Talk:New York Cosmos (1970–1985)

New York Cosmos (1970–1985) has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 13, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

New York City Mid‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Football: American & Canadian / Variants Mid‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the American and Canadian soccer task force (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by the football variants task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

"talks to revive the name"?

Other than a couple Cosmos fans on message boards (and Pinton himself, who has a financial interest), have there been any substantive talks to revive the Cosmos name, either for a new MLS team in New York or for the Red Bulls?

I'm not aware of any. It seems to be a classic case of what a little Internet traffic can do to skew a debate. --Chancemichaels 13:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels[reply]

Almost four months later, and nobody's been able to substantiate the claim. I'm deleting the sentence. If anybody can provide a citation, please feel free to revert. --Chancemichaels 16:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels[reply]

Pinton owns the name and he won't let it be used in a situation that will devalue it. That being said, he did offer it to the Empire Soccer Club before they decided on MetroStars, but they couldn't work out a deal. The one fellow that has been pushing for revival of the name is apparently quite enthralled with the idea and has been posting it all over the Internet for years. Pinton is aware of him and does not support his efforts. So the article should not include a reference to 'talks to revive the name'. (BTW, I'd add the above information to the article, but it's completely OR.) --Butseriouslyfolks 16:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - that section had already been removed from the article. --Chancemichaels 16:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels[reply]

Agreed, there shouldn't be any mention of this in the article. However, there is some discussion about the next expansion team (one of the next 2 in MLS has been targetted to Queens/LI) in NY may carry the Cosmos name. There is no official info on this (which is why it is on the discussion page), but the info isn't coming from the same fellow you are speaking of. It may happen, it may not happen. I guess that will be up to Pinton and the new owner (rumoured to be Fred Wilpon) to resolve. Posthocergopropterhoc (talk) 06:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe should have read this first but, looks like name/image rights have been sold.--EricPZ (talk) 05:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV

This statement is very much POV "The New York Cosmos are still the only team to have all the world's best players playing in it in a short period thats why this team will be rememberd as soccers international dreamteam." I think that although this is sort of true there are other teams that have made efforts to do the same - Real Madrid with their Galacticos policy and Chelsea with all of Abrahmovich's cash. I'm going to remove this statement because I think it is too emotive. --Wikipediatastic 13:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Respond at POV

The statement is correct, in the 70's the absolute star players of the world were, Pele Beckenbauer Torres Cruyf etc. they all had a chance to wear a Cosmos shirt, in recent days there are more football stars and not all of them have worn a Madrid or Chelsea shirt i am putting back that statement please lets discuss here if you disagree,

I'm 99% sure Johan Cruyff never played for the Cosmos, but only for LA and Washington in the NASL. I didn't delete it because I'm not 100% sure, but no all-time Cosmos roster I've ever seen includes him, and no Cruyff bio I've ever seen mentions the Cosmos as one of his clubs. Can anyone confirm?

April 8, 2007 My apologies if I'm not placing this correctly... -Cruyff was never 'rostered' with the Cosmos other than playing an exhibition game with them in '77. -Also, Clive Toye did not 'coin' the team name. There was a contest in the newspapers and radio in which a youth soccer player's entry was chosen. The description of the name is correct in identifying it as short for 'cosmopolitan' but was also chosen (as suggested by the entry) for its synonymous meaning of 'universe' as well. -Hope this information is helpful. I'm a newbie to the site. (But loving it!).

Toye himself claimed to have coined the team name, in the documentary Once In A Lifetime. If you can provide verifiable evidence to the contrary, then we can change that passage. --Chancemichaels 20:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels[reply]

And while we're at it, please sign your posts. --Chancemichaels 20:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels[reply]

From the New York Times dated February 5, 1971 page 14... "New York Soccer Club Is Nicknamed Cosmos" February 5, 1971, Friday Page 14, 152 words

Displaying First Paragraph -- "Cosmos became the nickname yesterday for New York's entry in the North American Soccer League. The name was chosen from 3,000 entries filed in a contest conducted throughout the metropolitan area."

Apologies for not knowing the protocol...--Crusty 23:54, 14 April 2007.

No worries - everybody's a newbie here at one point. What you're saying is interesting, but it needs to be verified. Does the document exist on a website somewhere? --Chancemichaels 16:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels[reply]

Thanks, would like to be learning faster but only have so much time. My original statement was actually from memory (I used to work in the lockerrooms when I was younger) and when you asked for a verifiable source I thought it would take forever to find one. However, I got lucky! The link to use in order for you to confirm this fact is: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70B1FFD3D5F107B93C7A91789D85F458785F9 This is the direct link I found through the archives of the New York Times. Hope this is the type of thing you need to set the record straight. All the best, --Crusty 16:21, 16 April 2007.

Thanks - that's just what we need. I have ordered Toye's book, we'll see what he has to say in it. If there's no further clarification, then I'll edit the article to list both claims. Just FYI, you should sign your posts with four tildes "~" before your name, which will then generate links and all those fun things. --Chancemichaels 17:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels[reply]

The claim is still in the article - I'll leave it up to the regulars here to decide how to put it accurately. I have set up a page for Clive Toye - not as a hagiography, but just because he comes from my home town. It would be good to nail down exactly what happened with the name, and someone needs to sort it. For now I'm leaving the sentence alone and just putting a link in to my stub. (Pele always used to say 'Cosmos' like the word cosmos, when he talked about the club). Stevebritgimp 14:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I got Toye's book this weekend, and in it he clarified the origin of the name. He admits that he staged a naming contest so he could call the name he coined "the people's choice" (which certainly explains the Times article). I have updated the article and provided a citation. --Chancemichaels 14:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels[reply]

Soccer or Football or Association Football?

Well, it's soccer in the US (where the team played) and a couple of other countries (Canada, Australia), football (or some literal translation) in most of the world and apparently association football somewhere. The term "association football" may be neutral but means nothing in the US. (It's not even in the name of the relevant WP project.) Can we leave it at soccer for this article as the term for the sport that was actually used by the team, its fans and the league in which it played? -- But|seriously|folks 18:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This article about an American topic is written in American English which uses the word "soccer," not "football" or "association football." "Soccer" is unambiguous and if someone is befuddled by the term, it is linked to Football (soccer) which should fix any confusion. --D. Monack | talk 01:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well. Soccer is what it's called in the United States, soccer is what it was called by the team, and as such the article should reflect that. --Chancemichaels 17:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels[reply]

New Cosmos

There was the announcement about the revival of the Cosmos' name. It's my opinion that the new Cosmos should get a separate page since it is a new team. After all, we do have three different pages for the San Diego Sockers.

I think this one is a little different because it's a direct continuation - Pepe Pinton retained the trademarks from the original club, used them in his soccer academy, and sold them to this organization which will continue to run the academy while putting together a professional team to play under the name. SixFourThree (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]

If we are indeed going to keep all three Cosmos organizations (team, academy, new organization) in one article, then we need some cleanup around here. I'll divide it into sections.

And secondly, why are references to Kemsley being deleted? Is his involvement not noteworthy? Pele's the big name, but he's not the real mover behind this project. SixFourThree (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]

Revamp

Okay, I've cleaned it up and expanded certain sections.

We don't capitalize "the" before the name, nor does it need to be included as part of the "official" name.
I have tried to put the organization's timeline in context - since there is an unbroken chain of ownership, from the founders to Pinton (even though he didn't field a team, he kept the name active in the soccer community) to Kemsley's group.

Thoughts? SixFourThree (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]

New page, or same?

Can we look for some consensus here? I'm thinking that the new Cosmos are an actual continuation of the original club, since there is an unbroken chain of ownership. This isn't a new organization trying to revive an old brand. Actually, the Cosmos now are in the same business they've been in since 1985 - youth soccer. I'm not sure this warrants separate pages. Thoughts? SixFourThree (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]

The Cosmos ceased operations as a professional soccer club in 1985. Just because there have been soccer camps going by the new "Cosmos" since then does not mean that the current team is a continuation of the old club. Sure, it can recognize the old Cosmos as part of its heritage, but it is a new team. The current San Diego Sockers of the PASL-Pro have all the championship banners of the old club and recognize the heritage of the old club (they even purchased the logo and name of the old club), but they are a new team. The same should go for the Cosmos. Keep the pages the way they are: One for the old club, one for the new club. KitHutch (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, but the original Cosmos organization didn't actually fold, as the Sockers did. It ceased some of its operations (the mens team), but others continued. It maintained an office, and remained an ongoing legal entity (which was what the new owners bought). The Sockers actually ceased operations and there were years when they didn't operate at all. Doesn't seem quite the same to me. SixFourThree (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]

Other keeping the trademark active, the Cosmos were dormant since the indoor team folded. Kemsley's group is an entirely new organization. Cmjc80 (talk) 00:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Cosmos played a series of exhibition games in 1985 after the indoor team folded, but nothing since. "Maintaining an office" means giving Pinton a room to sit in while he tried to get numerous people to buy a name and logo! KitHutch (talk) 02:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm no fan of Pinton, I don't think that's actually true. He administered the Cosmos' youth soccer camps, part of the original organization (which was more than just a football team). There's an unbroken chain which leads right to Kemsley. SixFourThree (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]

Now that the New York Cosmos (2010) have joined the NASL I recommend changing the titles of the articles to reflect that the current club should get the "New York Cosmos" name and this page be retitled "New York Cosmos (1971-85)"Eric Ando (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. -- Fifty7 (talk) 19:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd back this too. —Cliftonian (talk) 10:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ok, give that the Cosmos have returned and played a season does it make sense to make this change? Mak888 (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization

In English grammar, the word "the" is only capitalized when it appears as the first word in a sentence. Why does one editor feel that it is necessary to have this team as "The New York Cosmos" every time the name is mentioned in the article, even if it's in the middle of a sentence? No other sports teams are referred to it this way. It's "the New York Yankees," not "The New York Yankees." KitHutch (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:AHMET ERTEGUN (1923-2006).jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:AHMET ERTEGUN (1923-2006).jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent article move

I must register my objection to this move. I fail to see that a newly-formed, minor league team that has not yet played a game is equal to an internationally know team with over a decade of history. Yet by putting a date disambiguator on this article, it's essentially being stated that both have equal claim to being the primary topic. I fail to see any evidence of that. oknazevad (talk) 01:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. Clear primary topic.Cúchullain ^t/c 13:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New York Cosmos (1971–1985) → New York Cosmos – Although this move to a disambiguation page was done in good faith - this page should go back to New York Cosmos with the {{for}} hatnote being sufficient to redirect those seeking the new team. Although the (1971-1985) disambiguation page may eventually be the page where this content settles, it is too soon to assume that this latest resurrection of the Cosmos brand will have long-lasting impact enough to displace the original team as the WP:Primary Topic. --Relisted Cúchullain ^t/c 15:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC) Bloodzeed (talk) 14:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would support this, but then I would say the same about North American Soccer League (1968–1984), which seems to have been rejected. What does grok.se reveal? jnestorius^(talk) 12:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support per my immediately preceding comments. No way is a newly formed minor league team equal in notability to this legendary team. oknazevad (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Just like the situations regarding the articles for the NASL, the Seattle Sounders, Portland Timbers, Vancouver Whitecaps, San Jose Earthquakes, Montreal Impact, Tampa Bay Rowdies, and Fort Lauderdale Strikers, this article is about an entity that no longer exists, and the article about the entity that currently exists should be the one that has the primary focus. -- Fifty7 (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary, and current names don't take automatic precedence. Especially when there's no flipping way that the minor league team is on the same level as the major league team that preceded it. Remember, teams in North American sports don't move up levels; even if the owners wind up getting a new, higher level franchise, it's not the same team. oknazevad (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the name Cosmos as part of the pro soccer league in the 70s-80s is much more notable than the other examples you gave. I surveyed some people around the office, "What teams played pro soccer when they were young?" The only team that anyone mentioned without prompting was "Cosmos," when I prompted, "didn't the Sounders (Timbers, Earthquakes, Rowdies,...) have a team then too" - all of them said like, "I'm not sure, I don't remember." Notability is not temporary, and the Cosmos were more notable, IMHO, than the league itself. Bloodzeed (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is the team that everyone thinks of when they think of the Cosmos, not the minor league "new" Cosmos. KitHutch (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Pronunciation

I've removed the unsourced pronunciation. If "Cosmos" is the singular abstract noun meaning "universe", it's pronounced /ˈkɒzməs/,/ˈkɒzmɒs/, or /ˈkɒzmoʊs/; but if it's the plural of "Cosmo", I guess it should be /ˈkɒzmoʊz/. So which is it? "Cosmos" meaning something akin to Galácticos has an obvious appeal. But the origin of the name is by analogy with the NY Metropolitans>Mets : Cosmopolitans>Cosmos, so at least in the early days it ought to have been with /z/. I suspect there is variation between people and possibly over time. Counting contemporary Google news matches for "Cosmos is" and "Cosmos are" indicates a majority favour the plural form. It may be that Carl Sagan's 1980 TV series affected things. Listening to the film of Once in a Lifetime: The Extraordinary Story of the New York Cosmos, the majority of mentions seem to be /ˈkɒzmoʊs/, but it's often hard to tell, and Phil Woosnam and Clive Toye seem to say /ˈkɒzmoʊz/. In any case the film would be WP:OR as a source. jnestorius^(talk) 22:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "Cosmos is"/"Cosmos are" variation can be attributed to the differing usages in North American soccer, where some people use "is" for a team because that's the standard in American sports and others use "are" for a team because that is the standard in soccer (and other sports) elsewhere. For what it's worth, "Cosmos" is definitely short for "Cosmopolitans." -- Fifty7 (talk) 00:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re the is/are difference, see New York Times 25 April 1977 p.58 ("Tornado Tops Cosmos by 2-1 In a Shootout; Cosmos Are Shot Down, 2-1, By Tornado in a Shootout"), which treats "Tornado" as singular, "Cosmos" as plural. As regards "definitely short for", see etymological fallacy. jnestorius^(talk) 11:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the etymology of "Cosmos" as short for "Cosmopolitans" is well established. No fallacy there. But that said, Fifty7 has it backwards when it comes to American sports teams. They usually get plural verbs, as a result of the plural nouns usually used as nicknames. (The New York Giants are the reigning Super Bowl champions.) Only when the city/state/other geographic entitiy name alone is used as shorthand for the team is a singular verb used, as is typical of collective nouns in American English. Singular nicknames are an issue, as they have been so atypical in North American sports that people still aren't sure what to do with them. The Colorado Avalanche, for example, usually wind up with plural verbs, but the Oklahoma City Thunder seem to be getting singular verbs. Still, "Cosmos" is a plural term, short for "Cosmopolitans" (though like the Mets, it's only the short form). Subsequently, the verbs should be plural throughout. The pronunciation is inconsistent; I've heard both from different speakers over the years. oknazevad (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've generally heard "Coz-moez" from Americans, and "Cos-mos" from Anglo-Africans and Englishmen, for what that's worth. —Cliftonian (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fallacy, Oknazevad, is in saying that because the name originally was plural, therefore it permanently is plural. Names can be reinterpreted: e.g. Paralympics originally came from "paraplegic Olympics", but now is taken to mean "parallel Olympics"; "forte" was originally pronounced as a French word, but has been reinterpreted as an Italian word. It's plausible that people who first started talking about the team years after its foundation interpreted "Cosmos" as a singular noun. What's needed for the article (as opposed to the Talk page) is not an assertion from Oknazevad or an anecdote from Cliftonian or a speculation from me but rather a verifiable reliable external source. jnestorius^(talk) 11:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting the Move Again

Virtually all the other NASL teams which have been revived have a date stamp on the original team article. This team is legally the Cosmos, has been advertising as such for four months, and the inaccuracy is being used by the current team's detractors as proof that there is no connection between the teams, when the team's organization is not only adamant that it is, but has the support of all the living members and staff of the original team. Just today it came up again with Wikipedia being "proof" that there were no links between the original team and the current one. They have played two games in England and begin regular league play on Saturday.

Please date stamp this title. The arguments against it are based upon personal preference. In the past four months of preparation, the amount of media coverage given to this "minor league team" has been greater in scope than most MLS teams,which could easily be demonstrated in a Google Trends chart over the past year comparing it to MLS' flagship team and an average team (Sporting KC): http://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=New+York+Cosmos#q=New%20York%20Cosmos%2C%20Los%20Angeles%20Galaxy%2C%20Sporting%20Kansas%20City&date=today%2012-m&cmpt=q 69.117.236.14 (talk) 01:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this was me. DcnJosephSuaiden (talk) 01:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New York Cosmos existence (old team)

I just have one simple question. Why coludn't the old New York Cosmos stay just as it's old team, because Manchester United is one of the oldest football clubs worldwide? --Jutty10 (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on New York Cosmos (1970–85). 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20120523201210/http://www.canadasoccer.com/players/profile.asp?playerid=980&tab=stats to http://www.canadasoccer.com/players/profile.asp?playerid=980&tab=stats

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: 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} 14:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on New York Cosmos (1970–85). 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, 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: 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) 16:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on New York Cosmos (1970–85). 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: 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) 05:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on New York Cosmos (1970–85). 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: 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) 12:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Cosmos cipolletti 1980.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]