Talk:Marksman

A bit US-centric?

Nothing at all about the Czarist Russian Sharpshooter battalions of the Imperial Guard? Oh well... Something for me to write up, I guess...TLein 10:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

WTF IS WITH WANNABES?

the English wiki is always Anglo-centric, and has an English language focus. Rds865 (talk) 06:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"In the British Armed Forces, marksman is traditionally the highest shooting rating. Holders of the rating wear a crossed rifles badge on the lower sleeve." ...The crossed rifles badge is that of a sniper. Currently there is no other badge issued within the british army for a marksman, and certainly not one of crossed rifles. Candidate for deletion, unless someone can clarify with good sources. (Silverstar189 (talk) 00:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC))

Crossed rifles is a marksman designation. there is an "S" in between the barrels for a sniper. Here's an old (1984) recruiting poster with them on the bottom left: [1] RayBarker (talk) 10:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The first section focusses on U.S. terminology concerning classes of marksmen, and then there is a whole section on the United States further down, when different countries are discussed seperately. It's a bit like the World Series in hand egg (in the U.S. referred to as "football"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.211.201.66 (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Individually?

I corrected the bit about snipers acting alone. There may indeed be cases for this so I left it as "rarely" since a lone sniper is certainly the exception not the rule.

Sharpshooter

The term sharpshooter should be explained. The term comes from the Sharps rifle... Contralya (talk) 10:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

well, i don`t think so. i just read an article about the american revolution, where some hessian troops were regarded as sharpshooters. so i think, this term is some strange translation of german "scharfschutze". besides (i`ve no proof however), i think these early breech-loaders were inferior in accuracy compared to rifled muskets e.g. the springfield model 1861. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.232.38.57 (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Fred Ray, author of Shock Troops of the Confederacy, wrote that the word sharpshooter was widely used in the early 19th Century. He asserted that it was derived from the German scharfschutzen. The Sharps rifle was not patented until 1848.Bruin2 (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Ray also stressed that marksmen and sharpshooters are not really synonyms. In the U. S. Civil War, sharpshooters were organized military units that had many assignments besides shooting individual targets. Only excellent marksmen were accepted for duty as sharpshooters, but not all military marksmen became sharpshooters. Maybe the term sharpshooter deserves its own page.Bruin2 (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

SDM/DM not explained

I just noticed that the first subsection uses the acronym SDM/DM without explanation. I believe this refers- one second- 74.132.62.250 (talk) 01:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, to the "squad designated marksman" / "designated marksman" referred to in the introduction. This acronym would be best noted in the intro with "(also known as SDM/DM)" at the end of the sentence in which those titles are introduced. However, it seems that I can't edit the intro. Anyone willing and able, please do so! 74.132.62.250 (talk) 02:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

About Sniper vs. SDM/DM: "in teams consisting of snipers and observers". Wouldn't that be teams consisting of one sniper and one "observer" (I've seen various designations for this role, hence the quotes)? The wording makes it sound like a "team" consists of (n*snipers+m*observers), when the grouping AFAIK really is n*(sniper+observer). 87.227.18.143 (talk) 23:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistency

the article says "marksman is an individual who is trained to shoot precisely with a certain type of rifle." now the phrase a "certain type of rifle" implies that a marksman is only uses rifle a a certain kind, that is not named. However the article mentions accuracy with pistols and has a picture of a bowmen. Rds865 (talk) 06:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Olympic Shooters

are the Olympic shooters considered marksmen? Rds865 (talk) 22:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 11:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Dubious claim

Currently this:

Because of the accuracy of these riflemen, many British officers removed their insignia to prevent the Americans from targeting them

Really? Then those officers would have had to strip to their smallclothes, since they wore entirely different uniforms and kit from the rankers.

Marksmanship, Marksman, and Sniper

This article redirects from marksmanship, but it seems like this article is basically a small extension of the "Sniper" article and may even cover some of the same material.

I think an article on MARKSMANSHIP is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.112.99.93 (talk) 15:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

i agree "marksmanship" is its own concept. Sniper is a military term — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.143.169 (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

I deleted what I'm going to call pretty obvious vandalism in this article. The chances that a highly skilled marksman would share a name with a far more famous blind woman are so small as to be not worth considering without the Mother of All Citations. Furthermore, the poster, one Hilowhills has made exactly one edit.

Now, how this was missed for the better part of a month is a mystery to me. Just bad/good luck (depending on your point of view), I guess...

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 20:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

MARINE CORPS MARKSMANSHIP

Marines are required to qualify with their individual T.O. weapon annually. For most enlisted Marines that weapon is the M16A2 service rifle.

Qualification scores are used, along with the Physical Fitness score as part of the overall requirement for promotion to the next rank and failure to qualify with your weapon can quite literally mean the end of a Marines military career.

To qualify with the rifle, Marines must accurately fire the rifle at targets from 200 yard standing, kneeling and sitting, 300 yard sitting and rapid fire prone, as well as 500 yard prone. A point system is used to score each round fired with the highest possible score being 250 points.

The lowest possible level of qualification is that of Marksman for which a Marine must score between 190 and 209 points.

A Marine is considered a Sharpshooter if he scores between 210 and 219 points.

The highest possible qualification, that of Rifle Expert, is earned by Marines firing a score of 220 and above.

As of October 1st, 2005 Marines are also required to complete three hours of classroom training, and practical application drills, followed by two to three days of classroom and live-fire training in close combat shooting.

Marines are required to pass all three phases of this training and, will fire in excess of 500 rounds simply to qualify.

In addition to the three basic Marksman, Sharpshooter and Expert badges, Marines recognized for winning national, and international marksmanship competitions, as well as the winners of Marine Corps marksmanship competition matches are authorized to wear the Distinguished Marksman Badge which in worn in place of the regular marksmanship badge.

Semper Fidelis

John M. Snyder Gunnery Sergeant USMC Retired 12th Award Rifle Expert --71.77.210.142 (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)JMS

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.77.210.142 (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC) 

Ambiguous wording

"During the American Civil War, sharpshooters saw limited action, as tacticians sought to avoid the heavy casualties inflicted through normal tactics, which involved close ranks of men at close ranges." As written, this seems to imply that - in order to reduce casulties - tacticians restricted the use of marksmen. I presume the intended meaning is "in order to reduce casulties, tacticians started using markmen tactics rather than close rank tactics (but only to a limited extent, because it was a new tactic)". Can someone confirm what the intended meaning is, and suggest a re-write to make it clearer? 62.172.108.24 (talk) 14:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The content of this article, Marksman, and that of Designated marksman cover essentially the same material. Both articles cover only military sharpshooters, not civilians. If a merger is not supported, then both articles should do a better job of comparing/contrasting the two terms. Felsic2 (talk) 20:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose a merger. The terms "Marksman" and "Designated marksman" are not in any way interchangeable, as you would have known if you had bothered to read both articles carefully. Or even bothered to read the lead of both articles, since the very first sentence in Marksman says:"A marksman, or sharpshooter, is a person who is skilled in precision shooting", i.e. any person, military or civilian, who is capable of achieving a high score in shooting competitions/tests, while the very first sentence in Designated marksman says: "The designated marksman (DM) or squad designated marksman (SDM) is a military marksman role in an infantry squad", i.e. a specific military role. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I have read both articles. Much of the material is repetitive. For example, Designated marksman#DM / sniper differences is the same topic as Marksman#"Sniper" vs. "SDM/DM". Marksman#India discusses designated marksman. As for the lead, that's the last time civilian shooters are mentioned. The article is solely about military marksman. Since the lead should summarize the content, it's missing something. A merger may not be required, but both article need to be refocused so they don't cover the same material. Felsic2 (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC) I missed the "Civilian marksman" section at the end. Felsic2 (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree they need to be at least partially "refocused", but they should definitely not be merged, which is what you're proposing here. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I moved the Marksman#"Sniper" vs. "SDM/DM" material to the Designated marksman article, though maybe it should just be deleted since it's unsourced. I've raised some questions at Talk:Designated marksman‎#When is a marksman a "designated marksman"? which may help us figure out the proper scope of these two articles. Felsic2 (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, some militaries give a badge to soldiers who have met a certain standard of marksmanship which doesn't otherwise affect their duties. In other words, they are "non-designated marksman". Further, the Indian Army appears to have a special unit just to show off marksmanship skill and conduct training, not necessarily to participate in combat.[2]

OTOH, the minimal civilian material appears to concern marksmanship practice, which is simply the skill of shooting accurately. (BT, it's just US-related material). That's primarily covered in articles like Shooting sport and Long range shooting. Maybe an article on Marksmanship would be warranted? Felsic2 (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

• Merge: Well I "bothered to read" both articles, thanks for that Thomas, and the difference in the lede appears to be due to differences in writing, not underlying concept. Quite the opposite, by the definitions I've seen the DM is simply the person holding the DMR, in exactly the same fashion that the machine gunner is whoever is operating the GPMG. The DM does not appear to be the defined concept or a position in the way that is being suggested above. It's also a very new term, it only entered the Canadian lexicon in the last few years, and it seems the US has only been using it a few more. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose two related but completely different concepts. Improve each article on its own.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Different concepts. Designated marksman has only a military usage. Marksman has extensive use in civilian shooting, as well as in military usage. Different usages and different concepts. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Lead

A marksman, or sharpshooter, is a person who is skilled in precision shooting, using projectile weapons, usually with a rifle but most commonly with a designated marksman rifle or a special application rifle, to shoot at long range targets.

In the military, marksmen are sometimes attached to an infantry fireteam or squad where they take accurate long-range shots at valuable targets as needed, thus extending the reach of the fireteam or squad. The main difference between military marksmen and snipers is that marksmen are usually considered an organic part of a fireteam of soldiers and are never expected to operate independently, whereas snipers usually work alone or in very small teams. Snipers are also often tasked with responsibilities other than delivering long-range fire—specifically, conducting reconnaissance and directing artillery or air strikes.

This introduction appears more suitable for the Designated Marksman article. The comparison with snipers is probably a summary of the lengthy (and unsourced) "DM vs Sniper" section that I moved to that article. I suggest rewriting it from scratch to summarize this article. Felsic2 (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@FillsHerTease:@Miguel Escopeta: - The term "shartpshooter" has been deleted repeatedly from the lead.[3] [4] If this article isn't also about "sharpshooters" then we should split out the parts of the article that talk about sharpshooters. for example: During the American Civil War, sharpshooters saw limited action... and The terms 'marksman' and 'sharpshooter' are often used interchangeably with the term 'sniper'... This may get back to the confusion over whether this article is solely about the military designation "marksman" or if it's about the general topic of people who are very accurate at shooting firearms. Which is it? Felsic2 (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

So, by the same reasoning, a Nurse Practitioner and an MD should be the considered the same? Clearly not. Yet, they both are involved in dispensing prescriptions for medicine. A Sharpshooter has a much higher skill level than a Marksman. An Expert, or Rifleman, has much higher skill than even a Sharpshooter. There are clearly defined differences in these skill levels, and considerable recognition of the different skill levels exists in both the military and civilian shooting sports worlds. "Marksman" and "Sharpshooter" are never conflated by anyone that is either in the military or in the shooting sports. Similarly, then, are weekend duffers the same as green coated Master golfers at the nationals (Masters) in golf? No. Words have meanings. To conflate the meanings referring to related, but vastly different skill levels, is not what an encyclopedia should do. An encyclopedia should enlighten, not engender confusion, for readers. For anyone who is knowledgeable in shooting, conflating Marksman and Sharpshooter is just extremely indicative of a lack of knowledge. We owe our readers a better product, than to conflate related, but vastly different skill levels, when informing readers of skill levels associated with shooting sports and military usages. Similarly, a Sniper is an entirely different class of shooter, too, than Marksman or Sharpshooter or Expert/Rifleman. A Sniper shoots from concealment. Police Snipers shoot at an average distance of only about 51 yards. Military Experts/Civilian Riflemen shoot at average distances that vary from 0 to well over 1,000 yards. Again, to conflate Sniper with Marksman, Sharpshooter, Expert/Rifleman simply indicates a lack of understanding of the concepts involved. Writing in areas of Wikipedia where one actually has some knowledge of the topic(s) is highly recommended, other than for grammar, spelling, and similar logistical editing reasons. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't clear. The only aim I have is to make this topic clearer. It sounds to me like, when it comes to ratings, "sharpshooter" and "marksman" are similar to "yellow belt" and "brown belt" in judo. IOW, they are different in degree but not in kind.

As for what the article should cover, there are a few distinct issues. 1) Should it cover "marksmanship", the skill of shooting accurately? That term redirects to this page, and I don't see another article about it. However this article doesn't have a word on that topic. 2) Should it cover military units or soldiers known as "sharpshooters"? That includes all of the Civil War material in the history section. Or should we split the sharpshooter material into a stand-alone page? 3) Should it provide a clear description of each of the marksmanship ratings? For example, what makes a sharpshooter different from a marksman, or an expert? Which countries or organizations use this four-tier scheme? There ought to be one single that gives an overview of the classes of shooter. Felsic2 (talk) 01:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

The difference between marksman and sharpshooter is more like the difference between a blue belt in karate and a 1st degree black belt. The difference between sharpshooter and expert is more like the difference between a blue belt in karate and a 5th degree black belt. Vast differences, and there are significant differences recognized by the NRA, the CMP, and numerous other organizations. We should not just assume they are all the same. It often takes years to become a high master in the CMP world of shooting, i.e., expert, vs. perhaps a weekend to become a marksman. Vast differences in skill levels. Lets not go all Dunning–Kruger effect here, OK?Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

The scope of this article may be getting increasingly confused with the scope of Marksmanship Badges (United States). That's the article which properly discusses the various marksmanship ratings - expert, sharpshooter, marksman, etc. - both military and civilian. Maybe it'd be better if this article focused more on the topic of marksmanship in general. The historical sharpshooter info, which is mostly about Civil War units, could be better split off into an article of its own. Felsic2 (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Felsic2 (talk) - Thank you for your detailed comments. My problem is the fact that the first reference takes you to the definition of 'marksman' at Dictionary.com - where the second part of the definition is:

"2. Military. the lowest rating in rifle marksmanship, below that of sharpshooter and expert."

...which directly contradicts the very sentence which the reference is being used for. That is obviously a problem! If you see what I mean? At any rate that was the reason I removed the term 'sharpshooter' from the lede. The other option would have been to remove the reference, but I thought it was better to have a reference, especially considering the fact that 'marksman' and 'sharpshooter' are not interchangeable terms. Having said all of that, I think you make a valid point and something needs to be done. Ultimately I think we have to ensure that, as an encyclopaedia, people understand that 'marksman' and 'sharpshooter' are different levels of the same skill and, as such, are not interchangeable. However - as you rightly point out - we have to make sure that people who look up the words 'marksman' or 'sharpshooter', find an article which explains the differences succinctly. It's worth pointing out that I came to this article because I wanted to know the difference between the two terms but found the article wanting. In the end I had to go elsewhere to get the answers I sought. That, to me, along with your concerns - and those of @Miguel Escopeta (talk) - means that we need to do some rewriting. Let's form a consensus and then set about getting the article fixed? FillsHerTease (talk) 07:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Good points. But the article which really discusses the military and civilian ratings is the Marksmanship Badges (United States) article. There it already discusses the differences between the 'expert', 'marksman', and'sharpshooter' ratings. As I've learned more about this topic and how it's addressed on Wikipedia, I'm not thinking that perhaps this should be a summary article - a section summarizing marksmanship ratings, a section summarizing the history of sharpshooter units (which should be split into a standalone article), and maybe also a section summarizing the sniper article and then a section on the skill of precision shooting. Any objections to those changes? Felsic2 (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@Felsic2 (talk) - That sounds very good to me. Is there anything I can do to help? If so then please let me know? In other news ... let me just apologise for changing the lede without first having a conversation about it. Even though it was only one word and was a minor change at face value, in reality it was actually a significant change, so I shouldn't have done it without an accord and I haven't apologised for doing that yet. So ... I'm sorry! Thank you for being so polite and gracious in your response. Lately I've been reading some of the fights that go on in various articles and it made me realise that even a very minor change can sometimes lead to World War III. Both Miguel and I changed the lede and you could have reacted very differently, but you kept your cool and handled the situation with aplomb; by getting a polite conversation going and being inclusive of our positions. A lot of people on Wikipedia could learn a thing or two from you; as I have. But I digress. And I ramble! The bottom line here - I think - is that everyone is correct! In normal, everyday conversations between normal, everyday people, the terms sharpshooter and marksman are interchangeable; you are right about that. However in the military the two terms aren't really interchangeable because they refer to different skill levels of rifle shooting, or rifle marksmanship. Sorry to repeat what we all already know, but I think it's important because initially I thought the two terms were interchangeable - like most normal, everyday people - but I was watching a movie in which someone said something that indicated otherwise. That is why I came to the article. My point being that whatever we end up with, we have to make sure that everyone - whoever they might be - will have their questions answered. Perhaps we even say something along the lines of: "in common usage, the terms sharpshooter and marksman are interchangeable, but militarily they are different terms which are not interchangeable and refer to distinct skill levels in rifle marksmanship". I don't know; something like that? Sorry to go on about it but we should get it right? I will be happy to help in any way I can... FillsHerTease (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

No apologies required. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform, not to confuse! I streamlined the wording a bit, which I hope makes it even clearer.[5] It probably still make sense to split out the material on sharpsooter units and to focus this article on the actual skill of marksmanship with summaries of related articles. Felsic2 (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Both civilian and military knowledgeable shooters involved in the civilian and military shooting sports and in military shooting in general, make great distinction between a marksman and a sharpshooter. It is not appropriate to misdirect readers that come here and fill their heads with incorrect information. Our goal should be to inform, not misdirect, readers. Have restored the prior, more clear, wording. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

It's sentences like that which we should try to avoid. ;)

This isn't the article which talks about the marksmanship badges and rankings. That's the Marksmanship Badges (United States) article. Does any other country use these same exact rankings? If not, we should make it clear we're talking about an American ranking scheme. How does the text I posted midirect readers? It said For marksmanship awards in military and civilian contexts in the United States, the terms are used to designate different skill levels. In the US Army, for example, badges are awarded for "expert", "sharpshooter", and "marksman". Is any of that confusing or misleading? Felsic2 (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Because, the topic is "marksman", which is is an English language term, and words such as "Marksman" and "Sharpshooter" mean different things in different contexts, and we should not conflate the two terms. This is also the English language Wikipedia. Hence, we should inform readers of what the English dictionary reference that is cited in the article also clearly recognizes and states, namely of a "marksman" having considerably lower levels of shooting proficiency than a "sharpshooter". For other proficiency grades, common in other countries, different terms are used, different than marksman and sharpshooter. For example, schützenschnur is the term used in Germany, and US enlisted men (not officers) are allowed to wear this medal in bronze, silver, or gold, depending on their qualification in the German rankings, on their US uniform. (For more on this, see German Armed Forces Badge of Marksmanship. There is a widespread practice of recognizing different levels of proficiency in shooting that are recognized in the shooting sports, worldwide. Attempting to pretend that such sports do not exist, or that there are no differences in shooting proficiency levels by conflating distinctly different levels of ability rankings, serves only to misinform readers that "marksman" and "sharpshooter" are "the same thing", and this is patently false. The current wording makes this distinction clear. The "clarification" you attempted earlier conflates two very different levels of proficiency with regards to shooting ability. The current version of the article also notes that, in popular usage, for individuals that are not involved in the shooting sports, the two terms are sometimes considered synonymous, but that the two terms also are used for indicating highly different levels of proficiency in both civilian and military usages. That is, in any of the civilian shooting sports, and in military usages, the two terms are distinctly different from what might be written in a typical, non-technical, popular press newspaper article. We should always inform our readers, not confuse them, where such nuances exist. It would be the same as conflating "nurse practitioner" and "medical doctor" because on joint missions to Haiti involving both, both "nurse practitioner" and "medical doctore" are simply called "doctor" by their uninformed patients. Our goal within Wikipedia is not to write factually inaccurate content, but, rather, to provide erudition in the content while writing Wikipedia. We should not write factually incorrect content. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Let's not go over the same ground again. It sounds like you're insistent that a marksman and a sharpshooter are entirely different things. In that case, the only solution is to split the article, as I proposed above ten days ago. I'll move forward with that plan. Felsic2 (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I did the split. See Sharpshooter. There's more to do still, but I'll wait a few days in case there are objections. Felsic2 (talk) 22:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marksman. 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/20130216113644/http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/AFI36-2803.pdf to http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/AFI36-2803.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 19:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marksman. 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/20150203025447/http://www.best-make-money-online.com/affiliate-cash-snipers.html to http://www.best-make-money-online.com/affiliate-cash-snipers.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 18:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)