# Talk:Exposé (Lost)

Was that not the most awesome episode of lost ever?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.147.143 (talk) 01:55, 2007 March 30 (UTC)

it was certainly different... i think it should be noted that in one of the flashbacks lock told paulo, when he was digging a hole to bury the diamonds, that nothing stays buried on the island... why go through a whole backstory to these two characters, only to have them die at the end... i have a feeling they will be back, we havent seen the last of nikki and paulo... as for how good the episode is.. i liked it, but i know quite a few that did not Thontor 21:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I think this one ties with the one that Hurley finds that hippie van. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.162.72.158 (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

The line "razzle dazzle" was brought in as a wink to the Ron and Fez show, as a writer of the show said would happen in a (then upcoming) episode during an interview.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Killridemedly (talk • contribs) 20:57, 2007 March 29 (UTC)

Yes, that is true. The writer was Brian K. Vaughan, who is also a successful comic book writer as well as being an executive story editor for Lost. The Razzle Dazzle line was a tribute by him to the Ron & Fez Show, taking the line from the "Board Gossip" intro which was done by Opie & Anthony producer Steve Carlesi.--Hndsmepete 22:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Every other Lost episode this season has a plot and trivia; why is it marked as improper in THIS episode, but not the others.  The article should conform across the series.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mooshimanx (talk • contribs) 19:12, 2007 March 29 (UTC)

Trivia shouldn't be in any of the episode articles; see WP:TRIV.--Isotope23 19:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I keep telling people this, I use to just remove it - people get attached to their trivia though, haha! :-P Matthew 19:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Except the WP:TRIV section doesn't call for deletion of the facts; it asked you to reorganize the material into the larger text or into less generalized sections:
"Whenever you see a "trivia section", take a look at each fact and consider how you might integrate it into the larger text, whether by inserting it into a section, adding a new section, or creating a more targeted list of closely-related items, such as Cameos or Continuity errors. Creating subsections to group items in the list may be helpful in the search for an ideal presentation. Integrating these facts may require additional research to establish further context, locate suitable references to cite, or identify relationships with other facts. Sections which contain facts to be merged into the main body of the article are a list of "facts pending integration" or "facts lacking sufficient context for integration". Don't simply remove it, but seek to minimize it. It is possible to move a trivia section to the talk page to allow other editors to participate with discussing and integrating the information worthy of inclusion in the article. Some trivia is especially tangential or irrelevant, and may not warrant inclusion at all. Once a trivia section is empty, it should be removed, but where such a section is re-added with new content, the integration process should begin again."
According to the regulation you posted Deleting information is defacing the article; if you don't like it being in trivia, put it elsewhere, not deleting it, unless it's non related to the episode.  It also does NOT say that Trivia articles are entirely improper, just that they are generally overbroad and should be reorganized into a different more specific section. Mooshimanx 19:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

IMO, There was nothing in the trivia section of this article that was worth working into the main article.  It was unsourced, trivial information like continuity errors.  I have no problem with Trivia sections being removed from all LOST related articles and the content either being worked into the article where appropriate or removed altogether where it is not; I just happened to notice it on this article, so I boldly removed it.  The only thing that was even remotely worth saving was the section on Maggie Grace and I've worked that back into the article, though even that is borderline.--Isotope23 20:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad you have no problem deleting all of it from all the articles; the regulations say you shouldn't.  71.138.242.150 21:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Then delete it from all of them, right?  I don't understand why we're targeting this particular article.  The production note regarding the appearances of the actors in the episode is a fairly relevant detail.  It's a production detail; why are those not appropriate, given they have to do with the epi? Mooshimanx 19:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
As watching this episode, I saw that there was a censor visible where Nikki and Paulo were reading the newspaper... something flashed out I guess? Nocarsgo 19:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This article needs a source on whether it's Expos or Expose.  If the name needs a change, please move the page instead of copying the content to a new page and making this a redirect, it screws up the page history.  --Milo H Minderbinder 00:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I made this page using every single piece of information I could find regarding this particular episode, and since it's creation I have also encountered people trying to delete this page, despite linking to referrences to interviews with one of the guest stars scheduled to appear in this episode AND an interview with Damon Lindelof confirming that this episode is in fact belonging to Nikki and Paulo. People moving it because of spelling enquiries, PLEASE DON'T! At least wait until Cuse/Lindelof/anyone else gives written evidence for it (the trouble with audio, unless they spell it out, is that just saying it doesn't provide any useful information regarding its spelling)--Animé Dan 12:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right.  Pages should never be moved by copying content to a new article and the original turned into a redirect.  It wrecks the page history - that's why there's a MOVE button at the top of the screen.  If a page can't be moved that way, just list it on WP:RM and an admin will move it.  If he does it again, report him to an admin, editing like that is disruptive.  --Milo H Minderbinder 13:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
This is the one problem I have with these articles being created before they have a confirmed name in writing... people are creating articles and redirects at "Expos (Lost)", "Expose (Lost)", & Exposé (Lost) with no idea what the actual name is.  It basically just creates a mess that someone else has to clean up.  I'd really suggest you wait to create articles until there is a confirmed print source for the article name.--Isotope23 01:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
That's a good idea.  Unfortunately, some editors seem to think it's a contest to see who can create a page first, regardless of sources (I won't mention any names, but I'm not talking about you, Animé Dan) and seem to think creating a page somehow is a justification for taking "credit" for the page.  --Milo H Minderbinder 13:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Those individuals, whomever they may be, may find WP:CHILL an interesting read.--Isotope23 14:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Yay, the tile has been officially confirmed as Expos by ABC Medianet.  [1].  --thedemonhog 08:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The original spelling turned out to be right after all, no page move needed - thanks for the source.  --Milo H Minderbinder 12:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Now it's been confirmed as Exposé by ABC Medianet [2].  Uhh...  --thedemonhog 22:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
It has also been confirmed by ABC Medianet as Exposi [3].  Aahh!  --thedemonhog 22:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I would be inclined to go with the official press release (Exposi).  SergeantBolt (t,c) 08:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
It's rather hard to accidentally type an acute e. I still think we should go with what we got first (press release-wise), Exposé. 71.62.73.214 19:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
We actually got Expos first...  --thedemonhog 22:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd just leave it for now, if it needs moving we can do that when the confusion is cleared up.  --Milo H Minderbinder 22:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Cripes.  So SilvaStorm has moved the page with zero mention on the talk page beforehand again?  Nice.  --Milo H Minderbinder 13:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Is it true that Charlie is going to die in this episode???????? In Australia we're only up to episode 6 :(
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.186.121.51 (talk) 05:55, 2007 March 28 (UTC)

No, he doesn't die and if you're in Australia don't go to American websites because you're ruining the show for yourself.  --thedemonhog talk contributions 04:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

the summary doesn't make any sense at all
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.122.63 (talk) 02:00, 2007 March 29 (UTC)

Whoever is currently writing this summary, please stop writing it in the first person, and use a tone appropriate for an encyclopedia.69.37.210.35
Obviously the writer of the summary was over excited and wrote this right after the episode. Some one should re write it.User:????

Yeah, I've been noticing poor puncuation and unprofessional writing of the sypnosis' for the past couple of episodes - they seem to be more appropriate for a fan page than an encyclopedia...something should be done.155.43.22.48 16:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Did Nikki and Paulo appear in original earlier scenes of Lost? This episode shows them at the crash site when the man is sucked into the jet engine, and in several other scenes where I am not sure I remember seeing them originally. I'm wondering if that is new footage that they did for this episode, or whether they were really in those scenes as extras and it all somehow hung together into the very cohererent story told in this episode. Quite impressive either way.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.90.189 (talk) 04:30, 2007 March 29 (UTC)
As I had in before, and then was deleted (which is fine; probably TMI for a Wiki), those were just new footage superimposed on old footage of "Collision."  Thus, Jack and Sayid, who are present in the speech, are technically in the episode, but did not actually do any new footage for the episode (unless the picture on the monitor Ben looks at is new, which I would sincerely doubt, but have no proof of).
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mooshimanx (talk • contribs) 19:11, 2007 March 29 (UTC)

Not sure, but if I recall correctly the footage of Jack in the monitor is recycled footage of Jack in the monitor when Locke and Eko first enter The Pearl. Seems Jack is (conveniently) not very dynamic while sitting at the computer in The Swan every day. -- Mac OS X 07:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Paulo's wikipedia page has this episode as being his last, Nikki's doesn't. this episode isn't shown in Ireland till monday, but do those buring them see Nikki opening her eyes--Irishboi 12:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I believe Hurly and co. bury Nikki and Paulo entirely, thus killing them. This really hasn't helped my fear of being buried alive. 205.235.34.131 13:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
We shouldn't write ANYTHING about it being anyone's final appearance; as far as we know, they're both gonna dig their way out in the next episode.  Although it appeared they were dead, there haven't been any episodes after this one. Mooshimanx 19:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

as i mentioned above.. i think locke's statement that "nothing stay buried on the island" is very important.. i don't think we've seen the last of nikki and paulo Thontor 22:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That sounded like a Mozart piano concerto playing in the background.  Did anyone recognize which one it was?  That bit of trivia might be too obscure to mention in the article, but its got me curious and I don't know where else to ask.  DavidRF 15:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I could swear this was not the first time we've seen Howard L. Zukerman.  (Mchelada 22:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC))

My wife an ardent blogger told me that the Nikki and Paulo characters were LOATHED by Lost fans.  I could see why, they seemed to have been added for this season just as "filler" or perhaps to act as foils for the other characters.  Anyway, she said every blog she saw on "Lost"; people hated the characters and hoped they'd be killed off.
Did the producers read this...and not only kill off N&P in their first "-centric" episode...but kill them in a particularly gruesome manner to satisfy the Blogosphere who hated them so?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.77.121 (talk) 02:25, 2007 March 30 (UTC)

They were lame, very lame, characters. Not sure why there were put in in the first place. The "filler" theory is weak. Unless there is a better plot-line with them later, I wouldn't doubt this was a (very neat) way to fix the writers' mistake of adding them. The oddest thing is that they've been included in the main cast in the credits since their arrival, making one assume the intention for them was much more than to have an episode devoted to killing them off. During the episode I found it weird that flashbacks would occur between two dead people, and at the end I found it strange still that unconscious people would have flashbacks. Either way, I haven't been this happy to see people killed off since Anna Lucia and Libby. -- Mac OS X 08:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I had assumed, after seeing this episode for the first time, that the writers had been planning this episode ahead of time, and "planted" the characters' appearances in previous episodes just so they could be killed off later.  "One must not put a loaded rifle on the stage if no one is thinking of firing it." - Anton Chekhov  This is the reverse of how the writers continuously show dead characters in flashbacks in later episodes.
As far as "unconscious people" having flashbacks, 1) they're paralyzed, not unconscious, and 2) I've personally never assumed them to be flashbacks had by the characters themselves at that point in the main narrative (primarily because when a person remembers an event in their lives, they generally remember it from "beginning" to "end", and not in several segments over the course of an hour).  They're a dramatic tool of the authors', to explain the character's motivations.
On a sinister note, this introduces once more Hurley's bad luck, which causes them to be buried within minutes (seconds?) of the toxin wearing off.  --205.201.141.146 21:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a talk page, but no article.  Was it moved?  I can't find it anywhere and everything links here.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope, sorry about that.  I apparently hit the wrong button and it was unintentionally deleted.  Someone pointed it out and I fixed it.--Isotope23 19:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

this scene is left out. I'd add it myself but I can't remember the chronology.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.157.98 (talk) 20:14, 2007 March 30 (UTC)

I think it's quite an important detail that just before the group of spiders attack Nikki, the trademark buzzing noise of the Monster in  "scanning mode" can clearly be heard. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by El Dodo (talk • contribs) 21:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Thats actually a very good point, I just went back and checked it there now...who knows — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.38.88 (talk) 18:18, 2007 April 29 (UTC)

Don't you think that the piture of P&N lying with their eyes closed is a bit of a spoiler?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.57.94 (talk) 22:41, 2007 March 30 (UTC)

Considering that many episodes have started with an opening eye, does anyone else think it's significant that this episode is the first (IIRC) to end with an opening eye? Or is it just coincidence? --Pentasyllabic 21:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I admit that this was just a filler episode. However, as a far as filler episodes go, this one was freaking awesome. 156.12.27.51 01:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. I had a DVR of backlogged episodes and when I finally came to this one I was really bummed. It reminded me of the days of Shannon and Boone, even though Boone was a good character I thought.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.137.164 (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC) 

Image:Nikki with paulo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 17:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Arzt explains that the spider has extremely strong pheromones that would attract male spiders if it were let loose; could this be the reason the dozens of spiders show up and not that the "smoke monster" was assuming a different form?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.214.196 (talk) 03:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC) 
Producers confirmed that it was the monster in a podcast. They also confirmed that Yemi was the monster, and that Kate's horse is "undead." Jackieboy87 (talk) 03:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Even if the producers confirm this, in the context of watching the show, there is no indication that this was the "monster." I agree that it should be stated about Arzt's comment about the pheromones without mention in the plot, perhaps add about the monster in the notes.  Despite the fact that it could have been the monster, the most logical explanation is the pheromones.  If it was the monster, I would expect that they will clarify this in a future episode. - Terry  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.148.12.220 (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 

Actually, you can hear the monster's "rattling" noise right before the spiders appear, Nikki even looks around when she hears the sound. Furthermore, articles aren't written only with information from the episode about which it is written. In keeping with an encyclopedia, outside information about the episode should also be included. This includes clarifications made by the creative staff after the episode has aired. See Wikipedia:WAF for more info. Jackieboy87 (talk) 03:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I rewatched this part to confirm whether or not I hear the monster's rattling sound, and I find it difficult to admit that sounds much like the monster.  I think the sound you hear is simply an amplified sound of the spiders walking across the grass, in order to emphasize their movement.  Though I didn't compare the rattling sound of other instances with the monster, it, to me, is not the same sound.
And Jackie, I wasn't insisting to completely remove the mention of the monster, I just think it would better fit in a section called "production notes" or something similar on the page.  It is not obvious that the spiders are the monster regardless of what the producers said or if it sort of sounds like the monster.  I would guess 95% of viewers would not catch the sound or know what the producers said about it, therefore it should not be considered as plot of the episode.  As for plot, the only logical explanation for the spiders is Arzt's explanation that a bite of the spider releases pheromones that will attract the male spiders.  I think it should be changed in the article, but I will allow someone else to make the change if they agree with me.  To note, the link of the source for the producer's explanations is broke. Terry (75.148.12.220 (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC))
I agree.  The "sound" everyone keeps hearing is certainly a heightened awareness of the approach of the male spiders, rustling thru the brush, and not the typical mechanical sound that heralds the monsters appearance.  If we are going off the "orignal source" material then there is simply no way to conclude just from watching the episode that the spiders are the monster.  I have no problem accepting the producers explanation given the monster's proven abilities, but their comments shouldn't trump the story that is laid out in the episode.  Why even have Arzt mention the pheremones at all if thats not what the show's creators wanted the audience to take from this episode?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.181.47.130 (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I have two points: First off, before you hear the spiders approaching (the leaves crunching noise) you can cleary hear the taxi-cab receipt sound: "click-click-click," which is indicative of the monster. Turn up the audio and listen, it helps if you have surround sound. Secondly, the producers have also stated in a podcast that Arzt is never right about anything, giving more credence to the fact that is the smoke monster. Jackieboy87 (talk) 15:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't hear the monster either, though that doesn't mean anything given its transmutative abilities.  The central point to this whole discussion is whether or not the episode communicates the fact that this is the monster well enough fot the average viewer to pick up on it.  I don't think any one who isn't looking for the monter to appear as a swarm of spiders would ever draw that conclusion just from watching the episode.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.18.110 (talk) 05:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Exposé (Lost)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
In the Plot, "Paulo poisons his food, and the couple steals his diamonds, which are worth $8 million", I hope your referring to Paulo and Nikki, if so, it would be best to add that little detail, especially for the people who read this article.
Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
In the lead, it would be best to add (ABC) after "American Broadcasting Company".
Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 
Publisher is needed for Reference 1 and 4. Also, it would be best if the references use the {{cite web}} format.
Half-check. Reference 4 is still missing Publisher info. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Fixed--Mr.crabby ''''' (Talk) 02:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 03:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): 
In the Production section, is there a source for this ---> "Exposé" was the fourteenth episode of the series directed by Stephen Williams. The episode was written by Edward Kitsis and Adam Horowitz, the pair had previously written eight other episodes of Lost?
Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!
--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed problems mentioned. --Mr.crabby ''''' (Talk) 15:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you to Mr.crabby for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 03:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Exposé (Lost). 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/20140718204656/http://www.barb.co.uk/whats-new/weekly-top-10 to http://www.barb.co.uk/whats-new/weekly-top-10
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) 23:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Exposé (Lost). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/66EOT3Hl2?url=http://www.zap2it.com/tv/news/zap-pilotcasting-kielesanchezfootballwives%2C0%2C4345613.story to http://www.zap2it.com/tv/news/zap-pilotcasting-kielesanchezfootballwives%2C0%2C4345613.story
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081208161618/http://www.ugo.com/ugo/html/article/?id=17063&sectionId=2 to http://www.ugo.com/ugo/html/article/?id=17063&sectionId=2
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110103052317/http://abc.go.com/shows/lost/episode-detail/expose/40693 to http://abc.go.com/shows/lost/episode-detail/expose/40693
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) 21:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)