN OF MCMANSION

I WROTE THE DISCUSION PIECE ABOVE ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF MCMANSION AND AFTER FURTHER INVESTIGATION I GOT IT WRONG - IN DOUGLAS COUPLAND'S 'GENERATION X' HE DEFINES THE WORD 'MCJOB' NOT MCMANSION. AND, IRONICALLY, WHERE DID I DISCOVER THIS PIECE OF INFO ON THE NET? A LINK BACK TO 'WIKIPEDIA'. GOOD JOB WIKIPEDIA!

174.51.90.38 (talk) 06:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)ROBERT TONEY

design: "unnecessarily complicated massing"?

I removed "unnecessarily" as it seemed too much like personal opinion, but I have no idea what "massing" is and it links to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massing This needs to be fixed. Warm Worm (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

McDonald's

Shouldn't this article mention McDonald's? As far as I know that is the origin of the word, which describes how mansions are popping up everywhere similar to McDonald's restaurants. FearNotMan (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Mc as in McDonald's should be pointed out. I guess it implies a large number of identical inexpensive mediocre quality items produced for mass consumption.Geo8rge (talk) 20:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

King of the Hill

So why has the "king of the Hill" reference been removed from the popular references section? I have place it there but it keeps getting removed. I feel like the reference is applicable, but do people disagree?

24.21.139.5 (talk) 04:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Meaning

I feel like the first line of this article highlights a subjective notion- that McMansions are classified by their pretentious or poor architectural taste... however, the second sentence really brings out the real point and meaning of the term- that McMansions are classified by mass production and homogeneity. I say the sentences should be switched or the wording altered, but perhaps I'm way off base with this thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.217.94 (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the term "McMansion" — by equating a type of house with the McDonald's fast food restaurant — is pejorative. Saying so in the article is not POV or subjective, but accurate. (Saying that you agree with this usage would be POV.) Valerius Tygart (talk) 22:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I shouldn't have elaborated on the "subjective" point- that seems to be the main thing you address. That's not really the issue I'm concerned with. The first descriptive sentence of the article talks about how McMansion are pretentious or in poor taste... that may be true in most cases, but there are plenty of houses that fit that category; what truly makes a McMansion a McMansion is the fact that they are mass produced and are aesthetically/structurally homogenous. Take this definition from the World English Dictionary: "informal , derogatory a large modern house considered to look mass-produced, lacking in distinguishing characteristics, and at variance with established local architecture."

POV, take 2

There is someone(s) that is/are tenaciously protecting this article to prevent it from becoming neutral in tone. It needs to be gutted and rewritten without all the unsubstantiated opinion and glaringly POV commentary. 206.169.197.222 (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it needs some rewriting, but your edits aren't helping. tedder (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The article does need some series work to remove the overly disorganized POV tone and to remove some unsourced and dubious statements. I've added the appropriate tags. GrandWagoneer13 (talk) 07:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The complaints here are unsubstantiated and the complainers have made no effort to rectify the supposed problems -- other to violate all sorts of WP policies by inserting grossly unencyclopedic phrases like "by self-appointed experts" -- therefore I am removing the inappropriate tags that make the article worse, not better. Before adding tags back, comment here identifying specific problematic language and propose improvements for which you seek consensus. -- 96.248.226.133 (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It's the entire tone of the article that is glaringly POV. Since the POV obviously matches yours, you're choosing to pretend there is no issue. The article is describing a pejorative term, yet is written from the assumption that the term is accurate. It would be as if there were an article about a racial slur, and each entry in the article were rationalizing the usage of the racial slur. It's not a hugely important issue obviously, so no one puts the energy into calling it out, but this is *clearly* a piece of wise-ass satire that is important enough to you, the original author (assuming thats not you), and a few others who get some sort of smug amusement out of it being here. It's ironic though, that you call out anything as "unencyclopedic", while defending this farce of an entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.134.116 (talk) 01:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Criticism section?

If you're going to have a criticism section in a article about a criticism shouldn't that section be devoted to criticism of the ideas being critical of McMansions in the first place? As an alternative just work the criticisms back into the article.Drewder (talk) 00:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on McMansion. 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/20090929023536/http://www.law.uiuc.edu/bljournal/post/2006/04/20/McMansions-Super-Sized-Homes-Cause-a-Super-Sized-Backlash.aspx to http://www.law.uiuc.edu/bljournal/post/2006/04/20/McMansions-Super-Sized-Homes-Cause-a-Super-Sized-Backlash.aspx

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) 09:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)