Talk:Mount Kitanglad

Apparent problems

I noticed some apparent problems with this article while trying to construct the article List of mountains in the Philippines:

• Name in article: Mount Kitanglad
• Name in cited ref "prominence": Mount Katanglad
• Coords in article: 8°7′42″N 124°55′30″E
• Coords in cited ref "peakbagger": 8° 7' N; 124° 55' E
• Coords in cited ref "prominence": 08º06'57"N 124º55'24"E
• Elevation in article: 2899 m
• Elevation in cited ref "prominence": 2938 m

If anyone cleans these apparent problems up, please clean up affected entries in the List of mountains in the Philippines article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

According to the article, its "officially declared as the fourth highest mountain in the Philippines", yet both Peaklist.org and Peakbagger.com give an elevation that would be second highest.

Not sure what "officially declared" is supposed to imply. The fact that such wording is used for a claim of 4th highest in a country sounds suspicious.--Racerx11 (talk) 14:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

And the article Mount Dulang-dulang claims it(Dulang) to be second highest at 2,938 m. Curious. Gives this for a source.[1]. There's something wrong somewhere.--Racerx11 (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources found that contradict this article

Here's what I have so far (some of it duplicating what the original posting editor provided). Note, not every source agrees with three below. Collectively these threee sources below are the best evidence found so far that supports the notion that a peak named "Mount Kitanglad" is the 2nd highest in the Philippines.

Web page at Peakery.com states:
Name - Mount Katanglad
Elevation - 2,937 m
Elevation rank - Explicitly states the peak as "#2 in Philippines"
Prominence - Not given
Coordinates - None given
Notes - The site has no page for a "Mount Dulang" but has several for peaks with "dulang" as part of their name, mostly in Indonesia, but none in Pilippines. There is however a small label on its map near Katanglan which says "Mount Dulang-dulang" in an apparently low lying area.

at Peakbagger
Name - Mount Katanglad
Elevation - 2,938 m
Elevation rank - None given but states Mount Apo as the "nearest highest neighbor", which would suggest a #2 rank.
Prominence - 2,440 m
Coordinates - 8° 7' N; 124° 55' E
Notes - A search for "Dulang" within this site also returns nothing, but strangely it has the same "Mount Dulang-dulang" label on its map when zoomed in. It appears at the same location as in Peakery's map, just to the WSW of Katanglad.

Peaklist.org Generally considered the most accurate and reliable of sources in matters like this:
Name - Mount Katanglad
Elevation - 2,938 m
Eleavation rank - Not specified and cannot be determined from a list of ultra peaks only, although it is the second highest of the ultras listed.
Prominence - 2,440 m
Coordinates - 08º06'57"N 124º55'24"E
Notes - No peak listed here as "Mount Dulang-dulang" or anything similar, but if the peak is not an ultra (has a prominence of less than 1,500 m which I believe is in fact the case), then it wouldn't be listed here anyway. --Racerx11 (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is my theory. The peak the above sources are talking about is actually Mount Dulang-dulang. They are just calling it "Mount Katanglad" because it is the highest point in the Kitanglad Mountain Range. This is not to say they are the same peak. They are two distinct peaks I believe. There are several sources that mention them in the same sentence as two separate peaks near each other.

So if this is the case, the prominence and coordinates data from this page actually belongs at Mount Dulang-dulang (the prom. and coords appear to be wrong at that page anyway, so it solves that). However, that would leave us with no prominence or coordinates, at the moment, for the peak we are calling Mount Katanglad at this page. The prominence of Mount Kitanglad is probably a very low value if it is indeed very close to a higher peak, so finding a prominence would not be important. Hopefully we would be able to dig up some coordinates for it though. We would then have to add some notes to each article clarifying the discrepancies within the sources.

Of course, all this is just a theory. I really don't know if I identified the source of the confusion or not. Will wait for feedback.--Racerx11 (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort you have put into this, Racerx11. I don't have any special insight into this; I just happened to notice the contradictions when putting together a related article. As I see it, this comes down to a question of the relative reliability and prominence of the sources supporting the differing elevation figures; See Wikipedia policies WP:V and WP:DUE. If several sources judged reliable which are of roughly comparable prominence give figures which differ, I would say that the article should give an approximate elevation figure with a clarifying footnote citing the various supporting sources giving differing exact figures. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. It is difficult to tell from your comment if you really understand what the problem is. Maybe you do. Or maybe I have confused the issue further. Just so we are on the same wavelenth. The 3 sources I listed above, I consider in complete agreement and in support of each other (any differences between them are minor and can be ignored). Collectively they support the notion that Mount Kitanglad is the second highest peak. This is in contradiction to the content of this article. There are no sources cited here that disagree with the 3 I listed above, in fact Peaklist and Peakbagger are used in this article. As a whole the sources cited in this article imply that Kitanglad should be second even though the article states fouth.

It is the source at Mount Dulang-dulang that says Dulang is the second highest and (and this is key) it gives the exact same elevation for Dulang as the three sources I listed above give for Kitanglad (2938 m)! Coincidence? Thre are also several other sources I have found that state Dulang is second at 2938 m and Kitanglad as fourth highest with an elevation of 2899 m. Although these sources I consider inferior to Peaklist and Peakbagger.

In a nutshell, the source at Dulang (are some others), are in agreement with both the WP aricles' content. It is only the sources at Kitanglad that contradict the content of the two WP articles. Yet these are the more reliable sources in my opinion. Peaklist in particular is very thorough and reliable. Which is why the whole thing doesn't make any sense unless one assumes the sources are confusing the names. Is that how you read my above posts? If so, pardon me for backtracking over it all. And sorry if I confused you even more. --Racerx11 (talk) 01:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's my understanding from the above and some googling & noodling

• Mount Dulang-dulang is located here. Mount Kitanglad is located here -- about 4km southwest. This places its lat & long 4.55 km southwest.
• Regarding elevations, the sources say

Mount	Summit elevation
	Peakery	Peakbagger	Peaklist	Pinoy Mountaineer
Kitanglad	2937	2938	2938	2899
Dulang-dulang				2938

The map at the Peakery page for Mt. Kitaglad can be zoomed and panned. It appears to show a peak named Mt. Dulang-dulang a bit southeast of Mt. Kitaglad with an elevation of between 1,800 and 2,000 meters. There appears to be no entry in the Peakery database for that peak, though. The same is true for Peakbagger. Peaklist doesn't mention Mt. Dulang-dulang.

The information at Pinoy Mountaineer differs from the other three sources. I'm guessing, though, that Pinoy Mountaineer is likely to be referred to by people looking for information on Philippine maintains.

It looks to me as if the consensus information from those other three sources should be used in this article, but that a footnote should be provided with the information that the Pinoy Mountaineer source gives the differing figure. I think something similar should be done in the Mount Dulang-dulang article, probably giving the elevation figure from Pinoy Mountaineer there, but footnoting that with the information that though neither Peakery nor Peakbagger contain list a peak with the Mount Dulang-dulang name, both of those sources do show that name on their maps at the expected location at an elevation between 1,800 and 2,000 meters. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

To add a bit to the confusion here, I just noticed that Peakery and Peakbagger both name this peak "Mount Katanglad" (Ka, not an Ki), and the map on their page for it shows a lower peak named "Mount Kitanglad" (Ki) with an elevation a bit above 2,600m a bit north of this one. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Very good. Yes the location of Mount Dulang-dulang name on those zoomable maps was just to the ESE of Katanglad. I said WSW before for some reason. And I agree with your elevation estimate based on the contours.

And wow! Ka in those and Ki here! How the heck did I miss that one as many times typed and pasted that name. I couldn't see the trees though the forest. Peaklist also spells it Katanglad with an "a".

Normally I would agree with your suggestion to change the two articles based on the sources above. In fact, I have done it before, many times on mountain articles. But this seems different and I can't escape the feeling that there more to this than just sources differing in elevation.

Now take a look at this I found at Mountain-forecast.com:

"Mount Kitanglad" (with an i) at Mountain-forecast

Elevation - "9512 ft" (2899 m)

"Mount Dulang-dulang" also at Mountain-forecast

Elevation - "9640 ft" (2938 m)

This is an example of a comprehensive mountain web site listing both mountains and also supporting the current information in WP. But it's "Kitanglad" with an "i".

I just don't know, but the spelling may have a roll. Maybe Peaklist and Peakbagger consider Katanglad (with an a) and Mount Dulang-dulang as the same peak. Since those websites have no entry for the lesser Kitanglad (with an i), then they see no potential confusion. It would then be only the sites that do have info on both peaks to use the name, Mount Dulang-dulang, to distinguish the two. What do you think of that theory?--Racerx11 (talk) 14:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Also I have posted a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains. Maybe someone from there can help out.--Racerx11 (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Eesh. I'm a native of the region. I haven't been there, but I'm quite familiar with the range (I can see it from the house! ;D). It's a popular destination for biologists, university student field trips, and hikers. I would like to clarify that the name is Kitanglad, not Katanglad. Applies to the name of the protected area, the entire range (i.e. all of the peaks, including Mt. Kitanglad and Mt. Dulang-dulang), and one of the peaks. "Katanglad" is probably a typo that got repeated. The fact that those three sites even have the same typo lowers their credibility somewhat. I'm guessing they're confusing the entire range itself with the individual peaks. I'd trust the Pinoy Mountaineer source more, being local. I don't know the exact numbers, but I do know that Dulang-Dulang ("D2") is the highest peak in the range.

Thus when some of those sources say "Kitanglad is the second highest peak of the country" I think they are actually referring to the entire mountain range, which, IIRC has about a dozen peaks(?), with Dulang-Dulang being the highest.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 15:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

P.S. It's also rare, even in nearby towns, for people to refer to the individual peaks by name. We usually just call the entire thing "Mt. Kitanglad".-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 15:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Your explanation in line with what I suspected. I don't know if you are familiar with the concept of topographic prominence, but would you then agree that the prominence and coordinates data quoted in Peaklist and Peakbagger actually belong to "D2" at the Mount Dulang-dulang article?--Racerx11 (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Left peak is Kitanglad, the right peak is Dulang-Dulang Thoroughly confused now!

Dulang-Dulang, seen from the summit of Kitanglad

Nope, I'm afraid not. As I said, I'm no mountaineer so I really can't say. The info above might help make it easier for you to find sources that confirm your suspicions though, without all the confusion as to what peak is what. That said, looking at the Google topographic map in peakbagger, I think the circled area (8.12772,124.925437, labeled "Mt. Katanglad") is Kitanglad, but Dulang-Dulang is not in the middle of what appears to be a valley as it appears there; but the other peak (8.140465,124.911275) surpassing 2800m asl further northwest (this one).

That is in line with how you can see the peaks in the panoramic view in the article which seems to be taken from the Sayre Highway (judging from the pineapple fields), Impasug-ong, looking due south (trace the Sayre Highway to just north of Malaybalay City in Google Maps).

I also think I found the source of the inconsistency. Peaklist is probably the original compiler from which the other two derived their data from. At the top of their list is the caveat: "Please note, summit elevation data is based mostly on maps from the Soviet Union." That probably accounts for the name discrepancy - it was originally in Cyrillic. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok this is starting to make more sense. I agree the maps used in two of the sites are probably mistaken in regard to D2's postion. As for sources copying one another. I am sure this happens on occasion and it may be case here, however I do not believe it to be a regular practice with any of three sites mentioned above. Peaklist and Peakbagger for example often give differeing peak data, sometimes they differ significantly. So in general I believe their research to be independant of each other, although the misspelling of the name does support your suspicions.

I think the data Peaklist and Peakbagger provide is correct, it's just they used the wrong name to identify the peak. Which would be entirely understandable in light of the point you made about most locals calling the entire mountain "Kitanglad". Since these sites cater to climbers, it is possible that climbers refer to this mountain the same as the locals would, since of course they would have to travel there to climb it. But in there own mind they would know the range has different peaks with different names. The highest being "Dulang-dulang".

The misspelling of [Katanglad] can be dismissed as a typo that managed to perpetuate as you suggested. That's my take on everything right now.--Racerx11 (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh and yes, the coordinates. I checked your links, you may be onto something there. We need to find out for sure the coords for each of the two peaks.--Racerx11 (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The coordinates. User:Wtmitchell pointed this out earlier but haven't followed up on it till now:

Dulang-dulang. Using the coodinates link 8°5′52.728″N 124°57′37.8″E (I know ridiculous precision) at current article Mount Dulang-dulang and clicking on 'Wikimapia - Satellite' takes you here[2]. This appears off, as the map indicates Dulang-dulang just to the WNW at 8°6′55″N 124°55′15″E which, doing the same would take you here[3].

Kitanglad. Current coordinates link 8°7′42″N 124°55′30″E in Wikimapia is here[4]. Again this appears off, as the region labeled "Mt. Kitanglad, Kitanglad Mountain Range" is located to the NNW at 8°8′34″N 124°54′45″E which in Wikimapia takes you here[5].

Is this accurate? Can I use these coordinates which correspond to where Wikimapia says these peaks are located?--Racerx11 (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2012 (UT

You guys seem to be on the way to fixing the problems here. I don't have any familiarity either with mountaineering or with the region, so I'll disengage. Before I do that, though, I'll mention one other possible item of confusion which I noticed with the Pinoy Mountaineer source—their article titled "Mt. Dulang-Dulang (2,938+)" has a URL of http://www.pinoymountaineer.com/2007/09/mt-dulang-dulang-2398.html (note 2938 in the title vs. 2398 in the URL). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully we are on the right track. Thanks for your input. You have been very helpful.--Racerx11 (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Ach. I knew it. That would mean the peak I've always viewed as Dulang-Dulang from ground level would be off. :P But then again, as I've said, we locals in the surrounding plains don't take much notice of the names of the peaks, we just determine which the highest and second highest are and name them accordingly, which itself can be affected by where we happen to view it from.

Putting the coordinates of Wikimapia to Google map. Dulang-Dulang would actually be here, the area currently labeled "Mt. Katanglad". While Kitanglad would be here, the area I pointed out earlier as possible Dulang-Dulang. It also reflects the elevations itself, as the "Mt. Katanglad" appears to be higher than the NNW peak.

WikiMapia seems to be edited by the actual locals of the peak itself, I'd go with it. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 06:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

As for the Pinoy Mountaineer url, I think that's just (yet another) typo, heh. Terrain maps in Google clearly show two peaks exceeding 2800m asl.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 06:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Great work already being done here. I don't have much to add here specifically, except to say that confusions like this are common. One example are the peaks of Mt. Putinglupa, Mt. Mahanggulod and Mt.Tuntungin/Tayog Pato... I can't tell whether or not they're properly considered part of Mount Makiling. I wonder if the situation is similar. - Alternativity (talk) 12:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Obsidian Soul. Based on what we have all found out so far, and the helpful insight you have contributed, I think we are very close to making the changes. I think I will rest on this a day or so, to give a chance for anyone else to drop by with more information or to confirm what we have now. After a day or two, I will be happy to make the changes to the two articles and any others affected. I will let you and the other editors who have posted know when this happens so you can review the edits and make any changes/additions.

User:Alternativity, I haven't yet got a chance to look at the situation you have, but I plan to do so soon. Thanks. --Racerx11 (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd urge all to consider WP:V and WP:DUE before making changes based on what WP editors determine must be the true situation, in the face of information from sources considered generally reliable for the topic which conflicts with the true situation as determined by original research done by WP editors. The essays WP:Truth and WP:VNT might be useful too. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point. Let me assure you, I will do my best to avoid violating any policies. I have already read most of what you linked. You have helped out tremendously already, and I would appreciate it if you remained involved with the discussion. Perhaps you could elaborate further or be more specific about your concerns. I should point out that some consideration should be given to the status quo of the WP articles and I do have sources that support the basic elevation claims of the WP articles. Conversly, Peaklist and Peakbagger are great all purpose mountain sources, but they may not be the best for some specific regions of the world. If I get a chance tomorrow, I may draft up my proposed changes so we can go over them. If I don't get it all together then, it actually may be near the end of the week before I have it ready. Would that be ok?--Racerx11 (talk) 05:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I'm only clarifying some of the confusion, I'll leave it to the sources to verify anything. The real question here is whether we should follow Peaklist/Peakbagger (and perpetuate their errors) or follow local sources (which is justifiably more reliable in cases like this).

While the foreign mountaineering sites are generally reliable, in this case it's not. I'm pretty confident they have never been here, what with the entirety of Mindanao often being subject to travel advisories and bans outright due to insurgency and terrorism in the western parts of the island and the Sulu archipelago (traditional Muslim territories, which is not the case for the rest of the island). Even northern Filipinos (Tagalogs, etc.) still have the misconception that all of Mindanao is a warzone.

Anyway, Racerx11 already has the sources. And there are others that can confirm what I've been saying. The following academic paper, for example, are by zoologists visiting the protected area (i.e. they've actually been there). It confirms the heights and spelling pretty easily:

• A. Townsend Peterson, Thomas Brooks, Anita Gamauf, Juan Carlos T. Gonzalez, Neil Aldrin D. Mallari, Guy Dutson, Sarah E. Bush, Dale H. Clayton, & Renato Fernandez (2008). "The Avifauna of Mt. Kitanglad, Bukidnon Province, Mindanao, Philippines" (PDF). Fieldiana: Zoology, New Series (114). Field Museum of Natural History: 1–43.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

And here are more:

• Agnes C. Rola, Antonio T. Sumbalan & Vellorimo J. Suminguit (2004). Realities of the Watershed Management Approach: The Manupali Watershed Experience (PDF). Discussion Paper Series No. 2004-23. Philippine Institute for Development Studies. p. 4.
• Maria Easterluna Luz S. Canoy and Vellorimo J. Suminguit (2001). The Indigenous Peoples of Mt. Kitanglad Range Natural Park (PDF). 2001 Report. Social Watch-Philippines. p. 63.

-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 08:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the sources mentioned above, but citeable secondary sources with local knowledge would be a good thing. See here for my understanding of WP criteria for inclusion of content, and differing criteria for exclusion of content. Based on my understanding, Peakery, Peakbagger, Peaklist, and other sources generally considered reliable for mountaineering information might be excluded as citeable supporting sources for particular assertions if those sources are deemed unreliable by editorial consensus for specific cases where WP editors has been arrived at consensus that those support false assertions in particular cases. I have the impression, though, that WP readers might consider those sources reliable despite editorial consensus arrived at here. I would suggest, therefore, that rather than excluding information by those sources which is considered here to be false, an explanation (perhaps in a footnote) should be included clarifying that the information presented in the article prose is not in complete alignment with the information to be found in popular sources on mountaineering, with cites of such sources. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I actually intend to include several explanatory notes, precisely as you suggest.--Racerx11 (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I've drafted a version of your sandboxed draft with the general sources reorganized into an explicitly cited note. I didn't want to edit your userspace sandbox, so I've put it as User:Wtmitchell/Sandbox. Please take that as suggested changes to your sandboxed draft and incorporate what seems useful. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

If it's worth anything, I think I should say I usually don't even click Peakery, Peakbagger or Peaklist whenever researching a local mountain, even when they turn up first in google searches. (I do a bit of that, exploring the triangle of Makiling-Taal-Banahaw, and the Macolod Corridor in between them.) Because of their lack of confirmation from local sources, these sites are usually my last resort. As sources go, my first resort is usually a map from the National_Mapping_and_Resource_Information_Authority_(Philippines). Sadly I have never attempted to acquire a map covering the Kitanglad mountain range area. - Alternativity (talk) 21:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Point taken, it is very possible that sources normally considered very reliable in general, simply are not very accurate or the most reliable in specific regions of the world.--Racerx11 (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed changes to this article

Sorry it took so long to get around to this but here is my draft of my proposed changes to this article. It is located at my sandbox, User:Racerx11/sandbox. Here would be the diff [6] between the current and proposed versions. I have decided to do this one at a time and start with Mount Kitanglad. I will make the changes to Mount Dulang-dulang shortly after the Kitanglad changes are made. Any feedback appreciated. Thank you. --Racerx11 (talk) 02:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• From a fact checking perspective, it looks good. I do wish the article were longer, but as far as the proposed changes are concerned, this looks great.- Alternativity (talk) 03:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Looks good to me and the note explains it nicely. On an unrelated note: I may have discovered the original Soviet military topographic map which misspells Kitanglad in Topomapper. I was right. It looks ancient and it was in Cyrillic. It is riddled with other misspellings probably as a result of the Latin and Russian alphabets not having 1:1 correspondence or they were not that legible when written by hand originally (e.g. Mailag is spelled Маилиг, "Mailig" instead of Маилаг; Kalasungay is spelled Каласунган, "Kalasungan" instead of Каласунгай). As well as certain oddities that might confuse Latin alphabet readers (e.g. in italics, the Russian lowercase for T and G looks like 'm' and an inverted 's' respectively, which varies significantly from the non-italicized т and г).-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 08:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• At the moment I'm in a situation where I need to ration my online time. I've downloaded copies of the sources you list and will look at them in relation to your rewrite. I don't doubt that the support is in those sources, but I'd prefer explicit cites giving page number info rather than just a listing of these items as general supporting sources. I don't object to your putting your changes into the article as they stand, though. If you do that, I'll probably revisit the article sometime in the future adding <Ref>s to the relevant elevation figures, casting the cited sources as inline citations supporting specific assertions rather than as general references. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Shortly I will be making the live edits to both this article and at Mount Dulang-dulang. Wtmitchell, I am just gonna use your draft afterall. It's darn close to what I had in mind and we can always tweak it later. My version of D2 may need a good once over for errors. Talk to ya later.--Racerx11 (talk) 02:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. If anyone sees something in error or a way to improve on this article or at D2, go for it! --Racerx11 (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mount Kitanglad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111123171821/http://peakery.com/mount-katanglad/ to http://peakery.com/mount-katanglad/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080515200224/http://www.phivolcs.dost.gov.ph/VolInactive.htm to http://www.phivolcs.dost.gov.ph/VolInactive.htm

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) 20:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Science

How many eruption of mount katinglad 112.198.113.135 (talk) 13:38, 17 February 2023 (UTC)