Talk:World Nuclear Industry Status Report
 | This article is rated Start-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 World Nuclear Industry Status Report. 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/20130106021131/http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/fukushima-crisis-can-japan-be-the-forefront-of-authentic-paradigm-shift to http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/fukushima-crisis-can-japan-be-the-forefront-of-authentic-paradigm-shift
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) 03:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Definition of content under each report section
[edit]What is the definition of the content that is allocated under each report section should be clarified. The contributions vary significantly. Does this report as such even qualify as a unique lemma should be discussed, too. Regards 17387349L8764 (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)