Talk:Cimar
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cimar. 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://archive.is/20130218153537/http://www.ibanez.co.jp/anniversary/list.php?era=70&p=3 to http://www.ibanez.co.jp/anniversary/list.php?era=70&p=3
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) 20:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Quality of articles about obscure Japanese guitar brands
[edit]Why do the quality standards of WP not apply to articles about this topic? Every single of them is just a collection of hearsay and original research of very varying quality (to put it friendly), picked up on various forums and private websites and only in the best case books that are now outdated original research as well (and not exactly scientific publications) cited as "sources".
I see the virtual impossibility on finding proper research on a more scientific basis on this topic, but that can't be an excuse for the big share of incredibly low quality articles echoing other people's misconceptions on the topic, bordering on falsification on history and spreading misinformation when presented on something like Wikipedia. It's one glaring example why Wikipedia cannot be trusted as a source at all.80.187.125.157 (talk) 10:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)