Talk:Quasi Universal Intergalactic Denomination

Untitled

I think this section is a laugh and a half. I think people need to perhaps chill out a bit? How wonderful with a bit of levity.

Ten number, 8 planets?

Are they missing maybe the sun to round this up? (Althought it is not a planet) And either Pluto (for the old times when we said it was) or the moon (to give the sun a mate)? Or which numbers are missing?Undead Herle King (talk) 03:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

CSD

A tag has been placed on Quasi Universal Intergalactic Denomination, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Blatant publicity stunt by company, not notable, not encyclopedic.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

Until there is an actual physical currency traded by real people, rather than just a publicity press release, I think giving this an encyclopedia article is a bit premature. Nairebis 20:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason why you or anyone would think that this article is a publicity stunt by the company since none of the contributions by Wikipedians who have created/edited this article indicate a specific company's employee account. Virtlink 22:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about the product, not the Wikipedia article. I don't think just issuing a press release about an absurd product ought to merit inclusion in an encyclopia. I don't know if the company themselves created the Wikipedia article, and I don't think it really matters. The point is that the product is a publicity stunt, until such time they release a product AND we actually have people in space in a place where an economy actually exists to use this fake money. Now, I don't necessarily have a problem with putting a note about this on the company's wikipedia page, since they themselves are a major and notable company. But IMO the product itself is not notable enough to merit its own page. Nairebis 22:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Look, please give me a day before you do anything. I've got a presentation to make and I'm so far into the night right now that I'm swaying. Deleting an article because those who would speak in its favor were temporarily busy... would work, but you wouldn't feel proud of yourself the next day. :P --Kizor 00:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Note to self, some cool terminology here. --Kizor 00:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't get the whole point. It costs money to manufacture this bauble and it has no purpose. How do they make back their manufacturing costs? Is it approved as a medium of exchange? And, if so, by whom? By what authority? How was the exchange rate arrived at if it is not used in trade? If it is truly "intergalactic", can I spend it on Earth (we are part of a galaxy, aren't we)? Alternately, with nowhere to spend it and nowhere that we're likely to be able to spend it in the next two decades or more, what is it good for? Where would the stores be where I could spend it? If there ever is a place to spend such currency, will this money still be around? The whole thing is an utterly ludicrous stunt! Can I dream up an intergalactic ID card and get an article in the Wikipedia? Or, more importantly, can I mint my own competing currency?? Apparently the only criterium is that I make something that looks somewhat like money and then simply declare it to be the legal tender of the universe. Wow! What a racket! Eromlignod 16:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

And if it's "intergalactic" why do its designs show the planets of only one solar system within only one galaxy? —Tamfang 17:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this article ought to be deleted. If this was a currency approved by some international consortium or had a certain degree of practicality to it (scaled values instead of 1-10..., imminent use by space travelers ) then perhaps it would be worth keeping. I'm not sure why this was listed on the front page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.253.26.139 (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The article does not state that the currency will be used, it states what it was created for, and the information is backed up by multiple reliable, widely respected sources, explaining that it was developed in response to a future need. Wikipedia is not just for things that are real, or currently in use. There are articles on hoaxes, theories, and all types of fiction. If this currency is never used, it is still of historical interest as being the first currency ever created with the design towards space tourism. Ariel♥Gold 19:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

So I can declare my product--any toy, household device, undergarment, etc.--as "for intergalactic use" and Wikipedia will allow an entry, include it under their "Space Tourism" heading, and feature it in their "Did you know..." main-page highlights? Now there's some cheap advertising! Where do we draw the line? This product is nonsense! It has no legitimacy whatsoever. A company can't simply declare their trinkets as cosmic lucre and that makes it so. This junk has no more interstellar value than Monopoly money!Eromlignod 20:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If your product were written up by multiple, reliable, third-party sources, such as the BBC, Associated Press, etc., then it would most likely be notable enough for an encyclopedic entry. As for the "Did you know" on the front page, those have criteria of their own for inclusion. And, as the article states, this company is working with the Bank of England to register it as legal currency. The article is not about what will become, but what is. It is a form of currency that was created with an eye on future need, and it is covered by reliable sources. Ariel♥Gold 21:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC0

I think it discredits wikipedia to give coverage to this, even if it is a media sensation, the article needs to speak to facts and not talk about fictional future events in the past tense. (Taucetiman 21:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC))

Going by that criteria, hundreds of thousands of articles on fictional items or events, hoaxes, theories, and other items that are not "facts" would have to be deleted. The article does speak to facts, all of them. The fact of why it was created, what it is made of, what possible uses it has, etc., all those things are facts, backed by reliable sources. There is nothing that states Wikipedia articles must be real, just that they are interesting, covered by multiple reliable sources, and written in a neutral tone. This article is all of those things. And, as I said before, regardless of whether a "space currency" is ever even needed, historically this item is notable as being the first such item created. Ariel♥Gold 21:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The real deal

Regardless of whether this currency ever becomes a reality, the fact is, it does exist, it is covered by reliable sources, and it was created for the purposes stated. I have re-written the article with multiple reliable sources and formatted it per the manual of style, and added the appropriate space tourism navigation template. This is not a hoax, it is not a PR stunt, it is a company taking a concept and anticipating a future need, and is quite appropriate for an entry in Wikipedia. Kizor, I have added the Wired blog entry to external links. (Blogs are not generally reliable sources, so it isn't used as a reference.) Ariel♥Gold 06:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Good call, thanks. --Kizor 11:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This is just silly. 99% publicity, 1% practicality. "Quids" are basically plastic coins. Not as heavy as metal coins, but much bulkier and MUCH heavier than paper money. There is a reason that most cash is paper these days - carrying more than a small amount of money in the form of coins is a nuisance. Another stupidity - the denominations range from 1 to 10. What if I want to carry a few hundred or thousand "quid"? Or purchase a cup of coffee for 0.1 quid? If you are going to use "cash" for everything, regardless of whether it is metal coins, paper bills, or silly plastic things, you need to have denominations that cover a wide range. From say 0.01 to 100 or 1000, not just from 1 to 10.
These things exist for one purpose, and one purpose only - to let a company sell a 3-cent pieces of plastic to suckers for $11 or more. 63.161.86.254 16:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This is an totally obvious press stunt, to draw attention to that firms other activities (apart from producing "useless space money", quote from the link in the section above). Unfortunately a rather successful one I might ad. It needs to be removed from the space tourism navigation bar, since that actually documents real efforts in space tourism. --Xeeron 17:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

No chemicals?

So teflon is not a "chemical"?? Ha ha. Over at Citizendium someone began the article about water by saying it's a commonly occurring element. I thought that could be taken to mean a chemical element, so I changed it to "stubstance", so then the original author changed it to say water is a "non-chemical element". How confused can you get? Then I changed it to say that water is a commonly occurring chemical compound. So it stands, last time I checked. That form of superstitious thinking that finds a distinction between chemicals and allegedly "non-chemical" substances never states a definition of either. Michael Hardy 13:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting point. Perhaps a qualification of "chemical compounds not harmful to space equipment or people", or some such may be helpful? Ariel♥Gold 13:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I added the word "harmful" Mad031683 15:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

No harmful chemicals?

From the teflon wikipedia page: "While PTFE itself is chemically inert and non-toxic, it begins to deteriorate after the temperature of cookware reaches about 460 °F (237 °C), and decompose above 660 °F (350 °C).[citation needed] These degradation products can be lethal to birds, and can cause flu-like symptoms in humans" Not harmful? Puh-leeze... >.< Davidl9999 19:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Any "currency" used by space tourists in the future, would not be exposed to that kind of temperature, these are not things that are flying outside a vehicle or structure, they are items that would be used in controlled temperature environments. Ariel♥Gold 19:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It's probably also worth pointing out that anything at 237 °C is going to be harmful to humans. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 15:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

In the first place these "coins" can be harmful! I once got hit in the eye by a similar plastic disc thrown at me. In the second place I would buy one of these and display it on the mantle beside my pet rock. In the third place buying something from another civilization would be an exchange of food, fuel, electronic equipment etc. not some currency which can only be valued by a few. But I'm glad to see that some people are thinking ahead to our planet advancing to an inter-galactic age rather than being destroyed in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.66.125 (talk) 19:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Misquote

I am a Physics student at Leicester University, and I have Prof. Fraser as one of my lecturers. He is adamant he has nothing to do with the QUID and the BBC falsely attributed a quote from someone else to him.

Unfortunetly, I can't seem to find anywhere on the Internet where he has written this down. So, I'm posting as an anonymous user from a Leicester uni computer so that you can see where I am from my IP address (My account is User:Damburger. Hopefully this is enough to have it removed as Prof. Fraser (understandably IMHO) considers association with this thing to be damaging to him. 143.210.8.57 13:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately, no that's not going to verify your claim. Wikipedia uses reliable sources to back up the statements, and the BBC is most certainly a reliable source. If the professor seeks to have the issue cleared up, the best thing would be fore him to contact the original publishers of the article in question (The BBC) and request they publish a retraction. I'm sure you understand that there are thousands of computer users in your area, and no possible way to confirm what you say is true. I'm not saying it is not, I'm simply explaining Wikipedia policy. Ariel♥Gold 15:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

True, that isn't enough to confirm your statement. It's not that we won't act on it, Damburger, but can't. A public statement at Prof. Fraser's website or equivalent, if available, would certainly be sufficient. I'm looking into one other option. --Kizor 23:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

For the record, as that other option I shot an e-mail at Prof. Fraser shortly after this. I introduced myself as a brash, young administrator and stated that we'd be willing to remove our references to him re: QUID if he was to confirm them as false. I didn't get an answer. --Kizor (talk) 17:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Well, neither this article, nor the original BBC source puts his comment in a negative light, so I personally don't see any issue with it remaining, until it can be verified that he wasn't the person who said the quote, or BBC prints a retraction. Ariel♥Gold 17:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

And, soooo, where are we on this? Maury (talk) 23:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, with no indication that the professor was misquoted, including on the site of the university itself, I don't see why we'd have a problem here. Do you?
Thanks for improving the article way back when, ArielGold. I generally tend to have troule getting things done, and this autumn's been particularily bad for pretty personal but still uninteresting reasons. --Kizor (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hoax

(undent) My concern here is that I am pretty confident this entire issue is nothing more than a one-off publicity stunt engineered by Travelex to generate a little buzz. The use of all denominations between 1 and 10 suggests this was not designed by anyone seriously considering making a working currency, and anyone looking up the National Space Centre would discover it is essentially a planetarium aimed at kids, an unlikely source for a new currency.

Contrary to Ariel's claims, there are no independent sources here, only many different articles all obviously taken from the same source. That source is a single press release dating to October 9th. Looking carefully you will see that source, PA News, is only named directly in one article, along with the disclaimer that "These news feeds are provided by an independent third party and Channel 4 is not responsible or liable to you for the same." Travelex's web page directs all contacts about the topic to a company known as TalkPR. As the name implies, this is a PR firm that, among other things, handles "influencer management programmes" (ie, press buzz events).

The only confirmation that these objects even exist are the small number of photos that accompanied this press release. There are only three of these, all showing one or more of the same five disks. I suspect that these are the only ones in the world. I further suspect that the description of the money does not correspond to what the images show. They claim to be made of PTFE, but PTFE is generally translucent or opaque, and as you can see in the photos the larger portion of the "coins" is perfectly clear. A clever art project, but nothing more.

This is story is a PR stunt. I have no problems with articles about stunts and hoaxes, I've written more than my fair share of them, but an article about a PR stunt needs to clearly state that it is a PR stunt!

Maury (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

BBC is a reliable, independent source. United Press International is a reliable, independent source. Sky News is a reliable, independent source. These are all media sources that reported on an item, and are not affiliated with any of the parties who contributed to the creation of the item, regardless if they got their information from the same press release. They are still reporting on it, it is still media coverage. Many inventions have had only one press release, and yet are covered by thousands of media sources. It is not Wikipedia's job to decide if something is a "stunt" or not, but simply to state the facts, as given by reliable sources. This is what this article does. If you can find a reliable source that verifies your idea that it is a "PR stunt" purely done for no other reason than to advertise something, then feel free to drop the links here, but without that, your theory is original research not backed by sources. The National Space Centre is a highly respected museum in partnership with university space research centers and the government, is not in any way related to Travelex, and is not something only "aimed at children". The Beagle 2 Mars spacecraft was controlled by the National Space Center, and they are in charge of London's NEO (near earth object) tracking: [1]. This is not some small kid's museum. I'm sorry that this article seems to bother you, but it was a widely covered item, and whether or not something like this is going to actually be currency used in 50 years, nobody can know, as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If nothing else, the article is interesting in a historical context for the innovation that went into creating the first ever "space currency", even if it is never used, and the concept as it relates to the future of space travel. Ariel♥Gold 15:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That's great, but those aren't the sources. As you can clearly see by reading any one of the links you provided, they simply copied the original press release from the wire and made minor edits. Do you disagree with this statement?

The real source is the original press release, issued by TalkPR on behalf of Travelex. Do you disagree with this statement?

News outlets often publish bogus fluff on slow news days because it's funny. Do you disagree with that statement?

Do you have any argument that you can offer that suggests that this is not a simple PR story? I have offered ample evidence to suggest this is the case.

By reporting this as a "real" currency we are doing every single reader a massive disservice. To put this in perspective, there is another bogus currency "going around" as we speak, the Amero, which is a topic of hot debate on the right-wing conspiracy blogs. A person coming across the term would likely do so in the context of this website which claims the money is real, including images of him holding the coin. In fact, the coins were made by a talented coin minter basically as a joke.

And here's the point: the web page here on the wiki makes it very clear that the coins are not real currency and that the Amero does not exist. This is precisely what the wikipedia is for, to cut through the press release version of reality. The wiki has clearly succeeded in this purpose in the case of the Amero, but has failed miserably in the case of this equally bogus currency here. The QUID does not exist. It is a joke, a media hoax of the sort covered here. Do you not understand this? Or do you just think this isn't important?

Honestly, Ariel, given all the hoaxes in the space exploration world, I find it astonishing that you're arguing against this based on what amounts to a talking point about sourcing that was never intended to be used this way. The BBC has lots of shows about ghosts too, would you really argue they ghosts be presented as "real" because "they are a widely covered item"? That's precisely your argument here.

Maury (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing in the article is untrue. It states it is a proposed currency, not in use, created in anticipation of possible future currency needed for space travel, it does not claim one can purchase it or claim it is available, in fact it makes it clear it is not available and has no value. However, no sources exist to verify your statement that it is nothing more than a PR stunt. Until such sources exist, that is simply speculation and opinion. Wikipedia is not telling people to go out and get these items to spend in space, it is simply writing about their existence, and what the motivations were for their invention. Please understand that I'm not disagreeing with you, and I honestly don't care if it is a PR stunt, but there simply is no proof that it is, and that is what I'm trying to explain. Would it satisfy you if the lead sentence were re-written to say "is an experimental currency designed for possible future use by space tourists."? Because at this point, that's what it is, an experimental currency. But regardless if they exist as only 10 individual items, or more, they were created in cooperation with a reputable university, and with companies that have their eye on the future need. Who are we to say that this will not be considered a prototype of something that does become common in 30 years? We have no way of predicting that. This is the first currency created as a possible solution to the needs of a future space economy, for whatever reason, and that is the value of the article, as I see it. The difference with the Amero issue, is there is a source (although I question if that is a reliable source by Wikipedia's definition) that verifies the coins do not exist, plus, the article is about the proposition of such a currency, not the existence of it, the hoax is something that happened after the proposition, and is verifiable. You are suggesting that we add to this article something such as "These coins are a hoax, and nothing more than a PR stunt." But that is a point of view, an interpretation, and without sources to attribute that view to, it is original research. I respect you Maury, I truly do, and I fully understand what you are saying, but at the same time, I do hope that you can understand my reasons for this as well, because verifiability is a core policy on Wikipedia, and currently the only thing that is verifiable about these coins is what is in the article: They were created, as an anticipated future need, but are not publicly available, and not endorsed by any governmental agency, but they do exist, if even very limited numbers. Ariel♥Gold 17:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Wording changes

I have re-worded the article in several places, the intro now reads: "The Quasi Universal Intergalactic Denomination, called the 'Quid', is a recently created prototype for a possible future type of currency for use by space tourists.", and I reworded the "Conversion rate" section to read: "but since it is an experimental prototype, the Quid is not accepted in any current market, cannot be purchased, and therefore has no value.", as well as re-worded other passages to add the words "possible form of currency", to emphasize that it is nothing more than experimental. Is that helpful? Ariel♥Gold 17:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

i think so --Hypo Mix (talk) 10:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Size

A photo showing a common object for scale would be helpful. 75.82.208.152 16:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Oops, I was logged off LorenzoB 16:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, as the photos are not copyright free, and can only be used as a fair use image, unless those who put out the original photos do something like that, it is unlikely to happen. It would be interesting to know how large they are, though, I agree. Ariel♥Gold 17:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

A quick google search reveals that there is another photo out in the wild, including a common object (the human hand holding the plastic), e.g. this link over here. That would make a better image for the article. --Xeeron (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Mention of size/scale in the body of the article would be nice, too.Rickremember (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

second that --Hypo Mix (talk) 10:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Quid-spaceage.jpg

Image:Quid-spaceage.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale BetacommandBot (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done Ariel♥Gold 21:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

barring papercuts...

Why do you need a plastic chip for space money if you could just use paper money? Quids take up a lot of space and are heavy. Paper money can be folded up. I dont see banknotes being very dangerous in space, or being damaged or anything. What? are papercuts to much of a risk? (oh, and dont delete the article. Some idiots like me find junk like this interesting) T.Neo (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there any fair way we can include some pieces about why this is likely a useless idea? Sure, credit cards can be demagnetized, but last time I looked the space programs were sending lots of digital memory into space. Also, we're sending gigabytes of data to and from probes (mostly from) every day all across our solar system. A little banking info isn't going to take much in the way of communication resources. Should humans ever find themselves traveling beyond the moon in great numbers were currency is useful in small trades, then a 'space bank' wouldn't be hard to setup, wiring money to off planet accounts for your trip, and using biometric ID for transactions on the local accounts. And if all that fails, again, what is wrong with 'paper' money, the kind they use in Australia that is a plastic and can't be easily torn or burnt? --Talroth (talk) 04:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I didnt even think of plastic money, which would be another alternative. T.Neo (talk) 13:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Alot of the risks of common objects in space are not obvious. There are risks such as clogging ventilation systems with small tatters of paper accumulated over time, etc; or a small piece of pencil lead breaks off and ends up jammed under a button preventing it from being activated when it is needed. Not all damage must necessarily be a single acute event that causes immediate obvious damage. 208.81.43.46 (talk) 12:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Plastic money, as is in use in Australia, will not tatter into pieces which would clog ventilation systems. We also need to start making more robust spacecraft. T.Neo (talk contribs review me ) 15:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

yes but the plastic contains chemicals that they didn't want in space --Hypo Mix (talk) 10:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Why couldn't other chemicals be used instead? T.Neo (talk contribs review me ) 21:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

circular reasoning / unexplained conclusions.

What is this sentence even supposed to mean? "Because of difficulties with using common forms of currency in space, cash or credit cards would not be of practical use in space." Isn't that a bit circular? Common forms of currency can't be used in space because there are problems with using it in space...... —Memotype::T 17:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I tried to rephrase the section in question. Oh, and I propose installing a small bank server in the spacecrafts and make transactions via terminals since computers will be abundant in space anyway - trivial solution to a trivial problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.89.0.118 (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Before anyone objects...

The QUID was a vital marketing campaign paid for by Travelex and run by talkPR. I think anyone could see that, but as you can see in the threads above a very odd situation broke out where the press releases were considered to be "real enough" to inflate this mythical money into reality. Well it took me a while, but I now have direct statements by two people, on either end of the story, that demonstrate that this was purely an advertisement. One of these was in e-mail form, and I am checking it into OORTs. A re-write is in progress.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed/reworded a few things, to keep in policy with WP:N. Otherwise, as long as it went through OTRS, I have no objections to adding the "viral marketing" info. However, I do think that completely gutting the article was not the best way to go about this. The fact is, whether it be in 20 years, or 200, currency in space may become a reality, and if there are sources that discuss this, why not have that be part of the article? The BBC article is not a reprint of the PR, and is from a respected news agency, so I personally don't see why the entire history section was completely removed, it had nothing to do with the press release, but gave background on why someone, anyone, may want to create a form of currency for space. *shrug* Ariel♥Gold 21:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

And I think this is excellent reasoning for someone to create an article on Space currency with a complete discussion of the issues there. But the QUID is an ad campaign, and nothing more. We owe it to the readers to make this perfectly clear. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps that would be a better idea, to create that new article, and redirect this to a section on that article. Not a bad idea. Ariel♥Gold 00:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds interesting, but what is there to be said about space currency other than it's cash... in... SPAAAAACE? Chemicals? Interplanetary banking protocols? Protecting your VISA against cosmic rays? Research? The question's earnest, this would be nice to have. --Kizor 13:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Easy counterfeit?

That currency sounds like you could counterfeit it easily, because I don't see any protection methods. iPadFanboy 14:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IPadFanboy (talk • contribs) I didn't read that part about the strip, bit that might be torn off or some similar practice... — Preceding unsigned comment added by IPadFanboy (talk • contribs) 15:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge

This was just a one-off advertising campaign, I guess it might merit a sentence or two under the travelex group's article. --192.75.48.150 (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Quasi Universal Intergalactic Denomination. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/5mGrLAu4A to https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2092.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 16:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)