# Talk:Evolution of Worcestershire county boundaries since 1844

I have moved the article to fix the capitalisation problem per WP:CAPS, but think a better title would be Evolution of Worcestershire county boundaries per WP:NOUN. I will move it to this if there are no objections. Ground Zero | t 07:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Why do Feckenham, Kington and Church Lench appear in the table, when they are and always were in Worcestershire?  I have also made some adjustmetns to the text relating to the northern boundary, but am uncertain whether this is supported by the referneces which are cited.  If not, the sources are incorrect.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted the change of Dudley leaving Worcestershire in 1974, back to it leaving in 1966 (adding an explanation).  As a County Borough, the council fulfilled all local government functions.  Accordingly, the county in which it lay was almost a semantic question.  One area where it continued to matter was the execution of High Court writs, which were the responsibility of the sheriff, though undertaken by officers working for the under-sheriff.  Under the 1966 arrangements, the urban district of Ambelcote was split between Stourbridge and the new County Borough.  The shirevalty boundaries were altered to conform, so that the part of Amblecote that was in Stourbridge was dealt with by the under-sheriff at Worcester and the part added to Dudley (with the rest of the County Borough) was dealt with by the under-sheriff at Stafford.  This boundary continued to apply after 1974.  I know this as in the late 1970s and early 1980s, as a solicitor, one had to know which under-sheriff to send writs to.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thus culminating with the creation of the West Midlands County and Worcestershire's brief merger with Herefordshire.[2] 
In the true sense of the word culminate the culmination  would have been the separation  back into the  two traditional  counties (when all  of us on  both  sides of the hills breathed a huge sigh  of relief). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point there...I'll look at a way of rewording it. Thanks Bellow558 (talk) 11:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I  admire your courage with  this history  of Worcs and sincerely  hope that  the article will become a GA. I'm sure it  will, but believe me, anyone who  has been subject  to  those county boundary  changes over just  the last  60 or so years as I  have, is confused. UK governments, like no other Western European country, are obsessed with  constantly  changing  local  government boundaries and municipal  status. It's usually  due to successive governments trying to engineer the areas of population in  order to create safe seats in regions of piebald pockets of heavy industry  (left wing such as north Worcs), and extremely agricultural (right wing) such as the Vale of Evesham, West Worcs, athe vast  p[astoral tracts of the Malvern Hills and the whole of Herefordshire.  What  would help  of course would be an animated gif of the boundary  vhanges, but  it's not  mandatory  for a Wikipedia article., althoigh  a horizontal  timeline may  help  reduce some of tghe confusion.
I've noticed that some of your phraseology  is slightly  repetitive at times, which often happens in long articles. When the review is almost finished, I'll  give it a final CE for style. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Evolution of Worcestershire county boundaries/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 21:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I'll review this; I'll add comments here as I go through the article.  It might be several days till I complete it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I've been through the article a couple of times, and before I comment on the good article criteria, I'd like to ask about scope.  From the title of the article it would appear that it covers the entire evolution of the county, from its formation.  If that's so, I would expect to see some material about the earliest mention of the county, the earliest known definite boundaries, and more about the granting of the various exclaves, and so on. However, I suspect that the right answer is that this article should be moved to a title such as "Evolution of Worcestershire county boundaries (1844 to present day)".  Is that the case?  If so, let's agree on a name, and we can move the article after completing the review (I think it's a bit messy to move it while the review is going on, because of the GA nomination subpage). Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi Mike...thanks for your initial comment about the articles scope. Whilst researching for the article and despite the complex nature of Worcestershire's external boundaries, there doesn't seem to be much alteration until 1844, except for the changes affecting Halesowen & Oldbury, Clent, Broome and Tardebigge. The main changes concerned the internal structures within the individual hundreds, which were reduced in number over time. So I thought a general overview of what happened before 1844 might give a good background to what was about to happen from 1844 onwards. 
However; I accept your view that the article is lacking some depth before 1844 and the article title could be opened up to several interpretations. So I would be happy for the title to be amended to what is suggested. Bellow558 (talk) 12:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

OK -- we can figure out the exact title once the review is completed.
I think the article is not structured in the easiest way for a reader to follow.  Have you considered a more purely chronological sequence for the start of the article?  I would have expected a section sequence something like 1. Boundaries as of 1844 (mentions exclaves, gives the map you have, describes the then-current structure of hundreds and parishes; 2. Detached parts act of 1844 (explain motivation and effect, mention that the 1931 act will do more along these lines); 3. Birmingham, more or less as you have it now; 4. 1931 act (not sure if this is necessary, or could be included in (2); 5. Remaining sections as you have them.  What do you think? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi Mike...I've taken that on board and have rearranged the start of the article to a more chronological order. I've also renamed some of the sections, sub-sections and expanded on the "Counties (Detached) Act 1844", separation of the "Provisional Order Confirmation (Gloucestershire, Warwickshire and Worcestershire) Act 1931" and a few minor alterations. I feel happier with how its looking now Bellow558 (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks -- I do think that's a better organization.  I'll go ahead and start a more detailed review; I'll add notes here as I go through.

That's it for now; please let me know what you think about the comments above.  I do have some copyediting concerns, but I don't think those can be addressed till we get the content right.  I will place the article on hold to give you time to respond.  The article has some great information in it, including some very good maps; I'm impressed.  However, I do think there's quite a bit of work to do to make the article clear and complete.  If you prefer, I can fail the article for GA, which would give more time to work on it.  I'd be happy to collaborate with you on improving the article outside GA, though I'm busy and wouldn't always respond quickly.  Let me know what you'd like to do. -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Hiya Mike...I've put this at the bottom of the review, because hopefully this will stand out despite the indented conversation. I've made a major alteration to the article, where I've inserted a section about the 'Exclaves & Enclaves', which sits between 'The Hundreds' and 'Counties (Detached Parts) 1844 Act'. Some of the text relating to the exclaves/enclaves have been placed into this section leaving the 1844 Act text about the legislation. I've also added an exclave table and also edited the 1832 map to create three smaller maps highlighting a part of the county, giving the locations of the absolute majority of the exclaves/enclaves. So what we have now is the location of the exclaves, which county the exclave was part of prior to 1844, which county it was transferred to. the year of transfer and under which legislation. Hopefully this new section will now give the reader a better context to what the county was like immediately before 1844 when the alterations commenced. I hope you agree with this new section. Now the problem we have is that because of the new sections content, I feel that the table and map highlighting Halfshire is now redundant, so can we agree to remove these? Bellow558 (talk) 05:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's a huge help.  The gallery of Worcs exclave details is exactly what's needed.  I'll read over again now and add some more comments, but yes, I think the table and map of Halfshire can now be moved to the Halfshire article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 15:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


### Arbitrary section break
OK, I think everything above has been addressed, but there have been quite a few changes so I am going to go through the article again.  As before, I'll add comments as I go through.

I've done some copyediting, particularly to the section on Warley Wigorn etc., since I found that a very difficult sequence to follow.  I tried to preserve the meaning and put the citations in the correct places, but please revert if I've screwed anything up (or if you don't like my copyedit).  Looking in more detail at the north Worcestershire map, I see that there were more than three islands in Halesowen -- were these fragmented parts of the Warley Wigorn?  If so, my copyedit probably needs tweaking to say that, since I have it referring to three islands.
According to A vision of Britain through time Warley Wigorn contained between fifteen to twenty parts. Bellow558 (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I tweaked my copyedit accordingly and cited the website.  Please revise if I screwed anything up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
The exclaves and enclaves table and pictures are a big improvement.  I think it's necessary to include the legend from the original map of the 1832 administrative boundaries, though, because otherwise the reader has no idea what the colours mean.  I think the best way to do that is probably just to include the map of the whole county in the gallery, as the first image.  That gives the reader the legend in the first map, and also has the advantage of showing the southwest corner of the county, which isn't shown in the more detailed pictures because there are no exclaves there.
Okay...I'll move the 1832 map to the gallery Bellow558 (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Looks good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I made the exclaves table sortable; I really like the result -- it's now possible to sort by figure number so you can match the rows with the maps more easily, for example.  Doing that revealed what may be a couple of typos or inconsistencies: I see Alderton on the map but not the list, and Alstone on the list but not the map -- are they the same?  Redmarley D'Abitot and Staunton are in the list but not the map; and Overbury, Great Washbourne, Sedgeberrow, Cutsdean, Broadway, Paxford and Aston Magna are on the map but not in the list.  I'm guessing that Blockley on the list is the same as Blockley + Paxford + Aston Magna on the map, but if so I think it would be better to be consistent and put all three names in the list, since the reader is going to go back and forth between them to get oriented.  Also, does Newbold-on-Stour refer to the piece in the Pershore colour just above Shipston-on-Stour?  If so, can that name be moved up; and if not, what's the name of that piece?  Finally, why is Honeybourne labelled?
A lot of the places aren't parishes but settlements within a parish, Newbold-on-Stour is in the correct position. Honeybourne is in Worcestershire, right on the edge. Overbury, Broadway and Sedgeberrow were not part of the enclaves, but included to give context to the maps of the exclaves in relation to the main body of Worcestershire. I've removed Redmarley D'Abitot from the table as it doesn't form part of any exclave, I must of misinterpreted some research there. Bellow558 (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
That helps.  A couple of things left over from my list above:
Alderton is on the map but not the list, and Alstone on the list but not the map -- are they the same?  Checking Google maps it appears they are very close to each other; I think it would be better to refer to that area with a consistent name.
Staunton is on the list but not the map
Cutsdean is on the map as an exclave, but not in the list -- surely it should be?
Is there a name for the piece of Pershore just above Shipston-on-Stour?  I can't tell if it's included in the list.
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)#
List and map updated...Staunton wasn't part of an exclave, so its been taken out of the table. The place above Shipston-on-Stour within the 'Pershore' part of the exclave is Alderminster.Bellow558 (talk) 14:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I see that you've marked on the maps many of the names of places that transferred, even though they weren't necessarily exclaves.  I think this is the right approach; those three detailed maps can be the reference for much of the article.  You don't show Upper Arley, though; it should be on 1A or 1B, right?  And I also don't see Warley Woods or Ipsley marked anywhere.
Those changes weren't part of the 1844/1931 enclave/exclave alterations, so they've not been marked on those maps. I could always mark them on other maps?
I like the map you just added of Upper Arley; I don't think it's critical that the others be added or marked on the other maps, so I'm striking this.  However, for an article like this, I think the more information is on the maps, the better, so maybe it's something to consider for after GA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
On the map of Warley, you show the county borough's borders in blue, but what are the red borders?  Civil parishes?  Districts?
Those were the former Rowley Regis, Oldbury and Smethwick areas, I'll alter the description to make that clearer Bellow558 (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I figured out that it related to the conversion of those areas to the new Warley County Borough; I just meant what sort of entity were they?  Civil parish, district, borough? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Rowley Regis and Oldbury were Urban Districts, Smethwick was a County Borough. Map description altered to emphasise this Bellow558 (talk) 06:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
"So when the Redcliffe-Maud report and the successor Local Government in England: Government Proposals for Reorganisation and Local Government Bill proposed a 'top tier' administrative unit within the conurbation, it would be defined by the Government as the next logical step" -- I don't quite follow this; can you clarify?
The White Paper and Bill recommended and implemented through the Act a uniform two-tier system across the country, regardless of whether the administrative units were metropolitan or not. So in regards to the conurbation...most of these areas were never administrated by a county council, because of their county borough status, so a two tier system was inevitable after the 1966 changes. The main change...although its difficult to phrase it whilst being subjective is that the West Midlands County was an entirely new (and unpopular) entity that was carved out of the three existing counties of Worcs, Warwick and Staffs.Bellow558 (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm still not getting it.  The previous paragraph says that the Redcliffe-Maud report recommended single-tier authorities for the metropolitan areas, so why would a two-tier system be inevitable? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I see the contradiction, so the sentence has been removed Bellow558 (talk) 06:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Is the "<snip>" in the quote from John Gilbert just an indication that you've cut some text?  If so, just use an ellipsis.
Its a cut of some text because it wasn't relevant Bellow558 (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
OK -- I changed it to an ellipsis, which is how the manual of style recommends this be done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
"along with Amendment Numbers 294 and 295 which would have consented the Kinver Parish transfer from Seisdon in Staffordshire to the new combined Herefordshire & Worcestershire authority": can you clarify?  Does this mean those two amendments would have allowed Kinver Parish to transfer, but it did not transfer because the amendments were defeated?
Yes...This was a left over from Redcliffe-Maud; Seisdon was to be abolished and shared between a lot of the local authorities, Kinver was proposed to join what would be Hereford & Worcester, but because Stourbridge was to be added to the West Midlands, this change wouldn't really make much sense. This was secondary to the main discussions about the future of Herefordshire and Worcestershire as independent counties Bellow558 (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
OK -- I copyedited this slightly to make the meaning clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
The last part of the paragraph headed "Review of the West Midlands (City of Birmingham) Boundaries with Bromsgrove (Hereford & Worcester)" is not cited.
I'll have a look at it Bellow558 (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
"The Local Government Boundary Commission recommended that Hereford & Worcester should be split into three unitary authorities centred on Herefordshire, North Worcestershire and South Worcestershire.  However the final recommendation of the hybrid unitary and two-tier option was finally ratified by Law..." -- if the LGBC recommended three unitary authorities, who made the "final recommendation"?
The final recommendation was by the LGBCE and then it was upto the legislators to ratify the decision or ask the LGBCE to go back and look at it again. Bellow558 (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
The legislators being Parliament?  How about changing this to "However, Parliament chose the hybrid unitary and two-tier option instead, resulting in the abolition of the county of Hereford & Worcester"?  That avoids using "recommendation" with two meanings, and makes it clear who had the final decision. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay...no problem Bellow558 (talk) 06:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
"The Leominster and Malvern Hills districts crossed over the historic border, so a new Malvern Hills district was constituted which straddled the pre-April 1974 county boundary to the west, south-west and north-west" -- I don't follow this, sorry.  The new district straddled the old boundary; the old boundary became the new boundary in 1998, right?  So this district is now in two counties?
No...Malvern Hills and Leominster districts under Hereford & Worcester straddled the pre-1974 border. When the 1998 reorganisation took place, the pre-1974 border between Herefordshire & Worcestershire was re-established. So the districts had to be reorganised to fall under one county only. Leominster District was abolished and its functions were carried out by the unitary Herefordshire authority. Because Leominster district also included part of Worcs, that area had to be added to one of Worcestershire's local authorities. So it was added to Malvern Hills, who also had an area change due to losing it's Herefordshire territories...which now came under the new Herefordshire authority. So 'Malvern Hills' district's area now straddled the new county boundary with Herefordshire in its entirety. Bellow558 (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, let me say that back to you in my own words to see if I have it right.  There are two districts being discussed: Malvern Hills and Leominster.  Both were districts of Hereford & Worcester; that's to say the districts were part of the 1974-1998 structure. When Herefordshire and Worcestershire came back into existence in 1998, both districts lay partly in each of the two newly recreated counties.  To solve this problem, Leominster district was abolished.  The part of Leominster district that was in Herefordshire was absorbed by a Herefordshire authority.  The part of Leominster district that was in Worcestershire was added to Malvern Hills; the result was that Leominster district ceased to exist.  Malvern Hills continued to exist; it is in Worcestershire and consists of the part of the 1974-1998 Malvern Hills district that was in Worcestershire, plus the part of 1974-1998 Leominster district that was in Worcestershire.  Is that right? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes...that's it Bellow558 (talk) 06:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I've copyedited a little; I think that's clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
The last part of "Local Government Act 1972 legacy" is uncited.
There is a reference at the end of the sub-section Bellow558 (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, should have noted this earlier: according to this tool, there are several dead links in the article -- can you check and replace them as needed?
Dead links removed or new locations found and links updated. Reference number 35 works Bellow558 (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I also realized just now that the source for the map data should be cited too.  Are you deriving these maps from some downloadable geographic database, or taking existing maps and editing them?  Whichever, we should really put a cite at the end of the caption for each map.
Source data has been added to the maps Bellow558 (talk) 06:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
That's everything I can see.  I think the article is close to GA now; the above points are minor compared to the changes you've already made.  Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


### Arbitrary section break 2
Everything above has been dealt with and the article is in great shape now.  I've trimmed nearly all the "See also" links and "External links", per MOS:LAYOUT; if you think anything should be returned, let me know, but most of them were already linked in the article or in the referencs.  I've also done some copyediting (again, feel free to revert if you don't like my changes) and have eliminated a few duplicate links.  I expanded the lead substantially; it was a bit short for such a substantial article.  I also removed most of your use of bold -- the house style here rarely uses bold type within articles to make items stand out, though if there's anything you think should be bold, let's talk about it.

The article looks fantastic now...thanks for what you've done Bellow558 (talk) 04:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
One last read through revealed one final question:

"However the Poor Law Amendment Act 1866 declared a divergence between the historic ecclesiastical parish and administrative functions within the locality, thus creating civil parishes. These administrative units formed the bottom-tier of local government within England and were established from 1865": how can civil parishes date from 1865 if the legislation establishing them was passed in 1866?
Once this is cleared up I will pass the article as a GA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hiya Mike...Oh yes, I've just rectified that.
Thanks very much for working with me on this...its greatly appreciated and the article looks great! :) So the only thing to do now is renaming the article "Evolution of Worcestershire county boundaries (1844 to present day)"? Bellow558 (talk) 05:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


### Lead
Last sentence of first paragraph is truncated. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Oops.  Fixed; left over fragment of a draft.  Thanks for spotting that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


### Section: Counties (Detached Parts) Act 1844
…which redefined the boundaries for Members of Parliament -  possibly  more accurate to  say: 

 … which redefined the boundaries for parliamentary [[United Kingdom constituencies|constituencies]]
--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for spotting that Bellow558 (talk) 04:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I've made a few minor changes that  improve the syntax and flow without  altering  any  of the actual content. I've done this as a series of short  diffs so  that  it  is easier for you  to  revert if you  don't  appoprove of them. Not quite finished yet. (Don't  worry -  I  won't  be taking  any  credit at  all, shared or otherwise,  for the GA when it  passes). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for all your assistance! Bellow558 (talk) 10:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Bellow558, congratulations on getting this article to GA -- you've done a huge amount of work and the article is very impressive.  I suggest we move the article to "Evolution of Worcestershire county boundaries since 1844"; I think that's slightly more concise than "... boundaries (1844 - present)".
I've promoted the article to GA, but haven't placed it in the GA pages yet -- I'll wait to do that till we've agreed on the name. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
That is brilliant...thank you very much for all your work in assisting me getting the article to this level! :) Yes...I agree about the name change to "Evolution of Worcestershire county boundaries since 1844" Bellow558 (talk) 10:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Done.  It's been a pleasure working with you -- I look forward to seeing more of your articles. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
No Problem Mike! Just one final question...In your opinion, how far is the article away from A-Class status? Just as a matter of interest. Thanks Bellow558 (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
A-class reviews are done by WikiProjects, so it would have to be from a WikiProject that has implemented an A-class review process, which most of them haven't.  Only the most active projects, such as military history, have A-class reviews.  The next step would be to get the article to featured status.  I think there's more work to be done before you could get to that level -- it's not out of reach, but I don't think it's there yet.
What I'd suggest is that you work on a few more articles first -- see if you can get a few more to good article status; that process will give you a lot more experience and understanding of what it takes to improve an article.  I would also suggest you review a couple of good article nominees, once you are confident you understand the criteria; reviewing an article is good practice for seeing what's wrong with your own articles.  You could also read through featured article candidate reviews (at WP:FAC) and good article reviews by others (at WP:GAN) on topics that interest you; that'll give you a sense of what reviewers are looking for.  Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 23:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that Mike...food for thought for the future! Thanks again for all your assistance! Bellow558 (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Evolution of Worcestershire county boundaries since 1844. 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/20070930201127/http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/relationships.jsp?u_id=10101001 to http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/relationships.jsp?u_id=10101001&c_id=10001043
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) 23:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)