Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Bicycle touring

Why does this article have no external links? Certainly some are needed?

Please could we have some discussion and agreement on what would be considered appropriate? By having no links and reading the encounter below about crazy guy on a bike is dominating this article and doing its best to ensure this article does not grow in the manner that it needs to.

If you wish to quote chapter and verse about what the rules and regulations about what is proper and what isn't then please link to the appropriate rule and be patient with me while I try to understand.

There are plenty of known and respected cyclists who blog on crazy guy on a bike and not including it seems very short sighted. I am also surprised there is no mention of Dervla Murphy, this seems to be have been deleted before. Not even Thomas Stevens? Are some office chair warriors getting a little carried away with bullying people here? Janne Corax? the guy even has his own wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janne_Corax.

I don't wish to embark on a full edit war but I would appreciate some help on getting this article on track. If you really have nothing better to do than quote chapter and verse about the rules and regulations of Wikipedia in regards to this issue then might I suggest you stay clear and let people who have knowledge of the subject do some editing rather than scaring them away and browbeating them with subclauses.

I have restored the link to crazyguyonabike to try and get the attention of those that have the greatest problem with it. Please do the right thing and discuss what is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.19.27 (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

could use some work

I think a few more things should be included,

  • like the bob bicycle trailer,
- added a couple of sentences with link to bicycle trailer -AndrewDressel 05:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • the transam and its origins in 1976,
  • perhaps june currie (sp?) the cookie lady,
  • more on the adventure cycling maps...
  • I heard of an organization that is working to turn old unused railroad tracks into extensive bicycle paths...

in short, there could be a lot more added. -Dreamer.redeemer

CrazyGuyOnABike

This link has been reverted twice as "spam". I doubt that anyone familiar with the website would agree. In fact, it is referenced in parts of those sites that are already linked. In short, it is one of the best places on the web to learn about bicycle touring, through the experiences of hundreds of others.

If anyone disagrees, discuss it here before removing the link again. Walt 18:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not spam, spam riddled. A large part of the linked page is adverts. Also, it was added by the site's owner, which is a no-no. Interestingly, I don't recall ever having heard of it before despite several years of active participation on bicycling newsgroups. Just zis Guy you know? 21:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
JzG, I've agreed with your edits before, but I'll have to disagree with you here. I don't see the ad-heaviness. There are four ads in a banner at the top. Regardless, the site has over 1,000 tour journals, so I think it clearly is a resource for those interested in this topic. And it is well-established, so this is not a case of trying to drum up traffic for a new venture. Can we agree to leave it?
Honestly, I've found a lot of cycling groups full of new converts with no deep knowledge. And, most recreational riders are blind to things like touring, utility cycling, and recumbents :(read your page ;-) ). But, within its niche, this website is well known and respected. I hope you'll go back and look - it can be as addictive as WP! Walt 22:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Four at the top and a great bundle below, plus a number of links in the sidebar which look iffy. Oh, and the site owner sent me an incredibly aggressive email - how dare I infringe his right to promote his site on Wikipedia? Or something to that effect. Which never puts me in the best frame of mind. You have no idea how often we get anonymous edits adding links to articles, and those anonymous editors rarely, if ever, turn out to have added actual content. That pisses me off: Wikipedia is not a free advertising hoarding, people who contribute useful content get cut a lot of slack, but drive-by link posters do not. So if you're a member of his forum, do please go and tell him that he's being an arse - Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and the external links are there to provide supporting references for information. If he's as knowledgeable as you make out he could make a contribution, instead of effectively asking people to go to his site instead of this one. WP:SPAM and the two guidelines linked under external link spamming are pretty unambiguous. Just zis Guy you know? 23:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See combined response below Walt 01:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(The following from edit conflict with [[User::RobinGoddard]]- I also indented it Walt 22:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
I wish you would reconsider. It took me some time to learn to appreciate the website in question, crazyguyonabike.com. There is much more to the site than there might initially appear to be.
In addition to the forums, there are many journals from around the world, as well as other features.
In all respect, please take a little more time to take a closer look. The more you explore the site, the more you will see that it is much less ad-ridden than it might at first appear (in fact, the ads are a fairly recent and reticent addition, and they are relatively few and unintrusive), and it is much more than a forum site.
I have visited many bicycle touring websites, for years, and have done a lot of touring, and this site is definitely one of the best on the web. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobinGoddard (talk • contribs)
I have reverted it again as "spam", but the ad content is only half the problem. You may find it a very useful site, but that doesn't mean that it is an encyclopedic site that belongs on Wikipedia. Read WP:EL. Links should only be added if they have valuable information that does not belong in the article itself and if they are not trying to sell something. If the information in the link does belong it the article, it should be re-written (to avoid copyright issues) and added to the article. Forums and blogs are specifically listed as no-nos except in unusual instances.
The idea is that we want our articles to be the best possible source of information on a topic, not a short article followed by a long list of links to other articles-- one might as well just google the subject and read the first dozen sites if we are going to assemble long external link lists. -- Mwanner | Talk 23:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mwanner, I wish you would have held off reverting while we are discussing this. I won't undo it to avoid a war, but I would consider it a show of faith if you would undo it yourself. I feel that JzG and I are having a civil dialog and I hope you'll do the same.
IMHO, the advertising guideline is being over-interpreted. This is not a commercial site. Lots of other sites linked from WP have ads, including those of major newspapers referenced for recent events. For blatant examples of link abuse, look at entries like Tricycle and Trikke. WP even has articles on lots of consumer products themselves. I appreciate the desire to improve WP, but I think this case is very close to the borderline (on one side or the other) and there are many worse examples to work on.
I think that this site does add information which is not appropriate for WP, that is the on-the-ground experiences of hundreds of cycle tourers. Direct experience is invaluable for someone interested in partaking in this activity, but is clearly not encyclopedic. Please don't be distracted by the fact that forums, resources, and, yes, industry ads are offered - the purpose of the site is to host journals so that all may see them.
The longer this goes on, the more people will be involved, and the higher the likelyhood that civility will be lost. Lets all assume some good faith when addressing each others' actions. I hope we can resolve this here without needing to go to a mediation forum.
Walt 01:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I first started delving into this site three years ago, when it carried no advertising. I have since contributed two articles. From the time Neil somewhat reluctantly allowed ads, the site has not changed, either in spirit or in content. Not encyclopaedic? As far as touring cycling is concerned, by means of the wealth of knowledge of its contributors, it is truly encyclopaedic. Neil's ire is quite understandable: He's never been in it for the money. <user:Micktb>


OK, I've self-reverted, as requested. Would someone care to explain the comment about "Neil's ire"?
More importantly, could we have some examples of encyclopedic content from the site? Not stuff that bicycle touring fans think is great reading, but scholarly information on the subject? -- Mwanner | Talk 02:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I can chime in here. The site has many journals, under the 'Journals' tab in the main navigation bar. However there are also articles, which are not necessarily written in a formal encyclopedic style but are nonetheless intended more as informational rather than accounts of some trip or other. You can see the articles by going to the home page, and then looking down the left pane to 'Journal Categories'. Under there, click on 'Articles'. In addition, I would posit that there is much information to be gleaned from the journals themselves - useful info about countries and regions that the authors describe with both words and pictures. Obviously I didn't design crazyguyonabike to be linked to from WikiPedia (in fact crazyguyonabike existed before Wikipedia) but I think the overall content of the site is such that it lends itself well to being seen as a useful adjunct to the WikiPedia entry for Bicycle Touring, and a worthy website for further study of others' experiences. Many people have come to bicycle touring thinking that they are too old or not fit enough to undertake large trips, but after reading the journals on crazyguyonabike they have realized that they too can achieve great things. If a source of information is to be useful, surely it should include at least reference to other wellsprings. Crazyguyonabike is not exactly the same as Wikipedia, but they surely sprouted from the same creative vein - let people tell what they know.
Regarding the ads on the home page - there is a row of these shown at the top of the page, which is not an unusual format and doesn't take up an undue amount of space. I also list the latest ads further down the page. This was done because these ads are special - they are not supplied by an external network, but rather the system was totally home-grown by me. I went direct to companies in the bicycle touring industry, so all the ads are extremely relevant and even interesting to users of the site. I thought listing the most recent ones "below the fold" (i.e. at the bottom of the home page) would be a good way to let people know when a new ad had appeared. This follows in line with the format of the rest of the home page, which shows summaries of the new content in each of the major areas of the site.
As for the source of my "ire", that arose from the heavyhanded way that JzG has handled this from the start, first by calling the site "spam riddled" and then persisting in this characterization even after attempts to disabuse him of this notion. We have exchanged emails, and obviously we differ on details but my overall impression of JzG is of someone who didn't bother to even give a cursory review of crazyguyonabike (witness his comments on "a number of links in the sidebar that look iffy" - these are shortcuts to journal categories within the site, if he had bothered clicking on any of them he would realize this). Also his comment that went "Interestingly, I don't recall ever having heard of it before despite several years of active participation on bicycling newsgroups" - this language clearly implies that crazyguyonabike is some kind of huge scam intended to deceive people, simply because he happens to not have heard of it on the particular newsgroups he frequents. These and other comments he has made (e.g. on the ads, in one of his email, he said "Feel free to remove them"), combined to raise my "ire", which I expressed on the Forums on crazyguyonabike. I feel this is a small matter that has been blown absurdly out of proportion, and while I accept that the policy here is to prevent site owners from posting links to their own sites (I was not aware of this, but now I am), what I object to mostly is the repeated characterization of "spam" that was given to crazyguyonabike. So decide whatever you like, I had simply thought to contribute something small to Wikipedia, but this entire exchange has merely served to make me extremely leery of ever again trying something so bold as to (gasp) add a link to a relevant site. Bye.<user:NeilGunton>
Sit back and think about this for a minute. Like I said before, I (and others) have a definite problem with people who add links to their own site but don't add content. We cut good contributors a lot of slack. We cut spammers very little. Right now you're looking like a spammer, because you are adding only links to your own site, and not content. Can you see how that would be a problem on a massively high traffic site like Wikipedia? Contributors are welcome, the more knowledge they bring the better. Self-promotion, spam and vanity are emphatically not welcome (I'm not saying that's your motivation, it's just that they are a big problem in general). Rightly or wrongly this site works in large part by reputation - a respected contributor's word will be accepted much more readily than a drive-by anonymous (i.e. withou an account) editor who only adds links to their own site. I don't think this is a very controversial view. Just zis Guy you know? 10:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From my perspective, the following points seem valid:
  • Neil should not have posted the link himself. Although his motives were pure, it made the initial response personal to him.
  • The cavalier dismissal of the quality of CGoaB caused tensions to quickly escalate. Hopefully we have now cooled off to reasoned dialog.
  • In the end, this is only the internet, and noone's life will be radically altered by the outcome of this issue. Both web sites will survive and thrive with or without a link between them.
As I said before, I think the link is useful, and I think there are much worse articles on WP to be spending effort on. Can we now evaluate the link knowing it was not a "drive-by-spammer" (pretend I was the one that added it, if you wish).
As for the request to show "Not stuff that bicycle touring fans think is great reading, but scholarly information on the subject?", I'm not sure this is the right standard. What is the definition of scholarly? Aside from the fact that it is a university department, would all of the math(s) articles pass this test? And there is usually no scholarly info provided on book and movie entries.
Walt 14:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(simultaneous edit)
The article has been around for more than three years, but the site was added just over 6 months ago. If this was really one of the greatest sites on the web, and pre-existed Wikipedia, wouldn't one expect it to have been added to the article considerably sooner?
You're assuming your conclusion here - Only sites which have been added long ago are useful, therefore no new sites should be added?
There are 14 ads on the first page (plus links for more), and four ads on every page. And the link was added by the site's owner. Take a look at the state of the article back on Dec. 19, 2005, when the link was first added[1]. There were twenty external links at that point. If we let this link in, on what grounds do we keep dozens of others out?
First, let's get past the fact that Neil added his own site. That has been acknowledged, and given the support of others, is now irrelevant. I looked at the talk page for the external links policy and I see that the standard for "too many ads" is being actively debated. So, you seem to be trying to change the policy without consensus. The status quo is "not overly commercial", not "no advertising". Do you want me to go count the ads on CNN or Washington Post? However, I do thank you for giving us more relevant information - I don't think the rest of us realized both you and JzG had previously cleaned up the links. That may explain why you are so aggressive about not allowing new links in. You are correct, most of the links at that time were to single touring companies, or single regions (though I would have kept the link to ACA). CGoaB is open to all regions and all levels of support. I think you would still have a standard for keeping links to sites of narrower scope out.
My only interest is in making Wikipedia the best possible encyclopedia, not the best possible 'cycling resource-- that's not what we're here for. I think that the link does not belong on Wikipedia, and unless someone can show me how it makes our article better, in conformity with WP:EL, I will remove it again. -- Mwanner | Talk 14:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, there needs to be agreement on the meaning of WP:EL before it can be applied.
Mwanner, you seem to be defending a dug-in position now more than trying to come to agreement. Your final sentence above makes you sound like the final arbiter. In fact, if there is general consensus, you should not take that action, even if you remain unconvinced. I thought the standard when there is disagreement on whether content is useful is to leave it in. Walt 15:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have never considered the presence of advertising on the site to be of primary importance to the issue-- it is simply one of three counts against the site. The primary issue in my mind is the issue of encyclopedic content. The site consists essentially of a large quantity of amateur original research-- it may be quite interesting to riders, but it is not encyclopedic in nature. See WP:EL, Links to normally avoid "1. Any site that contains ... unverified original research..." (emphasis added). I don't think that this is a matter of interpretation, but if I am mistaken, please correct me. -- Mwanner | Talk 16:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have an easy solution to this problem. I will remove the link myself, since I was the one to originally post it. Honestly, this whole affair has left such a bitter taste in my mouth that I actually no longer have any desire to contribute anything to this "community". Thanks, and goodbye. <User:NeilGunton>
So far as I can determine, the "user" never did add anything to Wikipedia, other than a self-serving link to his own site. -- Mwanner | Talk 16:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

zis Guy states that he's never heard of crazyguy on bicycling newgroups. Maybe it doesn't get mentioned on regular bicycling newsgroup, but on all off the bicycle touring newsgroups, email lists and forums that I'm on, it's mentioned all of the time. I did a search on the archives of the International Bicycle Touring Email List (aka the phred list), and there are 1185 matches for crazyguyonabike, compared with 25 matches for wikipedia. Mwanner asks why the site wasn't added sooner. Probably because, while the bicycle touring community knows crazyguy very well, it doesn't know of the existance of a bicycle touring wiki page.

The wiki pages tells you what bicycle touring is, but crazyguy shows you how to do it, through the experience of others. Sure, you can view the journals as just good reads, but they also provide valuable information. When I decide to tour someplace, the first thing I do is go to crazyguy to see what others who have toured the same area have to say. This helps me plan my route, figure out where to stay, what equipment to bring. To my mind, this makes the wiki page and crazy guy complimentary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by paulStockton (talk • contribs)

I looked at the Wikipedia entries under "mountaineering" and "canyoning", and found links to websites of user groups similar to CGoaB. They had forums, journals, classifieds, adds by google, and logins for members. Some were run by associations, and hence required a subscription; others by interest groups. What stands out about CGoaB is the artisanship of the website design. Wikipedia apparently feel that anything that looks this good must be run by a commercial entity. Who woulda thought that sophisticated Wikipedia would judge a book by its cover! 203.206.81.26 05:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to prune them. Just zis Guy you know? 12:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the record I will continue to revert the re-addition of this link by anonymous users, especially when acocmpanied by highly partisan link summary text. It has been removed by an editor in good standing following review, it's not going back in without discussion and consensus here. Just zis Guy you know? 18:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
JzG, I understand your position. However, I'd like to point out that all these anons are also newbies. As such, you should be gently correcting them in the hope of making them useful contributors, not simply reverting them without comment. WP:BITE.
For the record, the link was not removed following consensus. The original editor removed it as a way of not fanning the flames of controversy. No consensus was reached, just the original participants decided it wasn't that big of a deal. And it is equally valid to leave the link while discussing it as it is to insist it not be added without consensus. --Walt 00:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
JzG, I gotta say that every time I see a plea for funds from Jimmy Wales, I think of your arbitrary and high-handed dismissal of Neil Gunton's valuable labor-of-love site - which has contributed far more to the bicycle touring community than you ever have - and think, no way, I'm not giving money to this organization. No matter how much good they do. 207.237.211.63 (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cycle Touring Handbook

This link (http://www.angusadventures.com/cycling/index.html) has twice been removed. This brand-new website is dedicated to long-distance cycling and is completely devoid of spam and advertising. It is a comprehensive, professional, and easy to navigate resource. For anyone who wishes to remove it again, please look carefully at the site and explain why it should not be included as a resource.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.66.194.188 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 27 February 2007.

From WP:EL: You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked.
In Wikipedia, the burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material (ref. Wikipedia polices such as WP:A and WP:RS).
70.66.194.188, I wish you would have held off reverting until after achieving concensus on the addition of your link. I won't undo it to avoid a war, but I would consider it a show of faith if you would undo it yourself. --Wiley 04:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cycle Touring Sites - External Links and Travelogues

Greetings all. The purpose of this comment is to garner comment on why some travelogues and external links to sites dedicated to a particular topic, in this case - cycle touring, are rejected, and others of the same nature are allowed.

Why for instance are the following not allowed?

In addition, why can those listed above not have their names listed in the travelogue section alongside sites such as Thomas Stevens, Ken Kifer, Dervla Murphy, Josie Dew, Heinz Stücke, Alastair Humphreys and Janne Corax? I have tried and each time it has been removed.

Who defines how many sites can be listed and why shouldn't all proper, dedicated, informative, topical and current sites be allowed? After all, they are, to my knowledge proper, dedicated, informative; topical; factual; comprehensive and detailed - all teh things Wikipedia wants.

Wikipedia:External links lists travelogues under point 11 of Normally to be avoided articles yet some are allowed and others not. Surly this is discrimative. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Where2pedalto (talk • contribs) 23:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

From WP:EL: You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. --Wiley 04:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From User:Where2pedalto So why shouldn't anyone link to their site if it is implied that one is allowed to? Perhaps it would be better if the practice was banned from the start, that way it leaves no doubt in anyone's mind. This does not however answer my original questions as posted above. -- User:Where2pedalto

Maybe a list of cycling clubs?--Cribitus 11:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a home

I have an idea for placing information useful for those doing route planning into wiki. Currently the thought was to be related to information gathered about specific US interstates that allow bicycle traffic.

I've peeked around at various sites to determine where to place it under Interstates but that seems large and I feel the bicycle information would be lost. Eventually I landed here so instead of hacking into this I thought I'd drop a note here for suggestions on where this content would fit into wiki...

Prestonjb 20:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to try adding a new section in this article for that purpose, put a few entries in it and see what the reaction (if any) of the other editors is.Wiley 00:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a job for a national article, rather than a worldwide one like this. A quick look finds a Cycling in the United States category but no article by that name, so perhaps that's the place to start a route article, suggesting how one may use a combination of cycleways and open roads, including Interstate Highways, to go where East Coast Greenway and other formally recognized routes don't go. If such an article slowly turns into a collection of turn sheets, that's good too though it would require organizing into State and local articles, etc. Jim.henderson 16:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not make it a seperate article. And add links to it in several other wiki articles.Carsrac (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone's got to write it. Preliminary drafts can go in someone's Talk Page, or in the Talk Page of a related article. Jim.henderson (talk) 03:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image Image:TheGreeningOfAmerica-Cover.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Development

I've been trying to tidy up some aspects of this page but I feel defeated by the "Development" section which is highly opinionated and narrowly focused. For example, as a non-US person I'm prepared to believe that there might have been a "US Bicycle Boom" but I've never heard of anything like that so where is the citation and what was it? The mention of the "Greening of America" is also highly questionable as it was an aspirational statement, not a description of anything happening, and Charles Reich has recently acknowledged that his dream has not come to pass (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2010/09/23/f-greening-reich.html). So I've removed the reference to Bicycle Boom and Reich and tidied up the rest but it would be good to have somebody update all that from a more knowledgeable position. Incidentally I've edited this post an hour or so after starting it as the original version said I didn't feel able to do anything about the Reich quite etc, but I decided that was a cop-out. Chrisrustsheffield (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks whoever provided the link to the "Bike Boom" page and apologies if the link was there in the text I deleted, I've re-introduced the "US Bike Boom". Chrisrustsheffield (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain biking

Am I right that in thinking that an extended mountain bike tour, say, for example, along the South Downs Way in England, can be described as a cycle tour? I have also met mountain bikers in France doing an extended tour along a Grandes Randonnée, with their luggage transported for them. I'm currently working on the Trail riding article and as a non-biker/cyclist would appreciate advice. The image of an expedition tour in Patagonia, used in this article, would suggest that cycle tours are not just conducted on tarmac. See also, of course, Dervla Murphy. Rwood128 (talk) 12:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bicycle touring. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bicycle touring. 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:

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) 19:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bicycle_touring