Talk:Entropa

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

Northern Ireland[edit]

Just wondering: since the alphabetical list of European nations seems to emphasize potentially controversial elements of their respective depictions, would there be a case for pointing out that the drones of the bagpipe are arranged in a manner which brings to mind the English Crown? I've heard people speculating about it today, and I thought that, since some of the descriptions of the pieces, such as the Image of the Prophet Mohammad and the Swastika Sign, are included in the article despite being just subjective perceptions (as far as I know), the seeming image of the 'Crown' might also be appropriate?

Just a suggestion.

It's possible that it has something to do with the Crown or with Northern Ireland. Who knows... Mountleek (talk) 03:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know?[edit]

I thought I'd nominate this article for a spot in the Did you know? section of the Main Page. If you have any more interesting "hooks" then please add them. Jolly Ω Janner 23:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and congratulations to all of those who have contributed to the fact that this article was featured among DYK on tha Main Page from 7:10 to 13:00 GMT on 23 January 2009! Blahma (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are pictures welcome?[edit]

I have been to Justus Lipsius to see the sculpture and have taken some pictures which I am ready to release under cc-by-sa in Commons, for instance. I wonder if then they would be welcome to appear in the article? They are not that good, actually, since taken through a glass wall as I could not get inside the building. But I will probably be able to get to the inauguration at 11 a.m. Brussels time, so maybe then I could replace it with yet something better. Or is there any legal problem why the pictures could not appear here? Blahma (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine legally, since a picture isn't a replacement for the actual 3-d work. And it would certainly improve the article, no matter what the quality of the picture. Politizer talk/contribs 00:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflicted) I had just come to the talk page to request such a thing after failing to find any free-use on the Internet. I'm pretty sure it isn't considered "free-use", so I'm afraid you wouldn't be able to upload it at Commons. You should upload it here at English Wikipedia under fair-use rationale and add it to this article only. Jolly Ω Janner 00:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for suggestions, I have already identified the best pictures of those what I have, so I will upload it as fair-use here in a moment. Blahma (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflicted) I just looked at Commons:Commons:Licensing#Checklist and as the artist is still alive, it is not okay. I'm not sure if it's a permenant piece of artwork, but that doesn't change the matter. If you're still unsure (I'm not 100% sure) then ask at Commons:Commons:Help desk. Jolly Ω Janner 00:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded two images and placed one of them (File:Entropa.jpg) in the article. I had difficulties identifying the current option in the dropdown box in the upload form, so I eventually added the copyright info myself, copying and adapting it from a similar case image. As far as Commons is concerned, I will ask at the page you suggested. If you consider that the other one (File:Entropa-detail.jpg) is also worth using in the article (or perhaps could replace the present one there), feel free to edit the article. I just could not come to a decision which of them is better, so I uploaded the two. Blahma (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Entropa-detail.jpg is better quality, but I like Entropa.jpg because it gives a better impression of the work's size. Neither one is super-amazing quality (not that any photos I upload ever are, either), and the higher-quality Entropa-detail.jpg still isn't detailed enough to show much about the work that you can't see from Entropa.jpg. So I agree with your decision to put Entropa.jpg in the article. If everyone else agrees, you can probably delete (using {{db-author}}) Entropa-detail.jpg, since it will be an unused fair use image. Politizer talk/contribs 01:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your quick reaction, and by noting on the advantages and disadvantages of those two pictures, you have exactly described my reasons for which I decided to upload them both. I will see what the opinions of others are and consider deleting the one which should stay unused. I have also already submitted the copyright question at Commons. Thanks also for instructing on this and on how I can delete my own upload, since eventually I do not have that much experience in uploading pictures yet. And I will see what I am able to take tomorrow if I get inside the building. From the outside, neither the glass barrier nor the light conditions are helpful for making a good picture. Blahma (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! If you have to delete some of the uploads later (either because they're not being used or because you get some better pictures tomorrow), all you have to do is blank the image page and leave nothing but the text {{db-author}}, since you're the uploader. Best, Politizer talk/contribs 01:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spain[edit]

According to a slide show at the Times Online, the Spanish segment features a bomb, not a cement mixer, situated in the Basque region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.192.88 (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It also says Spain is a "dessert" (sic) with sand, while it's actually concrete, so I wouldn't take it completely seriously. The object is a mixing car - the square bit is the cabin, while the conical part is the actual mixer. Although it's quite possible - likely, even - that it's an intentional double entendre! Pointoften (talk) 16:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I too thought at first sight that it was a bomb, perhaps in reference to the 1966 Palomares B-52 crash, but the place was wrong. Closer examination made it perfectly clear that it's a cement mixer, and it seems to me that the confusion is accidental rather than deliberate. The cement mixer, by the way, is south of the Basque region. I would say it's on the Rioja region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlb-1150 (talk • contribs) 08:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer writing "with a concrete mixer situated in the Northeast" rather than "situated near the Rioja region". Can't see a logical connection to La Rioja, as the community is neither known for terrorists using car bombs nor for excessive construction activity. By leaving the region a bit more undefined, possible allusions to Basque terrorism can still be drawn by whoever choses to do so. 85.181.235.238 (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comparing the image and descriptions[edit]

Some of the countries have less memorable (for me) shapes and what fills them isn't obvious. I'm needing to go back and forth between the full-size image and the article.

Ideal would be a full-size image of each country next to each description, in a gallery like Presidential transition of Barack Obama. It's a hunt to identify all 27 countries and what they represent in this sculpture. It greatly increases my understanding as the sculpture often differs from what I imagine based on the text. I think it'd be more encyclopedic to cut Entropa.jpg into its components and *not* have the full image, which might satisfy WP:NFCC 3a and b, as each part of the image would be used once. The scale is impressive, but less important than its parts. People could compare the elements a lot easier.

If there's balking at all those images, second best is adding the country's name, short description text, and arrows to the countries in the image itself. Galatee (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hesitated to do that because I thought it would make a mess if the nations were presented in list format as they are now it would make a mess...but presenting them in a gallery, as you suggested, would probably be doable—the only limitation is that long descriptions wouldn't be good (although if certain countries, such as Bulgaria, warrant a longer discussion, that could be given in the main text, with just a brief description in the gallery). And File:Entropa-detail.jpg is large enough that I think it could be cut up without losing detail. The big image, File:Entropa.jpg, can still be left in the lead to give readers an impression of the overall work's size.
We'd just have to make sure this doesn't violate any fair-use criteria. Can anyone contact one of the fair-use experts about this? Politizer talk/contribs 17:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quotations section[edit]

While the quotations in this section are interesting, I have been concerned about them from the beginning, and it's probably time we do something about it. As far as I can tell, there are no inclusion criteria for these quotations—there's nothing that defines them as influential or important, they're just the quotes that we like. They should probably be reintegrated into the main text where possible (not necessarily as block quotes, either), and deleted where not. If no one has any objections, I will probably start working on that sometime today. Politizer talk/contribs 17:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Politizer talk/contribs 22:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finland[edit]

The entry for Finland is probably based on this joke: 'An American, a Frenchman and a Finn go on a safari in Africa. They're walking through some bushes, and suddenly they come across an elephant. How do they react? The American: "I wonder how much money I could get for those tusks..." The Frenchman: "I wonder what kind of a love life this elephant has...", The Finn: "I wonder what this elephant thinks about me..."' – Kaihsu (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New photos uploaded[edit]

Hello, this is me again. I actually managed to get to the press conference in Brussel at which they inaugurated the sculpture and it started moving and making sounds. It was even not that tough, since I discovered you only have to be courages a bit and get checked by the security guys and then you are in the atrium - voilà! I have spent some three hours there today and taken some hundred pictures, of which the best I uploaded now. There are now new versions of File:Entropa.jpg and File:Entropa-detail.jpg, and I also decided to add File:Entropa-rectangular.jpg and File:Entropa-detail-rectangular.jpg, which are pictures taken from the first floor (situated above the building's entrance) and as such they show the sculpture from a quite direct angle which may be a plus if you sometime intend to cut it in pieces. Moreover, I also tried to take a picture of each of the countries, so if you realized you could use those in some way in the article, let me know and I can deliver those as well (although not all of them are extremly good ones, since I did not pay that much attention to this subtask as to the main task). My question in Commons on the fair-use issue has unfortunately not yet got any answer, though. Blahma (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! I've swapped in File:Entropa-rectangular.jpg although Wikipedia has broken at the same time as this is not only square-on, but better lit and shows the context of the atrium with spectators aswell. I suspect for really good detailed blow-ups, these would need to be taken with a telephoto lenses, again in good daylight and using a tripod. I don't know how many we could/should add; the most controversial has of course been the Bulgarian ("toilet") piece. I suspect also that the location for taking each individual piece may differ; eg. the Finnish entry would be best take low-down from a side to give the 3D nature and show the character on the floor; whilst the Czech piece would need timing to find a good 5-6 letter single word quote and get it in time with the scroller. Once again, many appreciations for braving security! —Sladen (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, why is there a man in a seat with wheels floating above it? He appears to be flying. O.o Jolly Ω Janner 19:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The man in the airplane is one of the reasons why I did not submit only those photos taken from the first floor, since he is always visible there. The figure sitting in an archaic light-weight airplane is hanging from the ceiling in the middle of the atrium, and if it is not some more permanent part of its decoration, I would say it relates to the exposition on the most diverse ways in which some people from Czechoslovakia attempted at fleeing to the west. This exposition, in form of several information panels with pictures, is set up along one of the side walls of the atrium. Blahma (talk) 00:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of name[edit]

I feel stupid asking this so late, but does anyone know the meaning/significance behind the name? I haven't seen anything anywhere...I assume it has something to do with entropy but who knows. Do any of the sources have anything to say on this? It would probably benefit the article is we could clarify it. Politizer talk/contribs 22:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went searching but don't have an exact answer yet (perhaps there just isn't one). Ralstonia eutropa is an enzyme that produces plastic; Then [1] (mostly a Wikipedia rip-off) suggests its a combination of Europe and Entropy. In the process I added it to the Entropia disambig. I also found the CENTROPA project, which uses combines Century and Europa. Half of me just suspects that its good (but hard) to create a unique day in this day-and-age, that they've succeeded, and if we don't know, we shouldn't speculate. —Sladen (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, its from Europe (Czech: Evropa) and enthropy (Czech: entropie). --147.231.23.163 (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you got a source for that, even if it's only in Czech? Although sources ought to be in English, something in Czech would still be useful if there isn't anything in English.--A bit iffy (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In Czech it is obvious. If you need some source: [2] [3]--147.231.23.163 (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first we probably can't use, as it's just a guy's blog. But the second would be good. Could you provide an English translation of the relevant sentence(s)? Politizer talk/contribs 17:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a translation: "Objekt nazvaný Entropa (entropie znamená, jak každý ví, nezadržitelnou tendenci všeho k rozpadu) je od pondělka zevěšen [=zavěšen], ve čtvrtek bude oficiálně spuštěn..." -> "An object called Entropa (entropy means, as everyone knows, an uncontrollable tendency of everything to collapse) has been hung since Monday, will be officialy started on Thursday..." (there was a typo in the Czech text I corrected) Blahma (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Size[edit]

The sculpture is 16 meters on each side, i.e. 256 square meters (not 16 square meter as the article claims). I had corrected this but somebody changed it back. (The size has been written wrong in may newspapers, but if it were 16 sq meter it would be only 4 meter on each side - look at the photo and you see that this can't be true.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.55.198.251 (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Artists[edit]

"it soon came to light, however, that it was made only by Černý and three assistants."
"Černý officially admitted that the piece was really created entirely by him and two friends"
"Černý's collaborators' names were given as Tomáš Pospiszyl, Viktor Frešo and Krištof Kintera."

Perhaps the artists' names should be higher up in the article, and the "two friends" statement is clearly misleading.

85.234.138.73 (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is accessible to the public[edit]

In reply to blahma's posting, I should point out that the Atrium part of the Justus Lipsius building, where Entropa is, is accessible to the public (you just need to let the security guards x-ray your bags and go through a metal detector). No need to bluff your way through or drum up any courage. Anybody who is in Brussels during the first half of 2009 can take a close look to the installation. I suggest you bring a pair of binoculars to apprieciate the finer points. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlb-1150 (talk • contribs) 07:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can cofirm this seems to be true. Two years ago yet, these security check points were not there, though, and yet when I met and talked to a Council employee at the glass wall during my first visit, he suggested he would send me his photos since I could not take good ones through the glass myself. Only later, while he was actually sending them, he apologized for not having known the place was accessible to the public. Probably many other people do not know this, since there is no explicit indication of this at the entrance - that's why you have quite a lot of people observing the sculpture only through the glass wall and that's also why I did not know what I was going into when I decided to try to enter the building through that check point under any cost. Thanks to Jlb-1150 for pointing this out. Blahma (talk) 09:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Italy[edit]

The italian football players are definitely masturbating with the balls. The text in the brochure was made even more explicit when the sculpture was switched on at the opening on 15 January, and the figures started moving in a way that left nothing to the imagination.

Manneken Pis in Lithuania[edit]

There is a small fight about Manneken Pis in a description Lithuania. Depicted men have apparently nothing to do with Manneken Pis. I placed "citation needed" there since I have seen no relevant source claiming that. Miraceti (talk) 13:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a direct reference to Manneken Pis in the Official Entropa booklet, linked at the bottom of the article. Quoting fictional artist Vilma Stasiulyte: "The symbol of Brussels is the Manneken Pis. I have adapted this symbol to the situation in my own country. The project can be viewed as an alternative monument to Lithuanian independence and as an outlet for the wrongs of the past."
Besides, the similarity must be obvious to anybody who actually takes a look at the pictures. Denying this allusion to a famous landmark of the European capital would be like describing Hungary as "a strange geometric formation made of melons and sausages". 85.181.235.238 (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scale[edit]

I was wondering - are the pieces intended to be (mostly) to scale, and if so would the pieces actually fit together if taken out of the frame?

(Or rather, might there have been a map of Europe which was cut into the various pieces, then given over for each country's specific entry?) --Nerroth (talk) 13:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that they are more or less in scale, but I have no proof for that. Maybe you can try to use the picture File:Entropa-detail-rectangular.jpg and a photo editor and try to figure out yourself. I'd be interested in the result too, although perhaps it may not qualify for a mention in the article thereafter, since an original research? Blahma (talk) 14:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UK[edit]

Hi again.

Sorry to post a second section so quickly, but when it says that the UK is absent, isn't it more accurate to say that Britain as an island is absent, given the inclusion of Northern Ireland as bagpipe-land? --Nerroth (talk) 14:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might've been Britain and Northern Ireland missing. As we don't know, we should stick to The United Kingdom. Jolly Ω Janner 16:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The bagpipe has the form of the whole island of Ireland, but the hair on the bagpipe's surface is missing in the place where Northern Ireland is, suggesting that "Northern Ireland is missing from here" (from what would be the whole island of Ireland). And if in such a way North Ireland is explicitely shown to "be missing", then I'd say it has the same fate like the rest of the UK. By the way, if you wanted to be pedant, also Britain is in some way present there - because you can see the bent joints which used to connect Britain to the frame before it was broken off. Blahma (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Could the Irish uilleann pipes suggest Ireland's under-utilisation of its wind resources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.125.22.177 (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless a third-party source says so. Politizer talk/contribs 17:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Converting list to gallery[edit]

If you have a chance, please take a look at User:Galatee's excellent suggestion above about turning the list of countries into a gallery with an image for each country and a brief description. As for me, I would be interested in pursuing it, but I'd like to hear more opinions first, since it would probably require generating 26 fair-use images (which is a lot). Politizer talk/contribs 17:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pro since such a gallery would be nice, but I cannot say about the fair use issue (other then I recently received a kind of approval of the fair use here in English Wikipedia). But what I can help is to contribute by those images (27, since also Britain counts - or at least there is a free space of it and you can see bent remainders of the would-be-former joints between the country and the frame), since as I noted above, I have taken close-up pictures of all of them (although not all at perfect quality). And it is yet to consider whether cutting the current full-work image into 27 tiles is perhaps more fair use then uploading those 27 close-ups, or if it does not matter that much. But if a request/consensus appears, I can upload those (unedited, though - like Bulgaria - thanks to Jolly Janner for editing that one!). Blahma (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Václav Klaus quotations?[edit]

Any idea about them? I wish if someone could list them here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fnugh (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately, I do not recall any of them verbatimly, and it is impossible to catch them on a photo and difficult to film on a mobile phone since the display is quite narrow (only a little more than ten letters shown at a time, I guess) and the text is rolling quickly from the right to the left. But I may at least say there are two lines - one smaller, at the top, showing in red titles like (not verbatim) "Our greatest seer says:" or "Doctor honoris causa of Kyrgizian university states:"; and the other one, at the bottom, showing in blue his statements like (not verbatim) "We call them Italians, Danes or Germans, but please do not call them Europeans." and many others you can definitely look up online in different places - the topics are particularly European integration - I'm not sure if I have seen something on the greenhouse effect, but that's also probable. Blahma (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned pictures[edit]

Today, I received a warning, that some of my uploads which are now orphaned (not used in the article) are going to be removed from Wikipedia on January 24. These are File:Entropa.jpg, File:Entropa-detail.jpg and File:Entropa-detail-rectangular.jpg. So if any of you thinks of making some use of them, it's probable now the time to do that. Otherwise, they will disappear in a week. What I feel uncomfortable about is, that there is a plenty of websites around that link to (or even directly embed) the older picture File:Entropa.jpg (plus definitely also others that use the current picture File:Entropa-rectangular.jpg). It would be good not to break these links, but at the moment I cannot think of a solution, since a simple redirect would probably break those links which go directly to the JPG file at upload.wikimedia.org. Do some you see a solution for this? Blahma (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's just Wikipedia mirrors that you're worried about, I'd say let the links break. We don't want those kinds of sites using non-free images anyway. Politizer talk/contribs 15:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not mean (only) Wikipedia mirrors (which may update themselves). I meant pages I found when searching for "Entropa Wikipedia -site:wikipedia.org" by Google, for instance. It is notable that even the Permanent Representation of the Czech Republic to the European Union has used the article in its Czech language news page - including the image (but in this case it is the current one), which they link to its original page. And there are sites likes blogs etc. which link the image, either through a text link or a thumbnail. Some also directly embed the picture, which I agree is not what should happen, though. Would it perhaps be possible to update the orphaned pictures with a simple picture displaying a message that the picture has been removed and the people should visit the Wikipedia article instead? Such an info picture would not be non-free anymore, so the image itself could yet stay for some more time, until the attention to the topic falls down and then it could be deleted. Or does this sound like a very uncommon idea? Blahma (talk) 02:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of covered Bulgaria[edit]

Hello, I have just uploaded File:Entropa-Bulgaria-covered.jpg which I took yesterday at Justus Lipsius, upon being asked for such a picture by Sladen. It would be great if some of you can already crop and otherwise properly edit it and use it in the article for comparison as originally intended. And it would be particularly good to do it yet today, while the article appears in the DYN section of the main page. Thank you for cooperation. Blahma (talk) 09:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a request here. Politizer talk/contribs 15:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Didn't crop it because it shows the sculpture's location to other sculptures and the size of it. Jolly Ω Janner 16:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you crop Cyprus out, then it might be class as "free-use", so we wouldn't need to upload a low-resolution version and it could be uploaded at Wikimedia Commons instead. I'll leave the decision up to you. Jolly Ω Janner 16:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NYT source[edit]

CliffC just brought to my attention an NYT article that might be a useful ref here:

  • Lyall, Sarah (14 January 2009). "Art Hoax Unites Europe in Displeasure". The New York Times. Retrieved 31 January 2009.

Politizer talk/contribs 22:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 15:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Entropa. 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: 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) 21:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Entropa&oldid=1207121168"