# Talk:F.C. United of Manchester

Surely this is FC United

Yeah, that's the only name I've heard for it as well.  I've heard the name might change so I'm going to wait until Monday's meeting before moving the page, but I've changed it to FC United in the text and set up a redirect.  I sent the original author a message asking where they'd heard it was United FC but haven't had a reply.  Cantthinkofagoodname 12:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

The club colours haven't been announced yet, but the infobox looks horrible if I don't put some in so I made a (probably reasonable) guess. If anyone knows how to have an infobox without club colours please remove them.  Thanks, CTOAGN 15:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Changed the away to white, that default brown was ... Esprit 16:17, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

No probs, but...red socks?  I've heard the home kit will be red, white and black, so I'll change the socks back.  If you've heard differently revert it but please let me know where from (so I can go round and argue with whoever's responsible :-D ) Cheers, CTOAGN 09:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Just found this on the FCUM site: [1].  Looks like it's red, white and black (see last sentence).  CTOAGN 10:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The crowd figures for the Leek match is impressive, but what was the score??! -- Arwel 11:46, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Can someone check this user's edits today and yesterday?  There were a couple of nonsense sentences mixed in with his edits, so I reverted. -- Curps 10:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi there...
I was trying to update the information on the playing staff. I presume the "nonsense" sentences were:
"Questionable choice of match day underwear" - this refers to the player apparently wearing a thong under his shorts.
"Fixes toilets, eats beans, plays for FC United" - this player appeared on a BBC1 documentary this week, in which he described his day job as a plumber before having his pre-match meal before playing in the match.
Both these have quickly made their way into club folklore, but if you'd rather they were left out that's fine!

By all means put them in, but in a more plainly explanatory way (this is an encyclopedia after all).  Not everyone who reads the article is "in the know" about club folklore, and references that will make some readers smile knowingly will simply puzzle others.  Particulary with vandalism targetting some of our articles (including Manchester recently), it's easy to misunderstand the point of adding those particular sentences. -- Curps 02:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Anyone noticed any more?

Castleton Gabriels' programme for their match against FC (no attribution)
French football website (attribution given for a map they used)
File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 01:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The use of the word "exorbitant" is POV, in my opinion, so I changed it to "high". --71.225.229.151 01:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me, but do you have some very strong child-protection software on the computer you're using?  One of your edits changed "before playing" to "be ing" in someone else's comment above.[2] It looks like it was trying to censor the word "foreplay" from your edit. File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 02:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I put the phrase "hostile takeover" back into the article.  A hostile takeover is one in which the takeover occurs against the wishes of a company's management - see [3].  As the United board advised shareholders not to sell to the Glazers up until the time when he took control of the club, I think its use here is justified. File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 04:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

This is not a good idea for the following reasons:

Recent AFDs for articles on non-league players have seen them deleted or merged back into the article, so it's likely to be a waste of time.
All of the player sections are short, so it's better to keep them together.  Someone who looks up one of these players is likely to be interested in others, so they might as well be near each other.
The article is not too long as it is.
Also, the user who has been making these changes (User:Kingjeff) has been annoying everyone at WikiProject Football for the last week or two, so I suspect the changes are not being made in good faith.  If you notice any of the players' articles being split out, please change the new articles to redirect back here.  If any part of this article is blanked, please revert it and issue vandalism warnings as appropriate.  Thanks, CTOAGN (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The fact that you have to use me in your arguement means it's very weak. Kingjeff 22:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The players list badly needs to be brought up to the Wikipedia standards. SteelyDave 02:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
It could do with being more encyclopaedic, as a lot of it was written by people who don't contribute often.  Anything else in particular that you think should be done? CTOAGN (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I think we may have more detail on the current players list than is warranted at this stage. What do you think? StripeyBadger 18:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I really think we need to revisit the idea of former players now - too many have now left to make continuing this viable in the long-run - I suggest we edit this out. Additionally, the recent addition of appereances is in violation of what wikipedia is mean to be - not fan cruft Steve-Ho 20:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Player lists of any description at this level (Level 9 remember) is way over the top. Remember this isn't a FCUM fansite, it is a general encyclopedia. - fchd 20:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Now edited the player profiles - shortened somewhat and wikified Steve-Ho 09:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the player profiles - as has been pointed out above the player profiles for these players - level 9 of the league structure is way over the top. Profiles like this are available at fansites and on the official webiste, or could be if people wanted them to be - I have tidied this up into a table of current players as with most league and non-league club entries. There didn't seem to be too much argument from people on this talk page when it has been discussed before so hopefully this won't be too contentious. The content can always be used if a player gets famous in the future. Steve-Ho 14:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added a importance query to this section - it's my view that this section does not meet wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I'd welcome a debate and I propose we delete this section in it's entirity. Steve-Ho 12:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this section should go and perhaps only be revived if a former FC player goes on to top flight football or becomes notable in some other field. StripeyBadger 10:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
now removed given the defining silence. I've kept a copy archived in case anyone becomes noteworthy in the future. Steve-Ho 16:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

There is far too much detail on matches on this page - you can create a separate article on the 2006/7 season if you like, but it shouldn't be on the main article.  I know FCUM are a new club, but this must conform to the same standards of other clubs.  Why not expand more on the culture and impact that FCUM have had on the game in the area, rather than results?  Have a look here for more details, and see if you can help out with this or other articles.  I've created a FC United of Manchester Season 2005-06 article, someone could do the same for the 2006-7 season? - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Non-league football --Gavinio 14:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the trivia entry stating that the badge is notable for looking more like Man City that Man Utd's badge, as apparently unreferenced original research. For what it is worth, it actually looks like the old Man Utd badge [4] but, of course, that is just my own original research! Ghost Yacht 10:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering, why does Matt Higgins re-direct to this page? Could someone fill me in, or I'll change the re-direct to the bio article on Matt Higgins (ice hockey). –  Nurmsook! 19:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The citation for Sir Alex Ferguson calling FC United 'traitors', says nothing of the sort;
'On the formation of FC United, Ferguson in `The Official Manchester United Diary of the Season,' said: "I'm sorry about that. It is a bit sad that part, but I wonder just how big a United supporter they are.
"They seem to me to be promoting or projecting themselves a wee bit rather than saying `at the end of the day the club have made a decision, we'll stick by them.' It's more about them than us."'  That can just about stretch to the 'self-publicists' remark, but nothing more.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashcroft The Great (talk • contribs) 20:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Some wishful thinking has crept in here.
Take this section, "(The goal of three successive promotions was completed, however due to league restructuring, F.C. United have to be promoted one more time to reach Conference North)" - nothing of the sort. If the AGM was in Nov 2006, then it was midway through their second season having already achieved one promotion. In other words they won promotion once and wanted another three. I'm rewriting this section to reflect the correct results. Seedybob2 (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I propose that when this season ends (2010-11) that FCUM history section should be simplified and the current detailed version , which includes reports of individual matches, be moved to a new page "History of FC United of Manchester".
This way we can keep the FCUM page simple, otherwise we end up with every single FCUM season in detail on the main page. Does anyone have any objections to this, or does anyone think it should be done now rather than waiting until the end of the season? Delusion23 (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we should wait to move it for at least another five years under the belt before moving the page, or just keep it intact all together. We could combine years in-between that lacks important events.FCUMFCUM(talk)
I was thinking that maybe the current history part of the article could be simplified a bit, and a link placed at the top to the main article "History of F.C. United of Manchester" in which the history could be more detailed than it is currently (provided it's well referenced of course. We're currently restricted with how detailed we can be about the history so that the history doesn't take over the whole article. I do get your point about waiting a bit though as it isn't too much of an issue right now as the club is still young. Delusion23 (talk) 10:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I suggest a History of F.C. United of Manchester page when FC United's play-off campagne finishes because with next seasons data aswell it will become far to much. I aslo think that maybe a List of F.C. United of Manchester seasons will be neaded soon because that section is getting a slight bit big. Cheers, LiamTaylor 12:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I'll start making one in my sandbox and see what it looks like. I'll use other football history articles as a guide for format. Delusion23 (talk) 14:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Done :D Delusion23 (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm in support of this. It was a great idea to separate it out by league. I think we should keep it this way.FCUMFCUM (talk) 5 May 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:F.C. United of Manchester/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 12:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Initial comments
On the whole, this looks a good, well-written article. Personally, I'm not keen on the short paragraph style of writing: I think some of the paragraphs could be merged together to make the article easier to read (for example, there is a single sentence paragraph in the Northern Premier League Division One North section which would be better appended on the end of the previous paragraph.
 Done I've combined paragraphs which talk about similar topics. I've kept separate paragraphs for different seasons within the sub sections.
The title of the article is "F.C. United of Manchester" but other than on the first use in the article, you then use "FC" without the dots: be consistent in the usage.
 Done I've changed all references to FC United into F.C. United.
You also use "FC" throughout as a descriptor for the team throughout the article, but given that this stands for football club, I would suggest using the slightly longer, but more specific "FC United".
 Done I've changed all references to FC into F.C. United.
Given that the Football Club History Database hasn't been updated for a few seasons, I'd remove the link to it.
 Done Link removed.
I'll read through the article and give more specific points over the next few days. Harrias talk 12:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for starting the review. Looking forward to improving the article. Del♉sion23 (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Lead
"club, with the supporters owning the club and voting on how the club is run." – This is an example of "Noun plus -ing", and should generally be avoided. There is another use of this in the Criticism section. Take a look at User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing, and you should be able to remove them. This is something I find myself doing all the time!
 Done Thanks for the link, it'll help me to avoid this kind of mistake in the future! I've replaced the text with "The supporters own the club and vote on how the club is run."
Given Marginson has also played for Blackpool and Rotherham, why is he described as "the former Macclesfield Town player"?
 Done I've replaced "Macclesfield Town" with "professional football" so as not to go into too much detail about his past career in the lead.
Formation
"900 players applied to take part in the trials," – WP:ORDINAL states that "Numbers that begin a sentence are spelled out." Given the reference states "Almost 900.." I would suggest changing to "Just under 900," or similar.
 Done Changed to "Just under 900"
North West Counties Football League
If you're going to use the abbreviation NWCFL, you need to place it in parentheses after North West Counties Football League earlier in the article.
 Done Added "(NWCFL)" after first mention in this section.
"including the final match attendance of 6,032 which is still an NWCFL record." – I'm a little unclear as to what this means: was the league decided by a Final, or are you simply referring to their last league game of the season? Further clarification is needed.
 Done Changed to "including an attendance of 6,032 during their final league match of the season, which is still an NWCFL record"
Northern Premier League Division One North
"They lost to Fleetwood Town 2–1 in the following FA Cup First Qualifying Round." – following seems the wrong word to use here: Maybe something like "They were eliminated in the next round of the competition, losing 2–1 to Fleetwood Town." Or something else of your own construction!
 Done Changed as suggested.
Northern Premier League Premier Division
The second paragraph of this section goes into a lot more detail than is probably necessary, and is misleading in parts. It could be rewritten as something like: "F.C. United narrowly missed out on a play-off place in their first year in the Northern Premier League Premier Division. Before the final match of the season, they were level on points with Bradford Park Avenue and Kendal Town, with superior goal difference. When ten minutes remained in their match against Bradford, they would have secured a play-off place, but an equaliser for Bradford, and a winning goal for Kendal in their match granted Kendal the place instead."
 Done Changed as suggested. This section was a bit of a difficulty for me. It's one of the leftovers from when I first started editing the article and the history section went into way too much detail! You've put it very succinctly now, cheers!
"In the 2010–11 season F.C. United went on their best ever FA Cup campaign," – how about "In the 2010–11 season F.C. United achieved their best FA Cup campaign," – they ever is redundant regardless of the other change.
 Done Changed as suggested.
Stadium
No need for "with Bury F.C.." To have two full-stops!
 Done Removed full-stop.
"Moston Community Stadium" shouldn't be in bold.
 Done Removed bold.
Records
"Shortest league career: 19 minutes – Manager Karl Marginson played in the last home game of the 2006–07 season against Formby" – A bit too trivial I think, this should probably be removed. Harrias talk 15:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 Done Removed trivia. Del♉sion23 (talk) 17:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
References
These are a bit inconsistent: sometimes the location of the reference (F.C. United official website in Ref#1) is italicised, and other times it is not (Ref#5). I would suggest using italics ONLY for newspapers and books.
 Done Made italics consistent in references.
Ref#33 is still inconsistent, and Ref#60 is broken. Ref#90 is currently dead. Harrias talk 19:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 Done Removed italics from Ref#33. Fixed Ref#60. Replaced Ref#90 with a BBC News reference. Del♉sion23 14:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Newspaper references, such as Ref#10, should have the publisher details (in this case Trinity Mirror) and the author details.
 Done Added publisher details to references.
Ref#11 says Bolton News, but the link goes to the Lancashire Telegraph?
 Done Corrected source of Ref#11.
Once you've addressed these issues, I'll have another look through the article, but it's pretty close. Harrias talk 15:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Great stuff. Finished the references now. Cheers! Del♉sion23 (talk) 18:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
The article is looking pretty good; I've got a few questions about reliability of sources for the following:

NonLeagueDaily
tonykempster.co.uk
mikeavery.co.uk
footballwebpages.co.uk
Under The Boardwalk
I would suggest that Bleacher Report definitely doesn't qualify as a reliable source due to its blog-like nature. Harrias talk 19:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

NonLeagueDaily – replaced with one of the books in the bibliography. (I am in possession of all the books in it, actually working my way through them to get more notes for my eventual goal of getting the article to FA)
tonykempster.co.uk – Website has won an award from the Football Supporters Federation. It's a great collection of football stats that is sadly no longer updated for new seasons as the owner passed away a few years ago. Trying not to invoke WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS here but it is used as a ref in Andover F.C., a Good Article.
mikeavery.co.uk – Mike Avery's site was the replacement for Tony Kempster's work until Nonleaguematters was created to take over as the best site for football statistics in the lower levels of the league system. Think of these two sites as earlier incarnations of NonLeague Matters.
footballwebpages.co.uk – replaced with NonLeagueMatters football stats website reference.
Under The Boardwalk – website of the official FC United fanzine. The PDF is an article from one of their publications.
Bleacher Report – removed. Already two other reliable references from the Guardian and the Telegraph pointing out that some Manchester United fans consider FC fans traitors.
Del♉sion23 (talk) 20:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of F.C. United of Manchester's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "facilities":
From DW Stadium: "DW Stadium – Facts & Figures". Wigan Warriors. Archived from the original on 2 May 2008. Retrieved 22 January 2009. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
From Broadhurst Park: "Moston Community Stadium leaflet" (PDF). fc-utd.co.uk. 2011. Retrieved 31 May 2015.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done Del♉sion23 (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Updated the article to reflect that Football League side Portsmouth are the largest majority fan owned team in the UK, not FC United, since late 2014.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PompeyTheGreat (talk • contribs) 09:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC) 

F.C. United had 5,000 members in May 2016 which, according to the source I gave in the article, made them the largest fan-owned football club in the UK. The source in the article about Portsmouth F.C. (an article on the BBC website) is from 2013 and likely out of date. odder (talk) 10:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
It's not out of date, as of today Portsmouth FC are still owned by The Pompey Supporters Trust. Also measuring the size of a football club by the number of members is questionable given the fact that they have different buy-in rates etc. In addition Wycombe Wanderers are  fan owned team, so its a big push to claim that the largest is FC United of Manchester. It would probably be wise to remove the claim entirely as it doesn't really meet wikipedia guidelines. PompeyTheGreat (talk) 07:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
I've changed it to an objective measure that meets wikipedia guidelines, as its very hard to prove that FC United has the most members anyway, as not all fan owned clubs disclose their membership numbers, and you can't make claims that cannot be proven under wikis rules, but we do know for a fact that FC United are the 3rd highest ranked in the football pyramid. PompeyTheGreat (talk) 07:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

No, it doesnt meet Wikipedia guidelines, as you provided no source for that information. Under well-established Wikipedia guidelines, you need to be able to provide a source that claims F.C. United are the 3rd largest fan-owned football club in the UK, and unless you do that, this information will continue to be removed from the article. odder (talk) 12:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
You also need to provide a reference to say F.C. are the largest. Have editted the sentence to "one of the largest" and added a {citation needed} mark. Darkson (I survived the 525!) 18:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
And I have reverted your edit because there is already a source for that claim. odder (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Where is the reference (honest question)? If it's later in the article it should be in the lead, seeing as that is where the claim is. Darkson (I survived the 525!) 18:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
The claim is in the #Supporters section and comes from an article in the acclaimed Non-League Paper (here). odder (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Added the ref name to the lead, so at least the reason for the claim is there. I think it should be made clearer though that the claim is based on number of members, as (for example) Portsmouth can claim to be a bigger club in revenue, but I'm not sure of a good way to word it. Darkson (I survived the 525!) 18:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
It would be best if nobody reverted to remove the 'by members' clarification as other clubs wiki pages make the claim to be 'the largest' and obviously while there are different measures, both cannot be claimed by the same website.PompeyTheGreat (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on F.C. United of Manchester. 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/20160401065121/http://nwcfl.com/league-history.php to http://www.nwcfl.com/league-information/league-history.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.how-do.co.uk/north-west-media-news/north-west-marketing-services/new-fc-united-sponsor-won%E2%80%99t-appear-on-shirts-20110719100951612
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uefa.com/friendlies/season%3D2016/matches/round%3D2000582/match%3D2018564/postmatch/commentary/index.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) 19:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on F.C. United of Manchester. 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/20160304084920/http://www.statto.com/football/teams/fc-united-of-manchester/2014-2015/results to http://www.statto.com/football/teams/fc-united-of-manchester/2014-2015/results
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) 12:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

An IP user (they keep changing actual address) keeps removing the bold formatting from the honours list on this article. The bold formatting t is consistent with featured articles on football clubs including:

Manchester United F.C.
Liverpool F.C.
Manchester City F.C.
FC Barcelona
Blackburn Olympic F.C.
Dover Athletic F.C.
I see no specific rule in the WP:MOS for these changes and so have reverted them. I suggest we get consensus at either here or at WP:Football before any further changes are made. Cheers, Del♉sion23 (talk) 13:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I've checked some other articles and from what I see there is no clear format but most don't bold the name but may bold the season if the club got a double (e.g. Arsenal F.C.#Honours) 1.02 editor (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Okay so it appears to be an aesthetic choice. (For comparison bolded and unbolded). Maybe we could compromise with the format used on Arsenal F.C.#Honours? It is quite clear and easy to read and groups the honours well. Del♉sion23 (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on F.C. United of Manchester. 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/20160304084920/http://www.statto.com/football/teams/fc-united-of-manchester/2014-2015/results to http://www.statto.com/football/teams/fc-united-of-manchester/2014-2015/results
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) 21:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)