Talk:Scout Moor Wind Farm

Public consultation

I think it's worth including a mention of the public consultation carried out by MORI in the article (here). I know I was surprised by the level of support for the project, given how backwards most people in Rossendale can be... El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 11:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a terrible indictment of those fine Rossendalians just because they think you fall off the edge of the world if you go past Bury :) I'll add it in when I get time.

The caption on this photo from Geograph says the Scout Moor Wind Farm is becoming a tourist attraction. The photographer is also featured in this news article:

• "Wind farm is in the frame". Bury Times. 2008-11-28. Retrieved 2008-12-12.

Since the opposition to modern wind power tends to hinge on aesthetic objections, I like to balance that by documenting wind power's ability to attract tourists. This phenomenon occurs around the world. See Unconventional wind turbines#Wind turbines on public display. Beauty is very much in the eye of the beholder when it comes to wind farms. There is a tendency I think for the minority of vocal complainers to garner undue weight in the press. The majority who view wind farms neutrally or favorably make the news less often. --Teratornis (talk) 20:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Road crashes attract people to gawp at them too, and the almost equally unpalatable devastation from rare (for England) open, un-built-on (I refuse to use the word "developed") ground to industrial site is quite similar. Still, as long as there are plenty of people who would be happy living surrounded by a dump as long as all their creature comforts are satisfied I guess this sort of disaster will continue to happen. Riedquat (talk) 09:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I did try write the article to reflect the fact that the project was not universally welcomed. The sad fact is that we all want electricity and there's no way of producing it that doesn't radically alter the environment and contribute to global warming. It's a case of trying to come up with the least worst option. I'm sure the mining for coal on this site caused more damage than the wind turbines will. I think that the analogy with road crashes is somewhat unfair - there's a big difference between gawping at an accident and admiring an engineering achievement. Do people "gawp" at the Angel of the North or Chatsworth House? Richerman (talk) 10:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not intending to criticise the article (there's nothing wrong with it, just what it's about :) ), so I really shouldn't have bothered putting my comments in the talk page. The road crash analogy was my view that both are gawping at something unpleasant; morbid curiosity. My intense dislike of wind turbines and the damage they cause to the landscape, which is far too precious for anyone in their right mind to do such things to it, is such that I find it hard to pass by without saying something, but I'll stop here. Article talk pages aren't the place for soapbox rants, and I should know better than to do so. Riedquat (talk) 11:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No but we all do it don't we :) Actually the article was written as it is because one of our editors initially wanted nothing nothing to do with with it for the reasons you mention, so In deference to his views I realised the opposition was a major part of the story - and I think the article's all the better for it. The truth is that some people find them ugly and intrusive and others think they have a kind of majestic beauty. I think I fall somewhere in the middle in that I wouldn't like to see too many of them in my back yard but they are better than most of the alternatives and they have a minimal impact on global warming. Anyway, I know there was no offence implied, and none was taken.

Please do not remove line breaks in instances of Template:Cite web

User:Richerman, please do not remove line breaks in instances of {{Cite web}} as you did here. I put the line breaks in to make the {{Cite web}} templates readable and thus maintainable in the source wikitext. When you mash all the parameters together into spaghetti code, it becomes much more difficult to distinguish the citation templates from the surrounding text, and to quickly identify individual parameters when maintenance is necessary. You should not blindly eradicate another editor's work unless you understand why that editor did what he did. Making the templates harder to distinguish hampers these types of predictable maintenance tasks:

• Updating the URLs of referenced pages when (not if) they break. See WP:EIW#LinkRot.
• Recognizing ref tags to avoid duplicating them when citing a given reference from more than one place in an article.
• Calling the attention of new editors to the existence of citation templates. Wikipedia has editors at all experience levels, many of whom see particular editing techniques for the first time by looking at the wikitext of existing articles. Someone who has not yet read WP:FOOT and WP:CITET will have an easier time decoding what is going on when the citation templates clearly stand out from the surrounding wikitext.

--Teratornis (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous, I'm not "blindly eradicating" anything, just reformatting things so they are the same as the rest of the references in the article. I used to leave them like that myself for the reasons you give, but others more experienced than me always came along and removed all the line beaks so I thought there was probably a good reason for it and started to format them that way myself. I assumed it was something to do with the amount of bites taken up on the servers or something and didn't question it. I really can't see that leaving one or two references like that in an article, when all the rest are grouped together, is going to make things much easier, although if they were like that all the way through I could see your point. All I am trying to do is to keep the article consistent and to get it through FAR. If I was to start removing removing referenced information you had added you'd have a point but talking about "blindly eradicating others work" is just being silly. Lots of things I've put in articles has been edited mercilessly - that's the way wikipedia works. Richerman (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Teratornis, there is no guideline about whether citation templates should have breaks in-between fields, so it's a matter of personal preference. There was nothing wrong with what Richerman did, and I think you're making a fuss over what is a non-issue. Adding breaks doesn't dramatically help identify citations. In a long article with many citations it wouldn't help to find a specific reference, and the templates stand out anyway because they use different characters to the surrounding prose. No information is lost by choosing to not have breaks, so it's just as easy for new and inexperienced users to experiment. (BTW, I don't think spaghetti code means what you think it does) Nev1 (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Win some, lose some. I like lots of space in the template (usually around the "|"s and sometimes around the "="s), but some editors take them out. I like it all on a single line. Others like it line-by-line, but I think it takes up too much space in the editing window. It's not worth arguing over. Mr Stephen (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, on both counts. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The above replies raise several questions that seem almost too obvious:

• If this is "not worth arguing over," why are several people arguing? Unless I have lost my sanity, the evidence of my senses plainly indicates a substantial interest in arguing this point. (Note that self-contradictory condescending dismissal is not a logical argument strategy, it is merely an attempt to use emotional pressure when failing to make one's point. Imagine trying to resolve the conflict in Palestine by telling the warring parties that a scrap of desert land is "not worth arguing over." Obviously it's worth something to everyone who chooses a side.)
• If arguing is somehow seen as undesirable (rather than essential to mass collaboration as it obviously is), should I just not discuss it, and instead simply revert the unnecessary changes to my original edits? In other words, should I do unto Richerman as Richerman did unto me?
• If having all template arguments on a single line improves legibility, why has no one removed the line breaks in the {{Geobox}} template in the lead section? Now the article has inconsistency in the formatting styles of its multi-parameter templates. What is a new editor to think when viewing the wikitext? "Let's see, the rule seems to be that we put one template parameter per line, except when we don't." Making an argument based on consistency requires that one actually be consistent. Otherwise it's just blowing smoke.
• If the formatting style is "merely a matter of personal preference" (which is false, otherwise there wouldn't be a raft of pretty-printers based on actual research into what makes code legible to humans), what makes Richerman's preference superior to mine? Richerman admits he has no idea why some other editors uglified his earlier template formatting. (Did you ask them to explain? Maybe they too picked up the habit in an equally mindless way. And what of all the editors who format templates legibly? Why not emulate them?) Mindless emulation is rarely the best reason to do something on Wikipedia (or anywhere else for that matter). We should instead base our decisions on sound principles of ergonomics. The argument among computer programmers ended decades ago - formatting structured programming constructs with line breaks and indents facilitates comprehension by humans and thus has become the standard for virtually all professional software shops. The only debate left is over exactly where to put in the line breaks, which doesn't apply to templates on Wikipedia due to their comparative simplicity. Code formatting makes no difference to a computer, of course, which only parses one symbol at a time and processes it purely as a function of the symbols around it. There is no issue of conserving bytes ("bites" - are you kidding me?) of storage. That might have been true 50 years ago in the days of magnetic core memory, but today storage has become too cheap to think about, which is what makes Wikipedia possible. Wikipedia's database stores every edit by every user, so changing someone else's previous edit can only increase the storage requirement.

--Teratornis (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"Bites - are you kidding me" - who's being condescending now? It's called a "spelling mistake" made by someone who has no experience of computer programming, sometimes struggles with the concepts of wikitext and really only wants to get on with improving articles without being pounced-on for making a minor change. Richerman (talk) 11:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Spoken version added

I have added a spoken version of this article; see the link above. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

That is excellent. It's nice to hear the authentic pronunciations, something my Yank eyes can't do for me as I read. I got a chuckle out of hearing you (?) say "nameplate capacity" as I have been on something of a campaign to standardize the fragmented terminology on Wikipedia around that term. --Teratornis (talk) 01:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it would be more authentic if Hassocks could do a Rossendale or Rochdale accent, but then you probably wouldn't have understood it at all :) Richerman (talk) 10:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Semi-Protection?

Seems like there is alot of vandalism on this article. Spinach Monster (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That's because it's today's featured article, it isn't usually subject to much vandalism at all (the level I've seen here are not unusual for TFAs). TFAs are rarely protected to encourage new users to contribute to wikipedia. The project's philosophy is that everyone can edit, and it sends out the wrong signals if the day's most prominent article is not available for everyone to edit. The 24 hours is very nearly over, and the article does not need protecting. Thank you for your concern. Nev1 (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thank you for your welcome for my concern. Spinach Monster (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Check the math (stats in lead)

65 MW = 40,000 homes. 1 home = 1.6 KW? Only? NVO (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That sounds about right. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's a wealth of stats on electricity consumption in UK [1]. Specifically, map 1 here states consumption typically at 4-5 KW per end point. I'd presume they put houses and flats in one bucket, i.e. per-house consumption is even higher. Where I live, typical new home power draw is rated at 20 KW with actual average draw about 1/3 of max. Brits might be savvier but, still, 5 KW is a conservative estimate and 1.6 below any standard. NVO (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You are mis-reading the source. The figures are kW-hr per annums. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right! At half-KW average they must be powering their ACs with bicycle drives :)) but I guess most of UK don't need AC anyway. Pity, my SAE tank burns more :( NVO (talk) 22:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hardly any homes in the UK have air conditioning. We have windows, which we open when it's hot, and close when it's cold. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Scout Moor's nameplate capacity is 154,000 MWh per year. The average UK household consumes around 3,800 KWh per year. So that's equivalent to the needs of a little over 40,000 homes. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

After the storm

OK, TFA over (although we're still likely to get a little vandalism for the next 2/3 days), I wondered how we came out of it.

Here's the diff of changes that managed to get through the escapade. Are we OK with them all? --Jza84 |  Talk  11:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

That was a fun 24 hours wasn't it? They all seem to be minor style changes that don't really change anything substantial, so I'm happy to leave them as they are. Richerman (talk) 11:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

image

I couldn't resist taking this image when I saw it. I could see for miles, the air was exceptionally clear. Anyhow, I thought I'd offer it for this article if you have a place for it. Perhaps some mention of the visibility of the site for miles around. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Amazing! The only shot I've seen that shows the whole farm. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You git! I've been trying to get a shot like that for ages but my compact digital camera wouldn't take a good enough picture. I'd even asked a couple of my friends with decent cameras to take one when they got the chance. I think that's just what the article needs - a shot that shows the whole thing and its impact on the landscape. As the fact that it can be seen from miles away is mentioned in the lead, maybe it should go in the infobox (if it will fit) and that image could be moved down to go under the one of turbine tower 9 in the specifications section. Funnily enough your original declaration that you wanted nothing to do with the article has been one of the main things that shaped it - see my last comment under Public consultation above. Richerman (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It isn't that I feel the article isn't worthy, its an excellent article and a noteworthy subject - its that I just don't believe windfarms are anything other than expensive white elephants, and they ruin the view. At least with chimneys they were usually hidden near rivers :) I'd rather have nuclear power stations than anything else, they're much more reliable. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I now you didn't mean that - but it was your comment that made me realise that the most interesting part of the story was the controversy caused by the opposition to the project, and that gave the article enough meat to go for FA. You'll find that most of the articles on individual windfarms are fairly short and a bit dry. Once again we're out in the lead :) Sorry this comment's a bit late but I missed this post the first time around. Richerman (talk) 13:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the image could be cropped so it is more of an elongated rectangle shape centred on the windfarm. From there we could have a panorama in the lower sections of the article, like say the ones at Oldham#Geography or Castlefield#Landmarks?? --Jza84 |  Talk  11:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I like the Hartshead Pike panorama in the Oldham article - that would work. Richerman (talk) 14:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps in the Geography section of this article? The image is still copyright so I can't do a mockup! hehe! --Jza84 |  Talk  14:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's a good illustration of the geography of the area - do you think we can persuade the Parrot to relinquish his copyright? :) Richerman (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

He wouldn't have to give up his copyright. There are other usable licenses: Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Free licenses#Creative Commons.

—WWoods (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my comment wasn't meant to be taken too seriously. Richerman (talk) 12:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The image is now under a compatible licence, so you're all free to do whatever you like to it and upload it here, including cropping etc. I'm considering going riding up there sometime this week, there's a nice looking route here. If I do go, I'll be sure to take my camera and get some good shots, including some telephoto images of the various towns and cities surrounding it. Oddly enough I was working on the outskirts of Huddersfield this week and believe I saw the windfarm on the horizon. There is a good source of construction photographs here. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added a cropped licence-free version here Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded to commons - I'll add to the article now! --Jza84 |  Talk  00:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Main page featured article

I've just checked the stats for the day this article was on the main page, and it had 42,600 hits on that day - that's pretty impressive. Richerman (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, pretty impressive. Trafford only got 13,800, the Peterloo Massacre got 22,500, Emmeline Pankhurst 22,400, and Manchester, Bury and Bolton Canal 28,400 views, so that's easily a record for WP:GM. It shows how people see renewable energy as an important topic. Military stuff attracts more views though, Warwick Castle got 74,700! Nev1 (talk) 02:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

White space

Can anybody else see a huge gap of unexplained white space in the lead section? --Jza84 |  Talk  11:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, between the contents and infobox. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

No, only the usual bit between the contents and the infobox - I think the parrot is havin' a larf. He must be getting punchy with all those GA's he's working on. Richerman (talk) 13:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

That's all I can see, I thought it was the same thing Jza84 could see. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

What's happened to the photo taken from Radcliffe?

The picture of Scout Moor Wind Farm from Radcliffe has disappeared and is just showing up as block of red on my pc. Can anyone else see it or has it gone? Richerman (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I can see it, although earlier the Great Seal of the United States disappeared on me. Maybe there's a problem at commons? --Jza84 |  Talk  23:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Images have been loading slowly here for several days now, but I can see that one OK. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Very strange, I still can't see it but all the others are ok. Richerman (talk) 23:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Odd. Have you tried the various cleansing agents described at Wikipedia:Purge? Mr Stephen (talk) 00:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I've just tried those and it's still the same - maybe it will reappear tomorrow. Richerman (talk) 01:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Works fine here. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hyndburn Wind Farm

I made the edits to these parts of the article as Hyndburn Wind Farm is nothing to do with Peel Energy, the developer in question being Energiekontor UK Ltd. Therefore, there is no need to mention this development and the 'controversy' as it it misrepresentative of Peel Energy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.111.213.142 (talk) 12:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

This article is about Scout Moor Wind Farm - not Peel Energy and there is no suggestion that the proposed wind farm has anything to do with Peel Energy. The reason that this project is mentioned is because it's another wind farm in the same area that will obviously cause the same controversy as the Scout Moor development. Richerman (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Scout Moor Wind Farm. 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/20081013050724/http://www.thestringer.co.uk:80/CV/profile.html to http://www.thestringer.co.uk/CV/profile.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090201195029/http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk:80/news/rossendale/3695780.Scout_Moor_Wind_Farm_ready_for_official_switch_on/ to http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/rossendale/3695780.Scout_Moor_Wind_Farm_ready_for_official_switch_on/

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Scout Moor Wind Farm. 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/20081001205145/http://www.ceere.org/rerl/about_wind/RERL_Fact_Sheet_2a_Capacity_Factor.pdf to http://www.ceere.org/rerl/about_wind/RERL_Fact_Sheet_2a_Capacity_Factor.pdf

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) 18:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Scout Moor Wind Farm. 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/20090205112023/http://www.lancashire.gov.uk/environment/lmwlp/pdf/consultation/CSD043.pdf to http://www.lancashire.gov.uk/environment/lmwlp/pdf/consultation/CSD043.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081218135839/http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/energy/sources/renewables/index.html to http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/energy/sources/renewables/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090205125931/http://burydem.bury.gov.uk/aksbury/users/public/admin/kab12.pl?cmte=RTA&meet=5&arc=71 to http://burydem.bury.gov.uk/aksbury/users/public/admin/kab12.pl?cmte=RTA&meet=5&arc=71

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) 11:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Scout Moor Wind Farm. 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/20090203115408/http://bubl.ac.uk/org/tacit/tables/england/marreg36.htm to http://bubl.ac.uk/org/tacit/tables/england/marreg36.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140112145838/http://www.peelenergy.co.uk/news-archive-2008/scout-moor-wind-farm-official-launch- to http://www.peelenergy.co.uk/news-archive-2008/scout-moor-wind-farm-official-launch-
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071201204314/http://www.mcnicholas.co.uk/index.php?q=work-begins-on-wind-farm to http://www.mcnicholas.co.uk/index.php?q=work-begins-on-wind-farm

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) 11:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Scout Moor Wind Farm. 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/20160406092844/http://www.burytimes.co.uk/news/3721217.moor_the_merrier/%C2%A3500%2C000/ to http://www.burytimes.co.uk/news/3721217.Moor_the_merrier/%C2%A3500%2C000

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) 05:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)