User talk:Rlink2/Archive 3

Internet archive

I'm forced to sort out the nonsense from the above, especially regarding archiving anything other than videos for sure and then also videos now that Internet Archive did some trivial fix. You have completely conflated preemptive archiving to just automatically mean all websites of all kinds being archived onto one random hobbyist's proprietary blob site at ghostarchive. And you're just running train in the discussions above, usually cherrypicking all kinds of random archive sites by name except the one real one, Archive.org. "i've been edit thanked like 5 or 10 times for my preempt archive efforts, so consensus is clearly leaning positive" That is pure magical thinking, gratuitous confirmation bias, not remotely any indication of consensus whatsoever. You waged a unilateral spam fest without discussion, there's no such thing as an "unthank" indicator, and there's no specific indication of what they're thanking you for. You made that up. Ya don't just do whatever ya want until stopped by other people. "If ghost goes down, then we will be back at where we started (which is before ghostarchive)" No we won't; when it inevitably goes away, then we'll have a crapload of spam to needlessly remove instead of simply having used the real site, Archive.org. "its not like ghost is archiving stuff that archive.org or archive.today or webcitation could do and then if ghost goes down, we miss that opportunity" Yes it is! This bayesian theory stuff is an alien magical sliver of an idea completely outside of all practical reality. Stuff like that doesn't need a magical statistic to demonstrate unreliability; it's patently obvious because that site is one person's hobby taking on the world's biggest tasks without millions of dollars of infrastructure and staff. And the owner's rationale of blowing off the concern of the existence of operational costs because all resources only get cheaper is just childish nonsense because the consumption can only go up! There is no oversight or even insight of who that is and what he or any attacker could be doing with the content. Stop and revert all the needless ghostarchive spam, and sabotaging of bots via {{cbignore}}, in favor of IA. And thanks for using open, reliable, accountable archiving there whenever at all possible. — Smuckola (talk) 08:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

99% of all ghostarchive links are videos, and you have excluded that out of the discussion. I think testing the reliability of an archive site is important, hence why I am only really using it for Youtube videos right now, since those can't be done anywhere else like i explained before, PLUS there is a sense of urgency. Read Youtube removing unlisted videos, then dislikes, etc. Soon the actual video will be gone ;) When they made videos unlisted, do you know how many videos we lost permanently? They only give a months notice, which is not enough. Youtube links are more likely to die out than other resources so I have been archiving those recently. And when a Youtube link is dead, I ALWAYS replace it with an archive.org link, even if ghost may have an copy (sometimes they do). My youtube archive run is not limited to just preempt archiving, lots more than that actually. The only way to see if any archive site is any good is to actually use it.

Second of all, other archive sites only serve to make Archive.org better. Archive.today was the first to come up with the ideas of breaking paywalls, hence I almost always use archive.today for paywall archiving (nytimes, wsj). Now ghost and archive.org can also bypass paywalls, but I respect archive.todays innovation in that field, just like anyone should. And i give archive.today the respect they need by using them for paywall sites basically exclusively. You know what else archive.today came up with first? On demand archiving, before archive.today you couldn't archive a page on demand on the wayback machine. Similarly, ghostarchive came up with proper Youtube archiving first. And then all of a sudden Archive.org wants to modernize their Youtube pipeline. I believe the existence of other archive sites only serves to make archive.org better.

Also, your statement of archive.org being the only "true" archive makes it hard to take your message seriously. So can someone else come out and say that Webcitation was the "true" archive site and we should ban all other sites? Archive.today is also run by one person as well, and he also said the exact same thing about storage getting cheaper. Everything you are saying about ghostarchive can be said about archive.today, and we are using both websites. We do not know Archive.today or ghostarchive's source of funding, and I don't care about it either. All that matters is that they provide a reliable service and they have done exactly that. If they stop doing that we will stop using them. No one has brought up any technical issues with ghostarchive or archive.today. I think I have donated to the IA, and literal EMPLOYEES of the IA said Ghost is fine with them. There is no bigger fan of the Internet Archive on Wikipedia than me. And the bayseian thing isn't crap, even the archive.today owner talked about it in one of his blog posts.

"when it inevitably goes away" - What makes you think that? I have full confidence in all of the archiving sites out there. I read archive.today and ghostarchive's blog, and I read the IA's email newsletter. Why do you think i initiated the charge to convert all archive.* mirrors to archive.today per the archive.today's owner request? Because making sure all the archives work is important to me and is to everyone as well.

I'll stay away from preempting archiving anything for a while, maybe. I think i'll transition to preempt archiving paywalls with archive.today for some time at the very least. And if not, I have other stuff to do on here.

And it's not my fault IABot hasn't fixed anything yet. I think brownhairedgirls' iabot bug is way more important than ghost support and that hasn't been done yet. That has no role in saying if we use an archive site or not. Webrecorder.io also suffers from the cbignore bug. At the end of the day, we Wikipedians can use whatever archive site we want. If IA was the only "true" archive site then there wouldn't be 20 other providers on that list. I'm open to ideas over how different archive sites can be used in different capacities. Rlink2 (talk) 12:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please note that although ghostarchive urls use an 8 digit timestamp, archive.org uses a 14 digit timestamp. Simply using an 8 figure timestamp causes an error, such as at [1] and [2]. Additionally, in the first edit linked to, some of the archive.org links you added don't actually exist. (I didn't check Sonic the Hedgehog 2). Regards. --John B123 (talk) 09:38, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@John B123: Thanks for the trout slap, i forgot cs1 template treats archive.org sightly differently. And i did archive those pages at archive.org, so don't know what happened. Next time i should wait until the page archives completely, maybe leaving the page abandons the archive attempt. Rlink2 (talk) 20:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mini Basketball

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minibasket Can you put this in English it’s a variation of Basketball 96.61.3.169 (talk) 13:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks interesting, maybe I will do this as I have been looking for content to write about Rlink2 (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it seems like it wasn't notable enough or something: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini_Basketball . Sorry, it looked interesting though. Rlink2 (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mini_Basketball How about this article just wondering ZanerG19 (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Filling bare refs

Hi again. When filling bare refs, adding a title with a pipe (|) in it causes an error unless you change the pipe to {{!}} - see for example [3]. Category:CS1 errors: unrecognized parameter now contains 61 articles which, with possibly a few exceptions, seem to have errors caused by your filling of bare refs. Please preview your work for errors before submitting. --John B123 (talk) 14:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@John B123: Ok, i will go back and fix those errors, and won't make them again. Is there any other special characters I should be aware of, or is there a list somewhere? Rlink2 (talk) 14:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know it's only the pipe that causes problems as when the reference is parsed, it see | as the start of a new parameter. If you get a url with a | in it (which doesn't occur very often), you need to replace | with %7C as {{!}} are legitimate url characters (% followed by two digits is a UTF replacement code that doesn't alter the url). --John B123 (talk) 15:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, with paywall sites you need to use |url-access=subscription, url-status is to show if the link is dead or not ([4]) Regards --John B123 (talk) 15:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I saw url-status=subscription somewhere, so I assumed that was what I should use. Maybe i just misread it. I will use url-access from now on. Rlink2 (talk) 15:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Before you say anything, I already caught and have fixed some of my missing archive-dates. Luckily it wasn't that much. Rlink2 (talk) 00:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021

Hello, just to remind you that the other user is adding things where he's not supposed to I added warning be still not obeying so can you block him? 148.252.129.26 (talk) 13:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube videos

Hi. When filling refs for YouTube videos and adding an archive-url, you also need to add archive-date, eg [5]. See CS1 errors: archive-url. (I've already corrected a few). Regards --John B123 (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to add it, me hasn't been doing youtube archiving for a while. I did few yesterday because Brownhaired was asking for help about the youtube bare backlog. Rlink2 (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the EFootball (Series) page.

Hello, Rlink2. I have made some changes on this page: EFootball (series). Please do not change it back just because I put the EFootball 2022. I hope the information I put on the game is correct. (Check page for details: EFootball 2022.) I hope you read this. - BayernMunichFan. BayernMunichFan (talk) 00:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hello. Can you write my Wikipedia page? Please let me know. Thank you. -jenna- 68.57.101.57 (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube archival edits

Hi. Thanks for your recent work on youtube archiving. I had a couple of questions. First, was there a discussion somewhere where people had a consensus that these edits were desirable? And second, would you mind filling out a WP:BRFA for them? 25 edits per minute is somewhat high and they do seem to be filling up RecentChanges a bit. Thanks again. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, regarding the archive fixes, I filed a BRFA, but no one has looked at it yet, see here Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Rlink2_Bot. I will try to slow down from now on, under 10 edits a minute. And my edits were mostly bare ref fixes, with archives on the side, there is general consensus towards fixing bare references. Rlink2 (talk) 04:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding edits like this, you only need one archiving service, not two; and the archiving information should be placed in the appropriate parameters of {{cite AV media}}, i.e. |archive-url=|archive-date=|url-status=|archive-format= as with other CS1 templates. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:13, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hey there, I always see you around with your useful contributions at the village pump. I have been using only one link for YouTube up until fairly recently. Two archive links for Youtube seems to make everyone happy, and WP:LINKROT says multiple archive links are fine, but I can return to only using one archive link in my bare ref fixes if that is what you want. Rlink2 (talk) 14:12, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Ghostarchive and Wayback Machine, which is considered to be the more stable? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: Your question is funnily timed because as of me writing this comment the Wayback machine is down, the outage started shortly after you wrote your comment. Might be the most ironic and fore-shadowy talk page message ever posted on Wikipedia. Another reason for having two archive links.

Anyway, both are suitable for archiving normal webpages. For Youtube videos the situation is a bit different. When the wayback machine is back up I can post a more detailed comparison, usually Ghostarchive is faster than the Wayback when it comes to Youtube. Also keep in mind that submitting a Youtube video to the Wayback machine takes a week or two for it to archive, while ghostarchive is instant. No other site allows for real time youtube archival. Many of the Wayback machine youtube links i have placed on't have the video stored, but they do contain comments sometimes. Rlink2 (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, we would do it like this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your style it is then, provided no one opposes. Thanks for your feedback. Rlink2 (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Came here to see if the subject had been raised. For what it's worth I'm of opinion that two links is excessive. The formatting of the template with archive data within the parameters is important including the archive date. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The use of Template:Cbignore - what's the thinking behind that? GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{cite web}} also accepts the same params, as here. I don't know of any cite template that doesn't. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:48, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: Thank you for your feedback. That makes two, I will immediately switch to the your way (which is the right way IMO) for cite template references. To answer @GraemeLeggett:'s question, Template:Cbignore is placed to fix a bug with IAbot, which will likely not be fixed in a while, seeing how the more important access date bug still hasn't been fixed. I would prefer to use one archive site, and now there is consensus to do so.

For links in the external link section, the only option is to add the archive link outside of the link because cite templates are disallowed in external link sections. The way I do it is similar to how the Template:Webarchive template does it - I prefer consistency. Example edit: Special:Diff/1059920100. Is there any problem with this one?

What should we do for external links in references (e.g: <ref>[https://youtube.com Youtube Video] about article</ref>). Technically it's not a bare ref. Would it be appropriate to add an archived link (only one) but in the style I used above? It seems like others have been using the style I have for this too, see the 101st reference at Internet.

I really appreciate you taking the time to explain this. Rlink2 (talk) 12:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The External links section doesn't contain references but for information sources outside what is on the page and LinkRot is not relevant to the verifiability of the content. For the Brain example (Special:Diff/1059920100), I'd say no archive link is necessary and adding it (particularly in front of the actual link) adds clutter and is not desired. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:16, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK good to know. So then, what is the point of the Webarchive template? It says its for external links. Rlink2 (talk) 13:18, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

“Auteur” entry

Hi,

Have no clue about how to edit anything in Wikipedia, but am writing here because you were the last to edit the entry for “auteur.”

Correct term should be “mise-en-scène,” feminine, not “mis-en-scène”

Thanks Claudio I Meier 2601:3C2:8380:B540:E5C6:9F5D:DC31:E77B (talk) 04:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

FYI: Wiki links can be used in edit summaries, e.g. [[page name]] instead of "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/[page name]".

Regards -Fnlayson (talk) 14:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Rlink2 (talk) 23:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I need your help can you review the article I created for Joaquin Domagoso.

Good day, I would have asked for help because someone proposed a deletion in the article I created, he said no because he is the mayor's son, this is not a basis to say that he is an actor and he doesn't have any significant roles on television. I also have a list of shows and series that he voted for me not to be deleted and someone also helped, I hope you can help me thank you. --7starunited (talk) 02:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]