Technology C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion not met Accessibility: criterion met

Computing: Networking C‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.  High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as High-importance).

The contents of the Network convergence page were merged into Technological convergence. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (2011-02-23)

The contents of the Convergence (telecommunications) page were merged into Technological convergence. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (2013-05-21)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2020 and 28 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Chughes117.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 September 2020 and 11 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AshleyVincent141.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I worked hard to re-structure the page. Please note, I DID NOT DELETE any contributions, but only copied them between the different sections if someone should start to do history undo-s. However, I believe the current structure is easier to read, and reflects the content of this page much better. What is your opinion? Markus (talk) 12:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC) Markus.r.brandReply[reply]

technological convergence

The title does not match the content. This could be called Convergence in telecommunication but is also talks about other type of technology. I beleive that Tecchnological Convergence is too broad to a solely article at all. With such a conceptual scope, this article should be limited to phylosopchical concepts. technology could be mentionned as example but not as a reference.

I am not a philosopher but a telecommunication architect. As such, would see fit to explain the differences between transmission convergence, application convergence, device convergence, financial convergence, media convergence, etc...

But all articles listed are too deep into each technology example and fails to explain the common ground. Beside all these thecnology having the word convergence in their title, is there any reasons to explain them all on the same pages ?

2010-10-30 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.156.89 (talk) 20:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jump to search I agree that there has to be done something around the title of technology convergence. The article describes convergence as we all know it - in media, digital services, telecommunication, and on content level. However, the title really does not reflect that. I suggest to rename the article to e.g. only "Convergence" or maybe "Digital Convergence" - or even "Media Convergence". However, I think this will still require some good thinking. If the current title remains, the article text is really poorly reflected by it's title, which the other user I am answering to has already stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markus.r.brand (talk • contribs) 11:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quadruple Play

Folks, the key to the 'quadruple play' is the IMS framework defined between the 3GPP folks and CableLabs with PacketCable 2.0.

In the 1st part of the article: Media Convergence, The Internet. the quote from the MIT guy is incomplete or if it is not, something's missing afterwards.

[...] states that " [...] " there's no verb in the sentence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.81.12.68 (talk) 13:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

70.231.189.117 said

There are many good examples of products and technologies that arose out of two or more seemingly different, unrelated technologies. Rather than reinvent each, the new inventor "stands on the shoulders" of her predecessors buy taking the tourch where they left off and converging them into something new and useful. Almost every modern convienience from the lightbulb to air travel owes it's roots to two or more unrelated areas of study that someone had the vision to converge. It would be interesting to list a few of these major inventions and their convergent technologies here. Now more than ever, our society is poised for more of the same. Our ideas are connected like never before, although using them legally and fairly might require more navigation for the convergent inventor. -- 16:20, 21 March 2006 70.231.189.117

merge from Convergence in the media

proposed by user:Vonkje the 23 September 2005

Approve

1. Isn't this article more about technological convergence? I would expect an article titled "Convergence in the media" to discuss the trends of newspapers, TV stations and web sites to create news together, rather than the ability of a PlayStation to play an audio CD. This should be rewritten or deleted. -- 207.203.212.2 18 July 2005
   1. Did you see that there is an article about that Concentration of media ownership. For clarity I will add a link... -- user:Trainthh 12:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      1. I agree with y'all and am requesting this be merged with technological convergence. See the disambiguation page for convergence for more info Vonkje 07:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2. user:Vonkje proposed the merge the 23 September 2005
3. Technological and media convergence actually define the same thing: convergence is the coming together of: media content (video, games, news, etc); computing; and telecommunications. This article (and probably the one on technological convergence) has completely missed the conceptual point. Media convergence is not simply the blending of two media - if that was so television should be listed as 'radio with pictures'. Dunno if I can be bothered fixing this but someone who can should consult Terry Flew's "New Media: An Introduction" (ISBN 0195550412). -- 16 March 2006 130.194.13.105
4. I think that the current content of Convergence in the media should be merged here in Technological convergence and the page should redirect to Concentration of media ownership which is more pertinent today. --Marc Lacoste 08:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Against

1. Concentration of media ownership and "media convergence" are two different things, though, and convergence isn't really discussed in the Concentration of media ownership article. "Media convergence" needs its own article, separate from the concentration of ownership and tech convergence articles. -- 27 December 2005 70.237.207.134

There is a conceptual error here. Technological convergence refers to pipes only, it is content-agnostic; that is, it makes no difference what data or TV images are going through the pipes, or who owns them. Technological convergence refers to delivery services, not to content provision. The subjects should be separated, as mentioned by others. M. H. van Handel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.234.2.2 (talk • contribs) 8 August 2006

Done --Marc Lacoste 08:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge from Dual/Triple/Quadruple play

the content of Dual play, Triple play (telecommunications) and Quadruple play could be merged here.

Approve

1. the content of those multiple play articles are often redundant and could be at better use under the umbrella of only one article. It should be easy to give each a title in the main article, and develop them in a separate article if they need it in the future. --Marc Lacoste 08:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Against

Done I've done it to see the result, except for Triple play, which isn't a stub. If someone don't like it, fee free to revert. --Marc Lacoste 09:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"However, convergence can have its downside. Particularly in their initial forms, converged devices are frequently less functional and reliable than their component parts (e.g. a DVD may perform better on a traditional DVD player than on a games console). Further, as single devices address a wide spectrum of consumer needs, breakdowns and problems become more likely, and more disruptive to the consumer. The greater the degree of convergence in a device, the more vulnerable consumers are to the failure of that device and face more complex user-interfaces. With a multitool on your belt, you've always got a screwdriver and pliers, but they are never as good as separate tools."

I agree with the general theory but I think it should have references and be written in a more neutral manner. Increased complexity is bound to increase the likelihood of malfunction but not always. In my experience the most unreliable DVD players are the really cheap single purpose devices not games consoles. In my very limited experience with consoles, the user-interface seems overly simplified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.152.115.183 (talk) 23:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I apologise, I'm a newcomer to editing Wikipedia, so please help me out here. My view of the topic was that as it was a theory held by numerous prominent media analysts, such as Henry Jenkins, it was not a "limited or personal" take on the subject. I think possibly more sources are needed, as undoubtedly there are enough out there to support this theory. Definitely, the format can be improved though, and that is why I need some help to make it an encyclopaedia entry rather than an 'essay'. FunkeyMunkey101 (talk) 12:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems like both of these articles are talking primarily about convergence in telecommunications. Neither article is in great shape. If we combine them, we'll have at least one less flawed article on Wikipedia. --Kvng (talk) 01:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am a student in a wiki writing class in UMass and i am writing on the page, Convergence (telecommunication). From my understanding technological convergence is only one way to see this huge topic called convergence. There are convergence cultures, and there are theories saying technology diverges and information converges. I don't think technological convergence will be good enough for the topic. I do not mind merging the two articles but the name of the page should be something more general such as Media convergence. P.S. I am going to produce much content on the subject in the distanced future for my writing class, please keep my opinion under consideration. Ktlin91 (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Ktlin91Reply[reply]

I have no objection to covering other types of convergence. My observation based on reading the content, not the titles, is that these two articles are covering the same narrow convergence topic. I'm also fine with narrow coverage. My objection is that we don't need two separate articles. --Kvng (talk) 02:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How about we create a new page call "Media Convergence" and move both "Convergence (Telecommunication)" and Technological Convergence to "Media Convergence". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.119.14.105 (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Media convergence is an ambiguous term. I don't think we can or should do that. It sounds like there's some support for a merge. We can always rename the resulting article once the merge is complete. -—Kvng 16:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree, some of the content should just be merged or omitted Mtpride07 (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

move content from Technological convergence#Media to own page, and remove redirection from Media Convergence to Technological convergence#Media. As is largely agreed upon, Media Convergence is much more than the technological merger of distribution channels (see Technological convergence#Media itself.), and is also concerned with social and cultural shifts, rather than the technological implications. — 46.59.199.19 (talk) 18:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because media is a social enterprise (historically and currently), media convergence describes social and cultural shifts in media as a result of technology. For example, new media changes the role and status of old media, and users/producers/consumers perpetuate those shifts. I suggest that digital convergence should collapse into this article, and moreover, the article should be renamed "Convergence" with the addage "Convergence Culture" a la Henry Jenkins http://www.amazon.com/Convergence-Culture-Where-Media-Collide/dp/0814742955 Jacobwc (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support merge from Digital convergence. I think we need to do more work improving and organizing the article before considering splitting it apart. It is not currently too big or too unfocused to warrant a split. ~KvnG 15:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have merged Digital convergence here. Both source and destination articles are not in great shape. I don't think the merge makes things any worse and now we have half as many articles to improve. ~KvnG 22:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Also included in this topic is the basis of computer networks, wherein many different operating systems are able to communicate via different protocols. This could be a prelude to artificial intelligence networks on the Internet eventually leading to a powerful superintelligence[3] via a technological singularity."

Just a passerby who ended up on this article - I understand that the article clearly has quite a few issues, but this sentence immediately stood out to me when I opened the page. I'm unsure how increasing interoperability of OS's on a network jumps to superintelligence and singularity at all outside of some pretty wild speculation. It's actually got a citation, but I feel like the logic/relevancy here is kind of a stretch, and I'd suggest removing this paragraph and mentioning interoperability in the paragraph prior to it.

"Convergence services, such as VoIP, IPTV, Mobile TV, Smart TV, etc., will replace the old technologies and is a threat to the current service providers. IP-based convergence is inevitable and will result in new service and new demand in the market.(4)"

Also the use of the absolute "inevitable" regarding a future event here bothers me a little bit.

Unfortunately as much as I'd like to contribute to reorganizing/streamlining this page, I'm not very well versed in this subject at all, but as a reader, I feel like the integration of so many seperate articles covering broad topics into a single page without proper reorganization has impacted the readability rather significantly. (Note: The stuff below really got out of hand somehow.)

I suppose if I were to suggest solutions instead of just whining, "Messaging", "Mobile" and "Cell phone convergence" need to be consolidated, and redundancy there has to be removed. References to cellphones are currently spread out through out the entire article in a rather unfocused manner - making them the focus of the "Mobile" category and including "Messaging/SMS" as a sub-category would likely improve the readability of the article.

I feel like "Technology implications" should be named "Technological implications" or "Technological applications." Based on the content of the category I feel like the latter was the intended meaning.

The "Appliances" (should probably be Applications?) category primarily appears to focus on downsides of convergence and should probably be renamed something along the lines of "Downsides of convergence." The examples of convergence shown in this category are probably short enough to be integrated as examples in some of the other sections. While having an "Applications" category specifically for showing examples of convergence might work, I feel like it would overlap with "Technology implications" , while also resulting in rather random examples with relevance that will change significantly over time due to the speed of advancement particularly in electronics. Might be more trouble than its worth.

"Multi-Play" should become a sub-category of "In the Marketplace", considering it primarily discusses methods of selling packaged content-delivery services and their economic effects rather than discussing a full category of convergence.

The short "Home network" category should be combined with "Internet," either as a sub-category or not, since the integration of multiple functions into residential gateways is very much related to integration of "Web 2.0 features" into home appliances, and the integration of web features in home appliances is very much related to "Home network(ing)." Perhaps a reference back to "Multi-Play" should be made explaining that it is either a major driver of residential gateway integration/the evolution of older gateways from the early 2000's, given that modern models have integrated telephone ports, cable/DVR control. Focusing on the hardware implementation of multi-play should hopefully prevent redundancy, given the current Multi-play article is marketing/definition focused. While we're at it the "Internet" category should probably be renamed to "Internet as a content medium" or something along those lines since the existing category seems to focus specifically on the internet's ability to deliver content rather than any sort of convergence actually regarding the internet. Does cloud computing count as convergence? That would likely broaden the topic a little more.

The given definition for "media convergence" in the first few paragraphs of the "Media" category should probably be moved up to "Definitions" and merged to eliminate redundancy.

Mentions of the 90's dot com bubble present in the "Media" category basically only talk about historical perceptions of new/digital media, and therefore should be moved to the "History" category, where it can be merged with the already existing paragraph about 90's perceptions on new media to eliminate redundancy.

The paragraph beginning with "Media Convergence in the Digital Era means..." is not cited in the correct Wikipedia citation format. "Convergence regulation" also has several paragraphs that are improperly cited.

Perhaps rename "Convergence culture" to "Effects on culture" and "Social movement" as "Effects on society"

The last link in the "See also" section to "JOURNALISM IN THE AGE OF MEDIA CONVERGENCE" is malformatted and should be moved to "External Links."

Given the changes I suggested above and a few others I forgot to include, I feel like the category order would make more sense going:

1. Definition(s) (Depending on whether the article defines convergence or types of convergence after consolidation) 2. History 3. Effects on the economy/Economic effects of convergence ("In the marketplace" I feel is a little bit undescriptive.) (A mental transition going from historical market perception (dot com) to current market perception/economic effects can probably be established here.) 3a. Multi-Play 4. Internet as a content medium (Possible mental transition between "get internet" (multiplay) -> "what the internet does" (medium)?? or maybe like "internet is bundled with other services etc" -> "the services are delivered through the internet"? Natural flow of readability would probably break here) 4a. Home networking/Convergence effect on lan etc (Residential gateway integration, draw link to hardware implementation of multi play) 4b. Mobile web (Consolidate the random bits of information regarding implementation of phone internet fast enough for media. "Mobile service provisions", "Advancements in WiMAX and other leading edge technologies...", "This would include phone companies integrating 3G on their phones." Media and consolidation on phones prior to stuff like iPhone 3G and widespread adoption of 3G was significantly less well known or capable and might fit better in "History". I have no source for that except gut feeling, but I imagine someone somewhere has probably done a study on this. This section is a primer for the "Mobile" category.) 4c. (This category is massively broad, you could likely make as many sub categories as you want speaking about how media over the internet has affected a subclass of electronics.) 5. Media (Mental transition "This is our content delivery medium" -> "This is the content delivered") 6. Mobile/Mobile convergence (Mental transition "This is our wireless content delivery medium" -> "This is the wireless content delivered") 6a. Messaging 7. Effects on culture (Mental transition "This is what convergence is and does" -> "This is what its caused") 8. Effects on society (Mental transition "Macro scale effects" -> "Micro scale effects") 9. Convergence regulation (Mental transition "Effects of convergence" -> "Legal control of convergence/legal reaction to effects of convergence") 10. See also 11. References 12. External links

As for tone issues that make this article sound more like a high school essay and less like an encyclopedia article, three aspects were the most conspicuous.

1. The constant attributing of information to (insert last name here) or (study name here) basically makes large portions of the page read like a HS research paper. This is excacerbated by large number of sources and the repetition of the structure (name)(alternative verb to said), which ends up being (name) {defined, stated, expressed, , wrote, introduced, observed, concluded, etc} and can be distracting. I have not read the editing rules yet, but I imagine that if the information isn't controversial, it should be okay to just use a wiki citation and omit the this entire structure.

2."that poured cold water over the talk of such a digital revolution" "Many experts view this as simply being the tip of the iceberg" "old media would be absorbed fully and completely into the orbit of the emerging technologies." I am of the opinion that metaphorical language should be avoided both on the grounds that it can be precieved as informal as well as being jarring in tone. There are a number of other instances where informal language and/or informal structure was been used. "Today, we are..." "it's" "mobile services are increasingly an important part of the automobile; (Extremely long inline list); and much, much more." "we have entered into"

3. The repetition of the "(info). For example, (example). (info). For instance, (example). Additionally, (example)." structure. For example, " For example, while people can have e-mail and Internet on their phone, they still want full computers with Internet and e-mail in addition.

For example, the Wii is not only a games console, but also a web browser and social networking tool. Mobile phones are another good example, in that they increasingly incorporate digital cameras, mp3 players, camcorders, voice recorders, and other devices." In this example there are three examples, two of which are composed of inline lists, in the span of 3 sentences. While this is likely the worst example, the overuse of the word example and the overuse of examples themselves negatively affect readability. For instance, another example which demonstrates this is "For example, Intel has created a surfboard with an in-built laptop.[19] Additionally, LG has created a microwave with a television screen.[20] Many people ... the household TV. These examples..." Additionally, the effect on readability is excacerbated by instances of issue #1 being interspersed alongside examples; for instance, as is written in the article "CONVERGED DEVICE" by an anonymous editor, "for example,... smartphones.(10) As discussed in Media Culture by Campbell..." However, this is not the sole example; as anonymous editor elucidates through example in this instance: " For example, the iPhone ... troublesome.[23] As Rheingold asserts..."

As Shogoll asserts in self(), the preceding examples demonstrate a tangible effect on readability and tone. Additionally, Shogoll claims that in instances where examples are necessary, it may be better to seperate them out into their own paragraph afterwards. It may also be good to remove some examples that do little to advance the reader's understanding and replace them with explanations.

Lastly: 1. Parts of convergence regulation, convergence ulture and social movement are in need of proof reading for grammar and minor spelling. 2. Some of the relative times should probably be changed to absolute times, or at least be dated to when the edit was made. The regulation section appears to have issues with this 3. This is really a none issue but some of the examples drawing off popular culture of the time of the update might age pretty badly

I don't even know why I wrote this seriously how did this happen Everything above is my personal opinion and I have no idea I'm doing, but I do hope this helps someone at least a bit instead of being 65 lines of stating the obvious

>implying anyone will ever read this

Shogoll (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is an example of everything currently wrong with Wikipedia. It's amazing that we have a poorly written, poorly sourced 49,160-byte train wreck that completely fails to mention Ithiel de Sola Pool and Technologies of Freedom, even though it was de Sola Pool who did more than anyone else to push the notion of "convergence" into the public consciousness in the 1980s. Unfortunately, I am too busy dealing with train wrecks on three other articles that I actually care about to spend the 100 hours it would take to clean up this one. Which is why this mess has remained unfixed for THREE YEARS. At some point someone will have to burn this mess down and rewrite the article from scratch. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Something is wrong with the quotation marks in this paragraph:

Media Convergence in the Digital Era means the changes that are taking place in this current time with older forms of media and media companies. (Campbell 9) Media convergence has two roles, the first is the technological merging of different media channels – for example, magazines, radio programs, TV shows, and movies, now are available on the Internet through laptops, iPads, and smartphones.(10) As discussed in Media Culture by Campbell, convergence of technology is not new. It has been going on since the late 1920s. An example is RCA the Radio Corporation of America purchased Victor Talking Machine Company and introduced machines that could play both radio and recorded music. (10). Next came the TV, and radio lost some of its appeal as people started watching television which has both talking and music as well as visual. As technology advances,convergence of media’s change to keep up with the time. The second definition of media convergence as Campbell discusses is, Cross- platform by media marketeer’s, which means consolidating various media holdings, such as cable, phone, television and internet access under one corporate umbrella” (10). This is not for the consumer to have more media choices, this is for the benefit of the company to cut down on costs and maximize its profits. (10) As stated in the article, Convergence Culture and Media Work, by Mark Deuze, “the convergence of production and consumption of media across companies, channels, genres, and technologies is an expression of the convergence of all aspects of everyday life: work and play, the local and the global, self and social identity. (Holt 145)

I detected it with a script - I did not read the article. --MartinThoma (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed ~KvnG 17:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Technological convergence. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080516114052/http://www.pocket-lint.co.uk:80/news/news.phtml/368/1392/view.phtml to http://www.pocket-lint.co.uk/news/news.phtml/368/1392/view.phtml

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Technological convergence. 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/20070925235057/http://www.etcgroup.org/upload/publication/169/01/combang2003.pdf to http://www.etcgroup.org/upload/publication/169/01/combang2003.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071226070457/http://www.d2tech.com/4-news/2007/07-10-29a.htm to http://www.d2tech.com/4-news/2007/07-10-29a.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090315053135/http://rji.missouri.edu/staff-and-advisers/roger-fidler.php to http://rji.missouri.edu/staff-and-advisers/roger-fidler.php

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 06:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure you guys know what the word phenomenon means. Dictionary.com is that way ----> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:200:5671:8C70:3C0B:2599:825E (talk) 07:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]