Talk:Pleione (star)#Feedback from Casliber

Okay, one of my pet peeves on wikipedia is overview sections. The idea of sections is dividing text into 'chapters' of related context. However 'overview' is a summary...and the lead is a summary, so hence a second summary is repetitious and redundant. I also like conformity so suggest looking at other Star Featured Articles (eg. Sirius, Tau Ceti, Barnard's Star (ack! It has an overview section!! so RJHall might disagree with me on this...) and rearranging the headings thusly.

• I would convert Overview into Visibility - I'd take out the two sentences starting Pleione nonetheless.. and place at the top of the next section which I'd call Properties which would include the section called Be Star and System - make the last a subsection (level 3 heading).

Anyways, my thoughts. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

::Thanks for the insights. I'm preparing a more substantive reply pursuant to the research you've proposed above. I hope to have something posted here within 24 hours. Sadalsuud (talk) 19:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no problems with overview sections, since some articles have extremely long intro sections, and that should not be the case. The intro should be a short precis, with a longer overview section following, so that you can get the gist of the article in the lead section, and see if you want to read it, or if it's the wrong article, and not what you're looking for. The overview summarizes the article, and if you want details, you can read the rest of it. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 21:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Your feedback on section headings makes sense to me. Standards work. They help users quickly identify what they're looking for. In fact, in thinking about your comments, it occurred to me that they apply not just to this article but star articles in general. As a result, I've decided to take the time to fully investigate this issue with the intention of inviting a discussion for the benefit of any editor interested in star articles. Sorry for the overkill. Once I got into it, it took on a life of its own. The bottom line is that I have wrestled with this issue again and again myself, and so I figured it was best to deal with it head-on, in all of its implications.

In a later section, I also provide additional remarks on the best design for [http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout Optional Sections] as well. It seems to me that having this discussion all in one place might be useful for any editor interested in taking star articles to "FA status".

So... in addition to the 3 articles you reference above (Sirius, Tau Ceti, Barnard's Star), I examined the 3 other "Featured" star articles — Vega, IK Pegasi and Proxima Centauri, the 4 High-Importance "Good" articles — Algol, Altair, Capella and Beta Pictoris, as well as many of the other High-Importance star articles. There are several observations that stand out:

• Each article is quite different in design and organization, although there appear to be 4 or 5 major themes found in each, depending on what makes most sense from an organizational standpoint;
• The 4 or 5 major themes closely correlate with the Starbox structure;
• Current star section nomenclature is quite fuzzy. If you click on "Observation" for instance, you don't know if you will be accessing "Visibility" information or the star's "Observational history"; and
• Star data is highly interconnected making it a challenge to standardize. As you look at each of the 10 articles referenced above, you see significant overlap from section to section. Consequently, it appears that headings (nomenclature) can provide a useful organizational outline, but should not be rigidly adhered to, as the quality of the article would likely suffer. An example of this point is the article on Sirius where orbital characteristics enter into the "Visibility" conversation and mythological elements are addressed in the "Observational History" section. Would we want to completely redesign the article to conform to a definitive structure? Probably not.

Nevertheless, I'm with you. I like structure, or as you call it "conformity". Consequently, if we are interested in creating effective nomenclature for this and potentially future articles, it's useful to distinguish the main themes (primary headings) from the sub-themes (secondary headings). Also given the different headings that are currently being used, I combine them all here on one line so we can compare "apples and apples".

Sadalsuud (talk) 09:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

1. Starbox Section: None
2. Major Headings: Observational history - Observation history - Observation
3. Notable Sub-Themes: Significant discoveries - Major turning points - Disputes - Astronomers (whose research had a major impact).
4. Remarks: This is an important section. Read an article in any astronomical journal, and you notice that astronomers inevitably put their own research into context. That to me is what this section is about, at a rudimentary level. As such, this section simply describes the evolution of different observations — specifically major turning points in our understanding of different stars. In the case of Sirius, there is some overlap with Mythology as it discusses ancient cultures like Egypt. How "Observational History" is distinct from Mythology will likely be a decision each editor will have to make. It might be useful however to keep this "Observational History" section reserved for relatively recent scientific investigation (i.e. after Copernicus). Anything before then can be dealt with in a section or sub-section on Mythology.
5. Nomenclature: The best nomenclature is "Observational History". It's far more descriptive than just the word "Observation" and avoids any confusion due to its similarity with the word "Visibility" (see Visibility, #4 Remarks below). "Observation History", though perhaps grammatically correct, doesn't sound right to my ear.

1. Starbox Sections: Observation Data, Characteristics, and Astrometry
2. Major Headings: Visibility - Visibility and distance - Visibility and location - Motion - Kinematics - Sky appearance - Overview
3. Notable Sub-Themes: Apparent magnitude - Absolute magnitude - Variability (i.e. its many distinctions) - Distance - Location - Radial velocity - Proper motion - Angular distance - Best viewing times - Hipparcos or Hubble telescope information - Telescopic apertures
4. Remarks: The sub-themes can all be effectively addressed under the generic terminology "Visibility". Given the similarity of meanings associated with the words "Visibility" and "Observation", there are some articles that use the two interchangeably, which is problematic (See Proxima Centauri and IK Pegasi) as the respective concepts behind "Observational History" and "Visibility" tend to become fused, thus losing any functionality they might have as major headings. The articles that do the best job of distinguishing the two main themes are Sirius amd Vega. Also, this is the section which makes the widest use of nomenclature, as you point out in your feedback — specifically use of the word "Overview" in the Barnard's Star article and the "Motion" section in Tau Ceti. If you study both those sections, they're "Visibility" sections with related or additional information. Another problem with the word "Overview" is that it's not only redundant, as you point out, but it's so broad that it can encompass anything, making its usefulness somewhat suspect as a major heading. If I originally chose it for Pleione, it was exactly for that reason. You can pretty much write anything you want under that heading. Hmmmmmm!
5. Nomenclature: So, if we want the nomenclature to be distinct, confusing "Observation" with "Visibility" is not useful. The term "Overview" is too general while the heading "Motion" is probably too specific for a major heading. In this respect "Visibility" is likely the better term, particularly if we want it to stand out from "Observational history".

1. Starbox Sections: Details
2. Major Headings: Properties - Physical properties - Astronomical properties - Characteristics - Stellar characteristics
3. Notable Sub-Themes: Mass - Radius - Luminosity - Temperature - Metallicity - Rotation (Oblateness) - Age - Circumstellar environment (Debris disks, Accretion disks, Decretion disks, Planetesimals, Planetary systems)
4. Remarks: With the Properties and System sections, we run into some fundamental organizational challenges. One could argue that the major heading is Properties and the sub-heading is System. However, the reverse can also be true as we see in the case of Sirius. Most of the time, the Properties section will dominate. First of all, it appears that most star systems are single. (See Research Findings). Secondly, with most systems there are comparatively few details available for the orbiting components. So in both of these cases it makes sense to have a Properties section, focus on the main star, and have other themes as sub-headings under Properties. However, if there are many details known for each star in the system or optical pair, then the organization might proceed as it has with Sirius, IK Pegasi, and Algol where the Properties section is scrapped altogether and becomes a subset of System. In conclusion, it appears that both Properties and System are major headings in their own right, to be used whichever way makes the most sense.
5. Nomenclature: It's a toss-up between "Properties" and "Characteristics". I'd vote for "Properties", if only to distinguish it from the Starbox distinction "Characteristics". Given the Starbox usage, the reader doesn't know whether the writer is referring to "Characteristics" in its general sense, or in its restricted "Starbox" sense. So at best the heading "Characteristics" is vague and confusing. That's not useful. The headings "Physical Properties", "Astronomical Properties" or "Stellar Characteristics" are all pretty much redundant. The word "Physical" is doubly problematic as the average reader may not recognize that this adjective refers to "Physics" rather than its typical connotations of "tangible", "corporeal" or "concrete".

1. Starbox Sections: Orbit and Relative Position
2. Major Headings: System - Star system - Stellar system - System components - Binary star - Double star - Triple star - Optical double - Optical companion - Visual companions
3. Notable Sub-Sections: Orbital characteristics, Relative position, Circumstellar environment (Debris disks, Accretion disks, Decretion disks, Planetesimals, Planetary systems), The star's neighborhood.
4. Remarks: There are several challenges here. "System" is clearly the most succinct terminology. But what do you do in the case of a star where both a star system and planetary system exist? (See Upsilon Andromedae). Do you call one "System" and the other "Planetary System"? Perhaps. It seems to me however, that with more and more planetary discoveries occurring, the term "System" becomes more ambiguous with time and therefore not so useful as a major heading. As technology evolves, we may find that most stars have planets orbiting them, making the distinction between "Star System" and "Planetary System" even more important. In any event, clearly delineating between the two seems like the best way to go to me. A second problem is when no system has been identified and there is but a line-of-sight Double star in existence. In this case, given the ambiguity surrounding the default nomenclature of Double Star (see Talk:Double star), I'd prefer to use more accurate and comprehensive terminology like "Adjacent stars" or "Contiguous Stars" — that way avoiding the ambiguity associated therewith. "Visual companions" seems to avoid that ambiguity (See Capella). But the word "companion" is typically associated with binary stars, so to me that nomenclature doesn't really solve the problem either. Whether editors are comfortable inventing new terminology like "Adjacent Stars" is another question open for debate. I just toss it out here as a possibility. Finally the third problem has to do with whether a "Planetary system" should exist as a major heading in its own right. I deal with this more in the next section "Other main themes?". As I point out below, the term "Circumstellar environment" is the broader concept and is probably more useful if there is simply speculation occurring.
5. Nomenclature: There are a lot of options here, and so the choice is to either allow them to all have their time in the Sun (sorry for the pun) or make some arbitrary decisions. "Star System" and "Planetary System" would get my vote as major headings for reasons just discussed. Qualitative terminology like "binary", "ternary", "quadruple" is not useful for a major heading and would serve better as a sub-heading. If there is no star system, then my vote would be to create the distinction "Adjacent stars" and give it some momentum.

1. Starbox Section: None
2. Major Headings: Etymology and cultural significance - Etymology, mythology, and culture - Other names - Other names and history - Etymology and cultural associations - Myths - Legacy
3. Notable Sub-Themes: Etymology - Mythology - Astrology - Cultural significance - Press - General fiction - Science fiction - Modern legacy
4. Remarks: This is a fairly diverse group of sub-themes — a kind of Smörgåsbord really — where oddly each dish tries to show up on the main menu at one point or another. The pivotal concept behind all these themes however is culture and its impact — both yesterday and today. So instead of using arbitrary combinations of the above sub-themes or restricting oneself to one or two, a more elegant solution would be to come up with one phrase that captures all possibilities. "Ethnological influences" or "Ethnological impact" are two possibilities that come to mind. Given that the term "Ethnology" is typically defined as that science which analyzes and compares human civilizations, cultures — their social structure, language, religion, mythology and technology, the two headings just proposed appear to encompass all the different nuances that this section requires. Perhaps there are better ones. But these are the two that grab my attention.
5. Nomenclature: "Etymology and cultural significance" is fairly well established as a heading. In my mind it doesn't capture all the possibilities. We can stick with it simply because of the momentum it's already gained or we can come up with a better phrase that is a more accurate description of the overall section.

After taking 4 days to investigate this issue in detail I have come to a few conclusions:

• It appears that editors are generally looking for some kind of structure in the design of these articles, if only for the fact that you see the same headings being replicated everywhere;
• Whether we want to standardize the main headings should be a consensus decision of the Wikipedia community. I've just tried to pull all the pieces together in one place so we can step back and take a good look at this issue;
• There is possibly an informal MOS rule that we might want to adopt for star articles:

::Major Headings should be standardized terms common to stars in general (i.e. Visibility, Properties, etc.); minor headings are descriptive, even colorful and evocative terms that point to the unique characteristics of each star.

1. Major Headings: Planetary system - Life and planet searches - Claims of a planetary system - Possibility of planets - Circumbinary planets - Potential for life
2. Remarks: If planets have been discovered orbiting a particular star and their orbits identified, then "Planetary system" functions well as a main heading (See Vega, Epsilon Eridani, and especially List of planetary systems). If there is simply speculation to this effect (Tau Ceti, Beta Pictoris), then "Planetary system" will likely function better as a sub-heading under "Circumstellar environment", "Properties", or "Star System". I don't think that "Claims of a planetary system" makes sense as a major heading. If we are truly interested in consistent phraseology, "Planetary system" should be sufficient. The notion of claims can be discussed in the body of the article or in a sub-heading.
3. Nomenclature: Planetary system is the best term for a major heading. The others could function OK as sub-headings, although once "Planetary system" is established in an article, an editor might want to get more creative with the sub-headings pointing to the some of the unique claims or controversies that exist.

1. Major Headings: Circumstellar environment, Circumstellar envelope, Circumstellar matter, Circumstellar disks
2. Remarks: The concept of "Circumstellar environment" is both useful, but challenging. One could argue that it should only serve as a sub-heading under "Properties" or "System". If there is only 1-2 paragraphs on the subject, then that would make sense. But if there is a lot of information, (See Beta Pictoris), or if there is speculation regarding the existence of a planetary system, I would argue that it is better off as a major heading.
3. Nomenclature: Each of the different terms above seem to work well to describe the space surrounding a star (i.e. Accretion, Debris and Protoplanetary disks, Planetesimals, the gaseous disk surrounding Be stars etc.). "Circumstellar environment" appears to be the most generic, and therefore useful as a term to agglomerate multiple concepts. The term "Circumstellar envelope" has already gained some momentum to describe the effects of the stellar wind, and like the term "Circumstellar disks" might be too specific for use as a major heading. "Circumstellar matter" also seems to work well.

1. Major Headings: The star's neighbourhood
2. Remarks: This section heading for Barnard's Star bothers me for a few reasons. First it's not consistent with Wikipedia MOS rules—use of the word "The" in a heading. Secondly, it's meaning is a little fuzzy. A better phrase which is seen in different articles is "Stellar neighbourhood". The difference is perhaps subtle, but it points more to the concept of "neighbouring stars" than the star's immediate neighbourhood—a notion which is too closely aligned with "Circumstellar environment" for my liking. If editors have other thoughts on this, I'd be happy to hear them.
3. Nomenclature: Other possible headings: Stellar neighbourhood - Nearby stars -

==== Dust stream ====

1. Major Headings: Dust stream
2. Remarks: I don't know about this topic as a major heading (See Beta Pictoris). In reading this section, it appears that the author wanted to distinguish between phenomena that is gravitationally bound to a star or system (i.e. circumstellar environment) and that which is not. In that case, maybe "Dust Stream" fits better as a sub-theme under "Stellar Neighborhood". Maybe it doesn't. Moreover, maybe there are other phenomena that occur in the local "neighborhood" that could be also included under this umbrella. (i.e. Rogue Planets, Interplanetary medium... any thoughts?) It just seems that "Dust stream" is too specific a concept to serve as a major heading and would do better as a sub-heading.
3. Nomenclature: ???

1. Major Headings: Interstellar travel
2. Remarks: Though different from the above, it's closely related to "Life and planet searches" (See Proxima Centauri). If we see a technological breakthrough where we can travel to close stars, it's not inconceivable that we will be able to travel to distant stars as well. But where we will travel to? Other stars? I don't think so. Not in a physical spaceship anyway. So the two headings "Interstellar Travel" and "Life and planet searches", though apparently different, are closely related. I don't see this topic showing up too often in star articles. As a "stand-alone" it works fine for me.
3. Nomenclature: Interstellar travel

1. Major Headings: Future evolution - Evolution - Fate - Supernova
2. Remarks: Once again, I can see how a section with this heading can work. It's distinct, although it could be argued that it would find a better place as a sub-heading under "Properties" or "Star System". With the star IK Pegasi the term "evolution" is used twice — as a heading and sub-heading. I'm not so sure that's a good use of nomenclature, as the word "evolution" tends to connote past, present and future in my mind. Consequently, the double usage seems a little fuzzy. As a sub-heading under Properties, more descriptive terminology would make a lot of sense so as to capture the reader's attention.
3. Nomenclature: I tend to prefer the word "Fate" over "Future evolution" for a major heading It's simpler and captures the basic concept better. As a sub-heading under Properties, any distinctive phrase that relates specifically to the star itself would be best.

==== Current research ====

1. Major Headings: Current research - Current inquiry - Pivotal research - New findings - Current issues - Innovative theories - Cutting edge - Cutting edge research - Unresolved mysteries
2. Remarks: I've not seen a section like this in a star article. I just toss it out as a possibility to consider. The article that comes closest is the Current issues section in the H II region article. In any event, what we know today about a star may well be ancient history in 100 years. And the fact is that research is going on today that could significantly alter that equation. So what this section would be dedicated to is that research. As I see it, the fundamental design of an encyclopedia is to provide rigorous, well written, well researched information for as wide a spectrum of the population as possible. The point has been made in other talk pages that the Astronomy section in Wikipedia is essentially for amateur astronomers. A section like this could potentially alter that if it were well written and extremely well referenced. Anyway, just a thought to see what everyone thinks.
3. Nomenclature: I like each of the above headings for different reasons. "Current issues" puts the focus on debate. "Cutting edge", "Pivotal research", "Innovative theories" implies the most up-to-date inquiry that is going on.

In addition to the general Wikipedia guidelines provided at the Guide to layout and External links pages, I propose some additional ideas that I believe can significantly improve the quality of star articles.

• Remarks: There are many top level articles that are specifically germane to each star article and should be included here. Also, the Lists of stars by constellation provides a phenomenal listing which I believe should be included in all "See Also" sections if only for the fact that it helps the reader get to any other star article quickly. The format that I'm using is:
• Lists of stars in the constellation Taurus

:as I believe that highlighting both the general list and the specific constellation list is helpful.

• Remarks: The primary reason given for referencing Wikipedia articles is to provide valuable source data for "any material challenged or likely to be challenged" — in one word: credibility. But there is another reason which I believe is equally important and which various contributors have commented on. It's the ability for researchers — specifically high school and university students — to quickly access relevant source material. So the way I see it is that if we as editors are doing a lot of that work already in reading relevant source material, why not give readers the benefit of that effort. In light of this, I've noticed a simple trick that editors have used to enable readers to get to the actual source material with just 2 clicks. Here's an example from the Pleione article: {{cite journal

| author=McAlister, Harold A.; Hartkopf, William I.; Sowell, James R.; Dombrowski, Edmund G.; Franz, Otto G.

| title=ICCD speckle observations of binary stars. IV - Measurements during 1986-1988 from the Kitt Peak 4 M telescope

| journal=Astronomical Journal

| year=1989

| volume=97

| pages=510-531

| url=http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1989AJ.....97..510M&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf

| format=PDF

| accessdate=2010-06-13

| bibcode=1989AJ.....97..510M

| doi=10.1086/115001}}

{{reflist}}

: One click on the above title link "ICCD speckle observations of binary stars" and you're already at the source material. That's useful. And the more we as editors adopt this approach where it makes sense, the more valuable, it seems to me, these articles become.

• Design: In addition to the guidelines identified in the Citation styles of the Citing Sources page, the above coding yields some additional design approaches that I find useful for astronomy articles in general. In the above reference example, you'll notice that you actually have an opportunity to provide 3 url links (in red). The first occurs with the "url tag" itself, the 2nd with the "bibcode tag" and the third with the "doi tag". The bibcode tag takes you to the ADS page which provides an abstract and relevant source information. The doi tag will usually take you to the journal itself, which is helpful. And the url tag? Originally I was just copying the ADS url and placing it alongside the url tag. Well that wasn't too useful, I realized... two links going to the same webpage. Why not use the url tag to go directly to the article. In doing so, you also get a PDF logo in the reference itself — all of which triggers a "One click — Ah! Ha!" in the mind of the reader. As a result, I suggest that this methodology be used when appropriate to enhance the overall usability of the star articles. The only exception to this practice, I would offer, is if the pdf file takes a long time to download, thus tying up the user's processor too long. Otherwise, I think's is a useful tool that will only enhance Wikipedia's functionality long term.

• Remarks: The best use I've seen of this section in a star article is with IK Pegasi. Most of the time, however, I don't think that this is a necessary section for star articles as this information can be included in the "Reference" section. If there are a lot of formulas, as with the IK Pegasi article, then a Notes section like this makes sense.

• Remarks: There is not much to add here in addition to the information provided by the Wikipedia external links page except to say that I'm a big believer in referencing APOD pictures. I once read an article where the author made the point that everyone has in their genetic make-up what they jokingly referred to as an "astronomy gene" — the "Wow Factor!!!". It's one of the main reasons that people are attracted to astronomy and APOD has done a remarkable job in advancing that cause. Also, APOD has been in existence for roughly 15 years. That's 15 X 365 pictures — a lot! So as I see it, there's a real "win-win" with the Wikipedia "database" linking to those pictures, where appropriate, and for editors selecting those pictures that are particularly relevant to the theme of the article.
• Formatting: In terms of formating these links, sometimes the actual title of the APOD pic is useful, sometimes not. It's really a judgment call. Generally, it's better to use a caption that references back to the Wikipedia article in question. For instance in APOD Pic#1 below, the caption "Orion, the giant huntsman, in pursuit of the Pleiades" is far more relevant to the Mythology section of the Pleione article than the actual title "Moonset Over Pleasant Bay". Other mistakes, in my opinion, can be seen with this example "Astronomy Picture of the Day - 2009 December 5". To me, the acronym APOD is sufficient, especially as an xref to APOD itself, and 2) the date is mostly irrelevant. What's relevant, is how the picture enhances the article. In terms of general formating, I've found the following helpful; it's simple and to the point:

:*APOD Pictures:

:# [http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap100329.html Orion, the giant huntsman, in pursuit of the Pleiades]

:# [http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap091205.html Himalayan Skyscape]

:# [http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap090212.html Pleiades and the Milky Way]

:# [http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap071122.html Pleiades and the Interstellar Medium]

==== Long intros ====

• Remarks: Contributor 76.66.195.196 makes an interesting point regarding "Long Intros". My own view is that Intro sections should not be more than 20 lines or so, introducing the most notable features of the star that will be discussed in detail later in the article under the appropriate headings. Otherwise they become unwieldy, convey too much information, meander, and as such fail to make the appropriate connections. I don't know what other people's thoughts are on this, but my sense is that articles work better if the intro is an intro — that is to say it introduces the main topics and doesn't try to provide an exhaustive summary or overview.

• Remarks: I don't know if we want to standardize the sequence of main headings as well. It might be "too much structure" for some people's liking. But I'm very much on the same wavelength as Contributor 76.66.195.196 regarding their "short precis" comments. Most users, before they come to a page, already have an idea of what they are looking for. So in addition to a "short precis", clear nomenclature and sequence get users to where they want to go quickly, making Wikipedia that much more usable.
• Sequence: If we do decide on some kind of sequence structure, I tend to like the sequence that is hinted at in the sub-section Main themes and sub-themes and echoed in the Sirius and Vega featured articles. The reasons would be as follows:

1. Observational history: It provides a historical context, which is always useful before you dig into the specifics.
2. Visibility: This is typically our most immediate experience... viewing the star.
3. Properties: With most stars, "Properties" will be the main and most important section, so I think it comes third.
4. Star system: In order of importance, Star system comes next, unless, as already noted above, there is so much information on a system that it makes more sense to scrap the "Properties" section altogether.
5. Other main themes: All other main themes come here, in whatever sequence makes the most sense.
6. Ethnological impact: Issues like etymology or mythology I've seen at the beginning of articles. But that doesn't make any sense to me as it is largely ancillary to the main purpose of the article. So as I see it, this section should probably be the last section before the Optional sections like "See Also".

Just my thoughts. Sadalsuud (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

{{Talk:Pleione (star)/GA1}}

The Modern legacy sub-section refers to a 1955 Time-Life article with an illustration from Chesley Bonestell. Does anyone have access to that illustration, or possibly a photograph of the painting? Can we get it uploaded? The year 1955 was a long time ago. It would be great if we could include this illustration in the article.--Sadalsuud (talk) 13:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pleione (star). 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 {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://ww.marbleheadiod.com/8mr/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100217064337/http://www.tayloryachtdesigns.com/yacht_design.php to http://www.tayloryachtdesigns.com/yacht_design.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)