Jump to content

Talk:Grossglockner

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Remark / correction to height

[edit]

Schoolbook and schoolteaching 1989/1993: Height = 3797m. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.225.36.67 (talk) 23:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Titling

[edit]

Seems like we've had this discussion about a zillion times already, but I don't think the use of "ß" instead of "ss" is quite right in the English forms of names. For instance, my Encyclopedia of the World's Mountains, which is pretty authoritative, uses "ss". Stan 06:02, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, whatever -- there should at least be a redirect (which there wasn't). In this case, *Grossglockner would alter the pronunciation of the name, which might be an argument.Martg76 06:50, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Redir is good - but your point about pronunciation is why there's an English version of the name - the average English speaker would not recognize the difference between "ss" and "ß". I studied German for several years, dunno if I could pick it out reliably. See ß for amusing detail. Stan 14:57, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Translation of Großglockner to English

[edit]

The translation of Großglockner to English as "Big bell" is wrong. Big bell would be translated into German as "große Glocke". "-glockner" doesn't mean anything at all in contemporary German. It might etymologically derive from "Glocke" (its shape resembles a bell) or from "Gold-klocken" (a notion for mining gold). Both interpretations are highly speculative. Therefore I removed the "German" translation. Gugganij 15:39, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes that is right, get rid of this, old paintings do not show the Glockner as a Glocke/bell, conversely like a Spitze/needle. And a slawonic, slowenian name is inapropiate as well, they have never settled such far west. Both a folk etymologies, and misleading ones. The name is much older, given long before Germans or Slowenes settled in the alps. To find an etymology use the old fairy tale of an sorcerer and an accident there, and look for a (necessarily non-indoeuropean) dictionary, in which accident can be seen as something like glockner. This works perfectly. In addition you get a nice etymology of the Pasterze (from padura) south of that needle and many more tirolean place names.

Perhaps of Celtic origin? ZythrosJuby (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (2005)

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Standard English spelling of this name from the entry on the WP:RM page. – AxSkov (☏)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
Again I ask you: What is your preferred name for the alphabet used to write such languages as English, German, French and Icelandic? - Haukur Þorgeirsson 08:57, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I agree with the arguments of –Hajor and Haukur Þorgeirsson Edinborgarstefan 21:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Unlike English, German is written with the German alphabet, which includes ß... unless you are Swiss.--Tysto 00:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. If this were the German Wikipedia my vote would probably be different (but maybe not, not even all German speakers use this character). On the English Wikipedia, however, article titles should be in English letters to be accessible to our readers. We should keep the German lettering in the article, just not in the title. Jonathunder 00:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, of course, following well-established conventions here on the English Wikipedia. CDThieme 02:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Tree&Leaf 07:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, if the mountain had an English name, of course we would use that. But the mountain has no English name, so we use the German name. And the German name is spelled with ß. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Grossglockner is the name that it is referred to in English language encyclopaedias and other print media. Mark 07:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Only because they don't have the character ß available to them. We do. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 12:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course they have the character ß, don't be so naive. It is acceptable practise in English to replace ß with 'ss'. Mark 13:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Please see my suggested compromise at Talk:Weißenburg-Gunzenhausen. --Stemonitis 07:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Totally Oppose. As a German-speaker I can tell you that writing it with a "ss" can be misleading, not only from the pronounciation. The "ß" and the "ss" both exist in German. The Großglockner is written with an "ß", anything deviating from that is totally incorrect. Gryffindor 01:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In German maybe, but not in English, it is correct to use 'ss' in place of ß. This is English Wikipedia after all. Mark 04:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
      • That is besides the point. You can write it with an "ss" if there is no other option. However since Wikipedia supports the "ß", writing it in another version is simply wrong, German or English. Gryffindor 21:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The ß as 'ss' is correct in written English. Mark 04:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support since ß is a ligature for double s, after all, not a letter, and is frequently written as "ss" even by German speakers and almost always by some German speakers. To do otherwise in the English Wikipedia, where most readers are not familiar with ß and may confuse it with B, is not the best service to the reader. No Account
Please read the article on ß. While it may historically be a ligature for 'ss' it is today usually thought of as a separate letter and has a phonetic value distinct from 'ss'. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 21:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Add any additional comments

There is currently a discussion about the use of ß in article titles at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English), let's wait what comes out of that. Markussep 10:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, there is no "standard English spelling" for an Austrian mountain like this. There is only good German and bad German. Großglockner is good German; Grossglockner is bad German. --Stemonitis 10:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually there is plenty of English-language literature that establishes a "standard English spelling". For instance, Huxley's Encyclopedia of the World's Mountains puts its entry at "Grossglockner", as does my tourist guide to Austria (from Off the Beaten Track series). It's like "Milan" vs "Milano" - "Milan" is bad Italian, but good English. Stan 16:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Milan example is different. That's where there is an English name that can be used (regardless of where it came from). It's the same situation as Vienna, which is good English, Wien being the correct German. Milan is not bad anything, merely the (correct) English name for an Italian city. Großglockner has no English name, which is why we can only call it Großglockner. Since we're using a German name, we should use German spelling. --Stemonitis 07:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you continue to say that the mountain "has no English name", when I've just cited two printed works that clearly use "Grossglockner"? And those are just the ones that happen to be on my personal bookshelves. If you have an English-language printed source that goes the other way, please cite it. Stan 18:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think your citations are proof that the English name of Großglockner is Grossglockner. It looks to me like they had technical difficulty printing the ß, and printed the closest "feasible" thing, being "ss". Is there a ß in the books you cited, for instance in names? Vienna, Milan, Venice and Cologne are English names, and they're clearly different from the originals. Grossglockner isn't, in my opinion. Markussep 18:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is what you get when you have foreigners and deluded native English speakers dictating to us what is good English spelling and what is bad spelling. The letter ß is not used in English, so the 'ss' is perfectly acceptable to use in its place. It's not that these print media can't print ß, because they can, it's just 'ss' is perfectly acceptable to use. You can always use the ß spelling as disambiguation in the articles first line, just not in the article title. I have never come across the letter ß in any reference books unless its an article about the letter itself. Mark 05:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Please, let's avoid personal attacks such as "deluded" and stick to the matter at hand. --Stemonitis 06:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Casual perusal of my refs doesn't show any others, but that doesn't clarify why they did or did not use ß. To someone unfamiliar with German, it sure looks a lot like a B, so I imagine many editors decide not to send visitors off looking for "Grobglockners" and "schlobs". :-) In the complete opposite direction, my Michelin guide to Germany uses ß everywhere, but of course the only German peak familiar to the English-speaking world is the Brocken. So perhaps the Michelin guide to Austria would say "Großglockner". In any case, let's get more citations - I'm pretty sure nobody arguing here is a world-class authority on the English language, so let's get more input from actual experts. Stan 16:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ß is not English, that should be the end of it. Any argument about being "proper English" will result in things in TAMIL or CHINESE being the standard article name, and god only knows how most of us will type in ARABIC, or read an article where half the words are written in SANSKIT, because there are no proper English versions of them, if we follow that logic. 67.71.169.168 04:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is a world of difference between something like Chinese or Tamil which uses an entirely different alphabet (or non-alphabetic writing system) and therefore needs to be transliterated, and something like German which uses fundamentally the same alphabet, with one or two minor additions. A non German speaker confronted with "Großglockner" will still have a good idea of how it's said, whereas a word like ऑस्ट्रिया cannot be read. It may not be the "standard" Latin alphabet (Latin also didn't use J, U or W), but it is basically the Latin alphabet nonetheless. Naturally, Chinese names should be transliterated or translated; the same rules do not necessarily apply to German, French, Icelandic and other languages that use characters not commonly present in English words. --Stemonitis 08:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ABCD EFG HIJK LMNOP QRS TUV WX Y and Z... now I've sung my ABCs, next time won't you sing with me... and tell me where ß belongs?
Not among the capital letters. See ß. --Stemonitis 09:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Decision

[edit]

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

17 opinions expressed including the proposer who cast a vote in favour. 10 in support 7 against. 10/17 = 59%. One vote short of the 60% threshold. Oh and I missed the vote by "67.71.169.168", so 9/16 brings it down to 56% still one short. Philip Baird Shearer 01:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this one was really close. Perhaps it was closed prematurely, though I haven't got enough experience with WP:RM to know what's normal. Do you want to reopen/extend the debate, Philip? Or should we concentrate on discussing the issue of ß in general? Or maybe I'll just go and do something crazy like actually write some articles :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 12:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See my talk page.Philip Baird Shearer 13:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Normal period is five days - this is way past that. If this continued it will probably still be divided as it is now. I suggest an attempt to work out a consensus first before refiling on WP:RM Ryan Norton T | @ | C 12:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. Thank you. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 13:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) - and you're welcome :). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 13:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the vote on this, but FWIW I strongly support moving this to use "ss" spelling. This is the English-language Wikipedia and it is sufficient to provide a German-language gloss in the first sentence. older≠wiser 20:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

If another vote is ever taken, I definitely support the "ss" spelling for the English-language article.

65.213.77.129 (talk) 15:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of definite article

[edit]

Some mountains take the definite article (ie the Matterhorn, the Weisshorn, the Obergabelhorn); some do not (Snowdon, Ben Nevis, Lyskamm). Großglockner is usually called 'the Großglockner'; to say 'I have climbed Großglockner' sounds as awkward as saying 'I have climbed Eiger', 'I have climbed Jungfrau' or 'I have climbed Matterhorn.' I have therefore reverted its designation to include 'the'. Ericoides 23:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move based on cited sources and WP:ENGLISH. JPG-GR (talk) 01:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I request that this article be moved to Grossglockner. As far as I can tell, the evidence (below) points to this being the conventional English title. We should follow our convention (WP:ENGLISH) and move this article.Erudy (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the following English language sources use Grossglockner as opposed to Großglockner

General and topical referencees


Sampling of recent scholarly work

All of the following recent English language citations are by academics who are Austrian/German themselves or affiliated with Austrian/German institutions.

Media

  • Oppose "Großglockner" is a valid English name for the mountain. The first line informs any users unfamiliar with "ß" on how to read it. No need to move. Húsönd 00:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please stop inventing practice; see below. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please stop patronizing me. I know well what I write, and I fail to see why would my views be baseless or inferior to yours just because we disagree on the application of diacritics and interpretation of the naming conventions. As for your criticism, I shall remind you that naming conventions on diacritics are vague and their interpretation goes according to one's own point of view. As such, you've been "inventing practices" as much as I have. The difference is that I simply accept that we disagree on this matter, and I refrain from attacking your credibility. Húsönd 13:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your view consists of
          • "Großglockner" is a valid English name for the mountain, which is unsubstantiated.
          • That we should use a valid English name for the mountain, instead of the widely established English name for the mountain, which is against consensus, guideline, and policy. You are entitled to attempt to change the present consensus for our existing guidelines; but it is disingenuous to deny that consensus, as you have been doing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • "Großglockner" and "Grossglockner" are the same name, it's not a matter of a "widely established English name" versus an obscure substitute. The presence of the diacritic does not interfere with the reading and it's encyclopedicly more accurate. There has never been a consensus or policy that would rule over usage of diacritics. Minor, vague guidelines only. Húsönd 18:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • The presence of the diacritic does not interfere with the reading is demonstrably false, unless our reader already knows German, which we are not entitled to assume. We should of course mention the German spelling, as we should mention Glockner. That English usually spells with ss is itself non-trivial information, which we should not suppress. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Húsönd. If you really want to argue about non-English letters, then it is a wikipedia-wide problem and this article should not be targeted.--DerRichter (talk) 00:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't want to argue about English letters, I want to argue about English usage. Our guideline is to use (or not use) whatever crazy letters English uses by demonstrable convention. I'm now trying to apply this wikipedia-wide (WP:ENGLISH)consensus to this particular article by demonstrating English convention.Erudy (talk) 01:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; sources listed by nominator show "ss" used by encyclopedic sources. Compulsions70 (talk) 02:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - it's not an geographic object where English language is common. A move would be culture imperialism. --Matthiasb-DE (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: A move on Grossglockner however would as well suggest that the letter o is pronounced short, what isn't correct. It's a long vowel. --Matthiasb-DE (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This will only matter to those who (a) can pronounce groß and (b) fail to recognize that Grossglockner contains a version of it. That population is vanishingly small, and will be assisted by including [undefined] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: no text (help): Großglockner. Anyone who feels further pronunciation assistance is necessary will be free to add it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nominator's evidence. Are any of the oppose votes going to refute or bring anything to the table that offers an alternative to the nominator's source list? Would be useful. Narson (talk) 21:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; sources listed by nominator show clearly show that "ss" is used by standard English encyclopedic sources.Unschool (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I do realize that a single posting at a Project Page is officially regarded as different than hitting up user talk pages. I'm just saying that this practice, in this case, is disingenuous, since the notice will obviously be seen primarily by an audience with a predisposed opinion on the topic. The vast majority of persons pushing the ß onto en-wiki have been persons who are either native German speakers or persons with some degree of facility in German. That is simply a fact that one can find for themselves by reading past posts on other such articles and checking users' language boxes. I'm not saying that there are no exceptions, but they are few in number.Unschool (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That you do not believe that the people who read a particular noticeboard on Wikipedia can understand and apply correctly Wikipedia guidelines is entirely your prejudice, and nothing more. That the views of "people with some degree of facility of German" should not be encouraged from participating in a discussion on the orthography of German names used in English is reverse discrimination of the worst kind; people who speak German and contribute to the English language Wikipedia are particularly likely to have read *English-language* texts on German-speaking-world matters and therefore possess the relevant experience required to assess what is common usage *in English texts*. My action is not prohibited by WP:CANVASS because a single message on a board such as that is not canvassing - it did not target people with particular views on orthography, even if it did inadvertently target those with particular relevant and useful knowledge of the topic at hand. I could equally have messaged the Wikiprojects for Austria or Mountains boilerplated above - however, I was not aware of these beforehand. I will not contact these however, in case their readers also harbour hidden orthographical prejudices. I will now not comment on this move, as I feel that my contribution will be denigrated because having prior knowledge of the matter-at-hand means I come to the issue unable to reason effectively. And I strongly object to being labelled either as a canvasser or a disingenuous wikilawyer. Knepflerle (talk) 01:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Support. We have discussed this as a Wikipedia-wide problem, and are applying the resulting guidelines; we are not "targeting" this article. Húsönd's argument is disingenuous; it is parallel to insisting on following a fringe view because there is a single publication on it. WP:NCGN says we should use a widely accepted English name, even if there are others. It also defines what we mean by that, and Erudy has shown that Grossglockner is widely accepted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Personally, I did not see the "canvasing" before I voted becuase this is on my watchlist, but it looks as if the person who notified the Wikipedia talk:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board didn't even vote here. The redirect is fine as it is if someone were to read a source which used the ss and would come to Wikipedia to use that same spelling. The article additionally informs people what it means, with
The articles for Lågøya, František Palacký, Jan Žižka, or Provençal, however, are clearly not English. These signs mean nothing to me. Would people be oppose the moving of these aricles to Lagoya, Frantisek Palacky, Jan Zizka, or Provencal with no understanding if these are the correct translations? Probably, because its not the right spelling. Neither is Grossglockner. --DerRichter (talk) 23:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe that the comments about canvassing are intended for someone else; I believe the solution to such a use of noticeboards is to watch the noticeboard, as indeed I do. If it is watched by all sides, notifying it will have neutral effect.
    • Grossglockner would be, and is, incorrect auf Deutsch, and the German Wikipedia should not use it (and does not). This is not the German Wikipedia, and we English-speakers should be left alone to communicate with each other in our blighted and provincial ignorance. It may be that English will, in time, come to use an esszett here; but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor a medium of spelling reform. We have no Academy, nor is our spelling reformed by government decree, unlike more enlightened nationalities; our spelling is determined by general usage. Erudy has shown that Grossglockner is general usage; Großglockner is at least a Germanism, and its usage in running text is, for now, pedantry or ignorance, like using Bahnhof when railway station would be fine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If an equally convincing case can be made against František Palacký or Jan Žižka, they should indeed be moved, and I will support it. I doubt it can; the Britannica uses Palacký, although not Žižka; other standard sources use both. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to make it readable to a unilingual English audience, or which know no other European language other than English, because 7-bit ASCII improves accessibility on the internet, because it is not an English letter, because it is German preferential discrimination against every other non-English language for no reason, when non-Latin languages more readily deserve native lettering since Latin romanization is inaccurate. 70.51.8.110 (talk) 04:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It is normal typographical practice to convert to "ss" (mainly because the printers were not able to do it). And I suspect the neue Rechtschreibung would have us spell it with "ss" also. Why on earth do we need foreign special characters in article titles? How would someone search for the article without an "sz" key? TINYMARK 23:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: "neue Rechtschreibung" still has ß after long vowels (as in "groß", "Straße", "Fuß" etc.) What has changed is the 'ss' at the end of a syllabe or before a 't' when the preceding letter is a short vowel (i.e. "Faß" -> "Fass", "du mußt" -> "du musst"). 12:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Note: We have redirects. Try searching "Grossglockner". Húsönd 00:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The letter "ß" in German is explicitely to be used _instead of_ "ss" if the following vowel is a long vowel, which is definitely the case with "Großglockner". For the native English speakers: the "o" in "Grossglockner" would be pronounced as in "hostile", whilst the "o" in "Großglockner" would sound as in "whole". Hence, since we might want to preserve the correct pronounciation of the name, we should stay with the "ß". Lost Boy (talk) 05:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Discussion

[edit]

Would the oppose !voters wish to move de:Kalifornien? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ROFL! --DerRichter (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
God....you realise someone is going to take you seriously Septentrionalis and cause some big upset by trying to enforce our spellings on other language wikipedias? Don't give people ideas ;) Narson (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Copyedit

[edit]

In the process of adapting to the new title, I have added Großglockner to the list of names. It is after the pre-existing Slovene name only because that seemed the simplest way to deal with Glockner. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A citation is needed, not for the claim that Glockner can mean bellringer; but that it actually does, in this case. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found this:
at http://members.chello.at/heinz.pohl/Bergnamen.htm. (It's about halfway down the pretty-long page.) So apparently not a bellringer, which would be Glöckner anyway, but "bell-shaped" or "bell tower-shaped". I would definitely say that bellringer is out of the question when the umlaut is missing! Regards TINYMARK 14:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ta. If you want to summarize this, the architectural form is Romanesque. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rock type

[edit]

What rock type is it? it's missing! OK, it's metamorphic rock. Indeed it's Prasinit (German), but without direct reference to German that's not so easy in English as it's not simply Greenschist :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.225.142.81 (talk) 09:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grossglockner. 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) 11:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Grossglockner&oldid=1194306600"