User talk:Rlink2

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For your lightning fast anti vandalism work! Krillzyx (talk) 19:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Bare URL tweet refs

Hi Rlink2

Please can you not do edits like this[1], where a bare URL tweet ref was replaced with the generic title "Twitter".

• Old: https://twitter.com/itselliotknight/status/1134319123217784832
• New: {{cite web| url = https://twitter.com/itselliotknight/status/1134319123217784832| title = Twitter}}

... which renders as:

• Old: https://twitter.com/itselliotknight/status/1134319123217784832
• New: "Twitter".

Your edit leaves the ref less informative than the bare URL. A cite template using a generic value for |title= is almost never than the bare URL.

I fear that your tools may have created many of the >940 such refs I mentioned at User_talk:TheSandDoctor#Tweet_using_cite_web_with_generic_titles.

If a tweet ref is left bare, then TweetCiteBot can fill it properly, using {{Cite tweet}}. Please can you revert any such changes you made? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:22, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: Oh, I am so so sorry. I will rectify this immediately, even the ones that I didn't add with a generic Twitter title. I think I remember there was some sort of bug with Twitter which i fixed in the tool. There are still many of the old ones left, so I'll repurpose the tool to just add the better title. And the ones that it can't handle I will convert back to bare refs for SandDoctor's bot. Rlink2 (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Unless your tool can do as good a job as TweetCiteBot, it's better to leave it to TweetCiteBot.

A better filling of {{Cite web}} is nowhere near as good as {{Cite tweet}}. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:13, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: Oh, I didn't know that. Makes my job way easier then. Will just convert all to bare refs then, and leave the rest to TweetCiteBot. Thanks for the assumption of good faith. Rlink2 (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. That sounds good.

Are there any other circumstances where your tools can add a generic title? In my view, filing a ref with a generic title is always unhelpful; the bare link is better. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Your help is needed

Hello, Rlink2. You have new messages at Citation bot's talk page.
Message added 07:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm trying to confirm and have changed John Godina's Olympic Medal Status. I know him from army family life decades and decades. His Silver Medal was changed to Gold because the gold medalist failed drug tests. John deserves historical recognition. PjinLauderdale (talk) 13:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Fort Worth

Great work on refs. Didn't even notice that while I was scouring for grammatical and spelling errors. 99.106.93.88 (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page, since you are an IP editor Rlink2 (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for doing a yeoman's job fixing the bare URLs on so many articles. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: thank you for your extremely kind message. People like you keep me going, I really appreciate it Rlink2 (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Converting bare URLs

Hello, I was wondering if you could modify your Converting bare URLs task. For example in this change the text "The Star" should not be part of the title but should go in the |work= or one of its alias fields. It would also be good if the |achive-date= field followed the appropiate article style, day or month first when specified, rather than always using ISO style. Keith D (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Keith D: Regarding the "work" and "website" fields, I honestly don't know much about them. There was a discussion on the Cite bot talk page about a similar field that caused quite a stir, from what I've seen. I'm assuming the name of the publication goes in the "work" field? If so I can do that for news organizations.

News organisations would go in the |publisher= field, as would other organisations such as council names. Keith D (talk) 00:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I just read the CS1 documentation regarding this. I will try to incorporate this into the fixes if I can. Rlink2 (talk)

I had a fix for the date style in one of my configs, I have just placed it in all of my other configs (including the bare ref one). Thank you. Rlink2 (talk)

Thanks. Keith D (talk) 00:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	You fix bare URLs and References so quick! Have a barnstar. Severestorm28 04:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Severestorm28: Thank you very much for your exteremly kind message. We need more of this kindness and civility on Wikipedia. And I appreciate your work on RC patrol as well. Rlink2 (talk) 04:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

News story

This edit. I guess I'm not persuaded that 'News story' is much of an improvement over 'Archived copy'. In fact, mass replacement of known bad titles with generic non-titles means that we will lose track of those citations so they may never get proper titles. Yeah, I understand that what you are attempting is difficult and I understand that success is dependant to a fairly great extent upon the quality of the source's metadata – which is why I don't like auto-filling by WP:RefToolbar or VE (too much junk and too many editors accepting what the tool suggests because the-tool-can't-be-wrong-or-it-wouldn't-do-what-it-does, right?). At least with 'Archived copy' it's obvious to both editors and readers that there is a title missing; 'News story' might actually be a title for something.

cs1|2 knows about 'Archive title' and tracks templates with that title so that (someday) the citation might be repaired. I would like cs1|2 to start shifting articles from Category:CS1 maint: archived copy as title into a error category because this is a problem that, I think, requires humans to fix.

In this case, the title is 'Australia's Hamilton Island Yacht Club confirmed as Challenger of Record' in <h1>...</h1> which more-or-less matches the url.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: Thanks for letting me know. I will keep this in mind for both this and the bare ref fixes as well. I think the CS1 error for "archived copy" could be a good idea, would make headway into the dent. Rlink2 (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath ... Switching all at once would be political suicide and figuring out how to trickle from maint to error is a challenge...

—Trappist the monk (talk) 01:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

You are super fast

@Rlink2: Hello user you edit very quick can you say me which tool you use for editing and helping the articles with archive link so that I can also use. २ तकर पेप्सी (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@२ तकर पेप्सी: Ha, thanks. I use a tool called Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser. I'm not that fast usually, most editors who use the tool are way faster than me. Rlink2 (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

|lay-url=

|lay-url= is not supported by |archive-url= as you attempted in this edit. Also, |lay-date=, |lay-format=, |lay-source=, and |lay-url= will become actively deprecated at the next cs1|2 update.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

"Bare" urls

You seem to misunderstand what a "bare" url is, as at Apollo. You should be aware of WP:CITEVAR, and follow it. Johnbod (talk) 04:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Did you read what Wikipedia: Bare URLs said? I'm fully aware what a bare URL is, and thank you for linking to CITEVAR. There is nothing there I didn't already know. And there is literally consesnus to convert Bare urls to CS1/CS2. Citation bot does this and was approved for it, and if there was no conesnsus Brownhairedgirl wouldn't be working so hard to fill those refs. Rlink2 (talk) 04:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

People who are flooding watchlists with an unapproved bot should not be snippy in their replies. Johnuniq (talk) 05:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Rlink2, you don’t seem to know what a bare URL is. This isn’t a bare URL and most of the changes on my watchlist are of that nature. The Apollo example given above is the same. As Johnbod says you’re creating a CITEVAR problem. DeCausa (talk) 07:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@DeCausa: Sorry about that, I was extremely tired last night and I thought I understood what Johnbod had linked, but looking at it now I actually don't anything about CITEVAR, so thank you for linking it. Thanks to someone's message below, I understand what you were saying. I will modify my procedures to leave those types of cites alone.

I was not trying to be snippy, but given my tiredness and wanting to get in a reply before I slept, maybe I came off that way. I am sincerly sorry. Regarding "bot", Rink2 bot has an open BRFA for bare ref fixing, but it has not been approved yet. I am not doing the bare ref fixes on Rlink2 Bot, rather I am fixing them manually with AWB. Rlink2 (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Formatting {cite} entries

It's good to fill in bare URLs, but the results in markup don't look like the example at {{Cite web}} and differ the rest of most pages. Almost no human editor or bot uses such a quirky format; I call it ugly. The space belongs before the pipe, with no space after. No space belongs before or after the "=".

For example, you recently replaced this:

<ref name="tech.ebu.ch">[http://tech.ebu.ch/docs/techreview/trev_265-kozamernik.pdf Digital Audio Broadcasting (EBU Technical Review article)]</ref>

with this:

<ref name="tech.ebu.ch">{{cite web| url = http://tech.ebu.ch/docs/techreview/trev_265-kozamernik.pdf| title = Digital Audio Broadcasting (EBU Technical Review article)}}</ref>

which is helpful, but it really should look like this:

<ref name="tech.ebu.ch">{{cite web |url=http://tech.ebu.ch/docs/techreview/trev_265-kozamernik.pdf |title=Digital Audio Broadcasting (EBU Technical Review article)}}</ref>

Are you using an outdated version of AutoWikiBrowser or custom settings related to these edits? If so, then could you please update and/or change the settings? If not, then my objection is with AutoWikiBrowser making a coding mistake that is continually multiplied by hundreds and hundreds of edits, and one or both of us should complain there. -A876 (talk) 07:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@A876: I had fixed this before, but it appears there was some sort of regression. It has been fixed again. Rlink2 (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Completing bare URLs

Continuing the example above, you could have visited the URL, to see whether it works and whether it redirects. (In this case it redirects to https.) That would add a little more value.

Further, you could have checked this article's title, split the title from the publication name, removed the word "article", completed the article's title, and added the missing issue number, publisher, and date, yielding this:

<ref name="tech.ebu.ch">{{cite journal |title=Digital Audio Broadcasting – radio now and for the future |work=EBU Technical Review |issue=265 |publisher=[[European Broadcasting Union]] |date=Autumn 1995 |pages=2–27 |url=https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/techreview/trev_265-kozamernik.pdf}}</ref>

That's all for now. -A876 (talk) 07:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, it would help if you could include metadate, e.g., when the text in [url text] contains an author, split the text between |title= and |author=. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Chatul: @A876: These are good ideas. Thanks for letting me know. Citation bot can also do many of these things as well. Rlink2 (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Chatul: @A876:, everyone would like to see a superbot™ that would work miracles like that. Unfortunately (or forunately!) Skynet is still in the future and none of the current bots can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear - and some of the citations out there make pigs look attractive. For example, see discussion at User talk:Citation bot/Archive 30#Could/should citation bot have made a better job of this?. BTW, see WP:REFILL for another way to work on bare urls, but you need to validate its output, --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

In Help:Displaying a formula, you changed <ref>https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/418490</ref> to ref>{{cite web |url=https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/418490 |title = Redefine \or form within a nested if statement? - TeX - LaTeX Stack Exchange}}</ref>. As with |author=, it would be best if you used separate |title= and |work= parameters, e.g., <ref>{{cite web |url=https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/418490 |title = Redefine \or form within a nested if statement? |work = TeX - LaTeX Stack Exchange}}</ref>. Note that the documentation for various tools warns that the results are not perfect and that editors should manually adjust them as necessary before committing the results. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. But as told someone else, I need to read the whole cite documentation regarding that parameter so I don't make any more mistakes. And that a cite like that is better than no fill at all. Also see Friedman's comments. Rlink2 (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Rlink2, There were moves to automate Refill too but there are too many anomalies like that one to let it run unattended. Looks like you are running into the same problems. The bots are not intrinsically flawed, the problem is reality! :-D

Since we can't get reality to behave, it really does look like you will have to run your tool in "attended" mode for quite a while. Take a look at the archive of CitationBot: it is has had hundreds of reports and required reality compensation adjustments. Rome wasn't built in a day. What you are trying to do is not impossible but it is certainly very difficult. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: I have been running the task "attended". I revert mistakes I make with AWB all the time, in fact even did one right now on Prince_Philippe,_Duke_of_Orléans_(1869–1926) before you left a message on here. I wouldn't be able to catch that and fix if I wasn't watching my edits. Regarding the website field, my plan is to just fill in the bare refs now. Part of the script saves all the site titles, so my plan is to later look at it and apply the website field for the most common field, tidying up and improving the citation even further. Then after that, we can look at author, and then date, etc..... My bare ref fixing has multiple stages, just like articles on here: they go from stubs, to B-Class, to GA, and then FA. Also if a bare ref is dead, I add a Wayback machine link. At the very very least, we should at least fix dead links to point to archived links. Thanks for your kind message. Rlink2 (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:CITEVAR

Please do not change optional citation styles. For example, where an article used manual citations, do not add template formatting. That is not "completing a bare ref", as you are not adding any new information, you are simply changing the citation style. Again, please read WP:CITEVAR. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ssilvers: Thank you for your clear explanation, this makes sense. I will only fill in bare refs with no title (like <ref>https://google.com</ref> instead of <ref>[https://duckduckgo.com A search engine]</ref> from now on. Rlink2 (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I came here to say the same thing after seeing you do this on numerous pages (example [2]) If that had been a page not already using citation templates I would have reverted you. If you follow the link in your own edit summaries to Wikipedia:Bare URLs it defines bare urls as just what is copied from the address bar. SpinningSpark 15:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: Thank you for the message and heads up. Rlink2 (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Responding to your message on my Talk page, yes, please do roll back such edits. Thank you. I would appreciate that very much, and I must say that I am very pleased by your helpfulness here. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ssilvers: I have reverted about 25 to 50% of them, still going through my past edits. Thank you for letting me know ASAP. There is a lot I don't know here, so I rely on other editors to guide and show me the way. In this case, I simply had misread the definition of bare references. Rlink2 (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

But please keep in mind that WP:CITEVAR also says that "citations within any given article should follow a consistent style." So if what you're doing is reformatting a few citations in an article so they match the other citations in the article then that's a good thing. ElKevbo (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

(ec) There's some of these that I think were correct given that most of the rest of the citations were properly formatted (eg [3]). That's just normalizing the citation format when most of the rest are using an established citation style. For example, the above diff on Eletrical impedance itself is prime to be fixed because half the citations have a fully proper citation compared to the others, though the attempt to standardize it was not proper - they need full cite book/journal expansions to meet the "within an article" consistency requirements. --Masem (t) 18:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Masem and Ssilvers, you are so helpful. Many of the articles I see are mixed, so I don't know which ones are supposed to be templated and brackets. At least with the "use dmy dates" there was a bannar at the top of the page. Is there some easy way to find out, or do I just have to use my best judgement. Rlink2 (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

One way to find out is to go back to earlier states of the article, in the Article History, and see if the article had a consistent style for citations then. If not, then use your best judgment, but if you make the change and an active editor of the article objects, then they can always re-establish another style, as long as they do so consistently. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Ssilvers, Rlink2 In my experience, the disputes arise between fans of 'fancy' citation styles like APA style, ASA style, MLA style, The Chicago Manual of Style, Author-date referencing, the Vancouver system and Bluebook. I've never seen anyone object to something horrible like [http://my.example.com my example] being replaced by a proper {{cite web}} or {{cite book}} etc. If you upgrade a sloppy citation like that to a convenient style, it would be a churlish page watcher indeed who would complain that you have introduced a new style: if they cared, they would have fixed it themselves already. But if you were change an existing ASA to MLA for example then, well, pistols at dawn! See WP:CITESTYLE for the long explanation.

So I'm unconvinced that the chorus of disapproval around Rlink2's mass edit is genuinely about CITEVAR, but rather that the edits are cosmetic, which is verboten: they have no effect that is evident to readers, nothing has been done to improve the cruddy citation, but the article still pops up on watchlists and need to be checked. It has prompted me to fill out the citations in some articles I watch but I suspect that for some editors the to-do list is just too overwhelming and they "throw a wobbly" (as we say in Blighty). Hope that is helpful. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Some of the edits that Rlink2 made were clearly in violation of WP:CITEVAR. I was not objecting to other edits. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for all your opinions. What matters now is that we've recognized I did something wrong, and I fixed my mistake by reverting the errors, and only fixing truly bare refs from now on. Rlink2 (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

It’s both. There’s definitely a CITEVAR issue with some of them but an unnecessary change i.e not a genuine WP:BAREURL (a cosmetic change by definition means it wasn’t a true BAREURL) causes problems on watchlists. I’ll be honest, automated or semi-automated mass changes by relatively new users often don’t end well. I would recommend that Rlink2 engages in “normal” editing for longer and more cautiously and slowly enters into the mass edit world. DeCausa (talk) 00:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@DeCausa: When i make a new set of edits or tasks, I always start off slow, before moving a bit faster (but in still acceptable ranges). This is so I can give people time to respond with any issues or concerns, like what happened here. And in the case of needing to revert, I am always ready to do so. Regarding the mass edit world, I have been there for a while, but only recently have I been using it to fix citations, which in honesty I don't know too much about compared to the rest of the people commenting here, that's why I rely on the editors to clear up any misunderstandings. Rlink2 (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that 4 months is not long enough to get into this (unless you’ve had a previous account). I think it takes a couple of years of steady editing before an editor really gets familiar. An editor doesn’t know what they don’t know. But that’s just my view. DeCausa (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Where I wrote above If you upgrade a sloppy citation like that to a convenient style,, I failed to explain that by 'upgrade' I meant adding author, date, ISBN, DOI, SSN etc, actually providing the missing metadata. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with DeCausa: New editors are well advised to begin with research and writing, or with correcting obvious errors, before getting involved with automated and semi-automated edits. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

In order to get involved with semi-automated edits, you need to have a certain amount of edits and time on the wiki. I agree there is a bare minimum you need to know before starting, but i don't think it takes years to aquire. When i first started out, I did recent changes patrol (and still do). There are many different areas of the wikipedia needing attedence to. Rlink2 (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I see you have resumed "filling out" bare refs, but you are leaving out key parameters. A ref must contain, at a minimum, the author's name, the date of publication, and the name of the publisher (or name of the website for web sources). If it is from a non-web source, also add the page number. Below I have noted what parameters you need to add. To learn about referencing, see this. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Living in Houston and trying to figure out the EZ TAG system right now - thank you for clarifying that it's different from EZ Pass. Dkennell (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@Dkennell: Thank you for the message, but I didn't add such info. I would hate for the editor who actually made that change to not recieve the barnstar he deserves. Maybe you misclicked my name in the edit history? Rlink2 (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Dates

Hello again, spotted a problem with this edit. The |date= field has a leading zero added which causes a cite date error. Keith D (talk) 00:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Keith D: Ok, I did not know this. Fixed for future edit. Rlink2 (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, are you sure this is fixed as this edit from this afternoon still has the same error. Keith D (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Keith D: Whoops, there was one part I forgot to put the fix in. Fixed for real this time. Rlink2 (talk)

Anglo-Indian

I do not know what happened here, but it is clearly not fixing links. Since Anglo-Indian people still exists and is identical to your version, I reverted the edit back to the redirect. Please feel free to fix if you wanted to do smth else.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Thanks for letting me know. I actually noticed this problem earlier, and I think I fixed it and reverted the ones i overwrote, but I guess I missed this one to revert. Rlink2 (talk) 13:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Filling out bare refs, but incompletely

If you're going to fill out bare refs, you should add the parameters for the name of the author "last=Smith |first=John" and the date of the publication of the source "date=". Also, instead to throwing the website name in after the title of the source, you should use the "website=" parameter. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ssilvers: The author field I can certainly look into. Regarding the "website" parameter, there was some argument on the Citation bot talk page, and I don't know what the consesnsus is on that. When the kerfuffle is finished Citation bot can fill in the website parameter..... Rlink2 (talk) 13:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that you don't understand about referencing. I don't know what "argument" you are referring to, but it sounds like the blind leading the blind. You certainly need a publisher parameter. If you are substituting the website for the publisher parameter, use the website= parameter. Otherwise the refs you are adding are simply not adequate. To learn a little bit about referencing, see this. I suggest that you stop reading bot talkpages, and instead learn the ropes of contributing content to an encyclopedia gradually, instead of jumping in with automated changes. A really good way to learn about high quality contributions is to read some WP:FAC discussions, and to read Featured Articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ssilvers: The problem is that you don't understand about referencing. hence why I leave the rest up to citation bot. Citation bot is good at adding the website, author, field, publisher, ISBN, etc. like Maynard said. It has databases that I do not have access to. I think there was consensus that filling in a bare ref with a usable title is always better than having a bare ref. Editors said it is horribly bureaucratic to be pushed to debate every step of incremental progress against those who who prefer no progress to an incomplete improvement. and Friedman followed up saying he agrees with that editor analysis.

Thank you for the FA advice, I haven't even done work with good articles or DYKs yet like I planned, getting into featured articles is a whole other ball game. Similar to the bare ref fixing, let's take it step by step. I have and will continue to look into article creation, it is a encylopedia after all. The hardest part is coming up with ideas that meet the notability guidelines and reliable sourcing requirements. If I have any questions, you'll be one of the first people I ask ;) Rlink2 (talk) 14:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ssilvers:, I agree with Rlink2 on this. The perfect is the enemy of the good, and bare URLs are very bad indeed - see WP:LINKROT. It is far more beneficial to the project to clear out (and keep clearing out) every bare-URL citation than to leave them to rot while a tiny fraction are polished till they shine. If it has the effect of drawing editor's attention to nasty citations on the articles they watch and nudging them to resolve, then the end justifies the means. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ssilvers: I also agree with Rlink2. A ref which gives the article title and the name of the web domain is of course far from complete, but it is also vastly more useful than a ref which consists only of the URL.

Wikipedia is a work in progress, and Rlink2's work is a very valuable first step in improving articles where no effort has been put into making the refs useful. Yes, more detail should be added to those refs, but it is very odd to oppose moving from no detail to some. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't get it. Why do an incomplete job, when you could actually fill out the refs with all the information. Fine. Everybody likes it. Happy editing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion to seek community consensus

Perhaps you should post at Village Pump the specific list of issues you want to resolve and get community consensus to operate in a semi-automated manner to fix those issues. Otherwise, you are going to be dealing with lengthy inquiries to your talk page indefinitely.Slywriter (talk) 15:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Slywriter:, nice to see you again. Like i said, I don't make edits when I think that there would be no consensus in the first place. In my edit summaries I link to the policies that support what I am doing. And many of the things I do already have been discussed at a village pump/elsewhere (hence why there is a policy). People can always inquire, and I'll try my best to respond. If I doing something wrong, people can always let me know. If people disagree with what I'm doing, they will leave a message here and let me know as well. And not everyone reads the village pumps, and the village pump isn't always the right place to seek out consesus. Rlink2 (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

So close... So close!

I'm intrigued to know how you so nearly got this one right? In the second of your two edits to Weedon Bec, you turned

• https://www.weedonbec-village.co.uk/bus-stops-and-shelters.html

into

• "Bus Stops & Shelters | Weedon Bec Parish Council".

with this edit. That is not a bad result at all, it is certainly intelligible. My finished version is very little different, just replaced the splitting pipe with a |publisher=

• "Bus Stops & Shelters". Weedon Bec Parish Council.

There are no clues on the website that would give you that for free - did your process really get that close unaided or did you have to give it a mid-course correction? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: I didn't intervene (as in "mid course correction") in that edit. The ones where I intervene (with a revert or correction) are usually Chinese, Russian, and Korean titles, you can see here: User:Rlink2/Problem_cite_titles. Note that the actual list is bigger, there are many other entries in my browser history but not on that page I created. Rlink2 (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Am I impressed or am I impressed? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

For CJK, please include |trans-title=English translation. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok, will look into this. By the way, I will be adding the the website/pub/work field when possible starting from my next editing strech or two. Rlink2 (talk) 13:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: there is no great magic: if you look at ghe HTML source of https://www.weedonbec-village.co.uk/bus-stops-and-shelters.html, it includes the line <title>Bus Stops & Shelters | Weedon Bec Parish Council</title>. Rlink2's tools use that data.

The cunning bit is that Rlink2 has written code which can grab that data and use it expand a reference ... which is why Rlink2 is doing such a brilliant job of filling so many refs. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: @BrownHairedGirl: BHG is right. There is a bit more to the script than simply extracting the title, but that is the crux of it.

For the Bare PDFs and websites without a title (see Trappist's post above), I am cooking up another solution.... it would be more prone to error, so checking the outuput more closely would be necessary, however it will be better than nothing. Rlink2 (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Progress on PDF bare URLs would be great. The 202201010 database dump contains 47,887 articles with untagged PDF bare URL refs, and after the huge progress so far this month, I estimate that amounts to about 20% of all articles with bare URLs. If we sustain anything like recent levels of progress on the refs to HTML pages, that percentage will rise significantly.

I think it would be difficult to extract even an approximation of title with any useful level of reliability, so I will be very impressed if you can come up with something. I have assumed that we should eventually move to a sort of pseudo-filling of those refs with a tracked placeholder title analagous to "Archived copy" (see Category:CS1 maint: archived copy as title), which would make it a lot easier for editors to complete the ref by allowing them to just add the title without having to add the rest of the cite template. Maybe the placeholder title could be "PDF document". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Email

Hello, Rlink2. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Romani people

Hello @Rlink2, please can you have a look on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_people#Turkish_and_Tatar_Y-DNA_genes_of_the_Muslim_Roma699

the source behind them, says nothing about turkish or tatar Y-DNA, the source says also nothing that muslim romani woman got children from turks or tatars etc., the source is about Genetic impact of the Ottoman occupiers on the Balkan-Roma population and central eastern population, but not especially in muslim roma.

That's why I wanted to fix it but I can't. I'am blocked from editing the Article. But If you read the source, you can understand what I mean. Thanky

--Nalanidil (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nalanidil:, Rlink2 is just fixing the format of citations in many articles. There is no reason to assume they have any expertise in this subject. You need to raise your concern at talk:Romani people. I might have tagged that sentence with {{disputed}} or {{failed verification}} but a superficial look at the cited source suggests that the case to delete is not obvious. So you would definitely need to show that the part of the article that cites it has gone to far beyond what the source says (see wp:SYNTH). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello @John Manyard Friedman, absolutely should be deleted in the article that was written there is wrong, it should be corrected for it, because if you read the whole source who is given, there is absolutely nothing written about Turkish and Tatar men who mixed with Muslim Roma women and had children, there is also not a sentence about Tatars there. The source says only that genetic impact flowed into the host population (Romani and Non Romani), during the time of the Ottoman occupation in the areas that belonged to the Ottoman Empire Nalanidil (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nalanidil: I understand your concern but this is the wrong place to raise it: neither Rlink2 or anyone else watching this page knows enough about the topic to make that kind of judgement. Maybe you can get more useful advice at the Wikipedia Teahouse? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok i understand, maybe another User who is active in the page romani people can be changend it.

Nalanidil (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Izno (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For doing great work on filling bare URLs, and remaining cool and engaged under the outrageous pressure of an ANI pile-on based on unevidenced allegations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

A little mindless

I'm not fully convinced presumably mechanical edits like this are net improvements. The URL was a bit malformed and remained so - not an improvement. A title was added, which is clearly an improvement, but there is a lot of extra junk included with the new title detracting from the improvement. I have improved your improvement here but, ideally, this work should not require two passes by two editors. ~Kvng (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kvng: they key word here is ideally.

Sadly, the tools available are not ideal, so we often use have tools which don't get a perfect result in one pass. @Citation bot often does a very good job, but in this case it didn't touch this ref. You should have seen that clearly in this case, because the previous edit before Rlink2's edit was this edit[4] by Citation bot. As in nearly all of the thousands of similar edits by Rlink2, their edits tackle the residue bare URLs after Citation bot failed. I can say that with certainty because I have spent the last six months working hard to ensure that Citation bot has processed all articles with bare URLs at least once.

This is one of those cases where the website owners have abused the HTML <title> element by stuffing it with redundant verbosity: http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/leaky+bucket+counter has <title>Leaky bucket counter | Article about leaky bucket counter by The Free Dictionary</title>, and Rlink2's edit has reproduced that faithfully.

So the question here is not whether Rlink2's created a perfect citation. The question is whether it created a better citation. So compare the before and after:

Before

• http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/leaky+bucket+counter.

After

• {{cite web |url=http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/leaky+bucket+counter. |title = Leaky bucket counter. {{!}} Article about leaky bucket counter. by The Free Dictionary}} → "Leaky bucket counter. | Article about leaky bucket counter. by The Free Dictionary".

Rlink2's edit created a ref which is better for the reader. And it also created a ref which is closer to the final version, because the cite template is already in place, so all you needed to do in your helpful followup edit[5] was to remove . {{!}} Article about leaky bucket counter. by and replace it with |website=. That was a lot easier than having to add the cite template and visit the webpage to find the title.

Please don't make the best be the enemy of the good. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that these are easier to fix manually after the automated changes and will clean these up when I have time. This may not the best way to make these improvements and I wanted to put my concerns out there. I'm apparently not the only one to question this work. ~Kvng (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kvng: this is almost certainly not the best way to make these improvements. It is very likely that with a lot more resources, much more sophisticated tools could be developed.

However, after six months of working full time on cleaning up WP:Bare URLs, I can say with certainty that it is the best way we currently have to make these improvements.

If you can identify a better way, then please please please please please please please do take the time to explain it to us. I am serious about that: everyone working on WP:Bare URLs knows that every tool currently available has significant flaws and limitations, so identifying better solutions would make our work easier and more productive.

However, from what I can see so far, you have not identified any better way, and you are just sniping at the good because it is not the best. That is a waste of everyone's time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of sniping. I don't have a perfect solution but discussion may produce one or at least an improvement on what we're currently doing. ~Kvng (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kvng: I stand by my view of your comments as "sniping". You have not identified any way in which Rlink2's edits fail to improve the refs, or any better way of proceeding. You are just sniping about the lack of perfection on first pass. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Wow, OK. Clearly we're seeing things differently. ~Kvng (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I assume when adding titles, we want to use the title that someone visiting the web page will identify as the title, not what's shown in the browser tab. They often don't match as is the case here. ~Kvng (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is what we want, but with thousands of gobblydegook bare urls, taking the title from the < title > html tags gives a reasonable first cut for the large majority of them. And if it prompts a page watcher to do it properly, so much the better. Hard cases make bad law: just because one web page has a useless html title is not a reason to do nothing for the thousand others that do. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I mostly agree with @John Maynard Friedman.

John is quite right that this is the automated edit's task is to create a reasonable first cut, and in this case that is what Rlink2 did. I also agree that hard cases make bad law: it would be absurd to use a very low percentage of problems as a reason to omit the 99% of edits which improve.

But I disagree with John on one point: in my view, this page does not have a useless html title. It has a stupidly verbose and repetitive title, but that verbose repetition is a lot more useful than no title. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

My criteria in page watching is that each edit should improve an article. Making automated edits that are not improvements (I'm still undecided whether that's actually the case here) to encourage improvements from human editors rubs WP:VOLUNTEER and WP:NODEADLINES the wrong way. ~Kvng (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kvng: it seems to me that you are setting out to find fault, and making perverse statements to justify your fault-finding. Your wave at WP:VOLUNTEER is most unpleasant, because all the editors in this discussion are also volunteers.

Here you write Making automated edits that are not improvements (I'm still undecided whether that's actually the case here). However, at 16:26 you write above these are easier to fix manually after the automated changes. So what's your problem? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

It is not clear that a a stupidly verbose and repetitive title or plainly wrong title is better for readers than a bare link. ~Kvng (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@BHG, I suspect that we do in fact agree, we are just looking at different test cases. Kvng's first case was "Leaky bucket counter. | Article about leaky bucket counter. by The Free Dictionary".: I agree that it is verbose but certainly more useful and indicative of the content than the raw URL. Kvng's second case is "MP-DCCP"., which is the "useless html title" that I referred to. ("unhelpful" would have been better).

@Kvng, are you seriously saying that "Leaky bucket counter. | Article about leaky bucket counter. by The Free Dictionary". is not an improvement on http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/leaky+bucket+counter ? Surely you must appreciate that the eyes of the vast majority of readers glaze over when presented by raw URLs? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The edits seem to presume that all HTML titles are accurate. That's not a solid assumption. My concern is whether, overall or on a per-article basis, this is doing more harm than good. The answer depends on whether we're article or Wikipedia focused; How much harm we're willing to tolerate; How much benefit readers get from a messy title vs. a URL. I think most readers understand what a URL is - they're in just about every advertisement these days. They may not be able to parse it but they know it will take them to the location specified when they click it. ~Kvng (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Sigh. @Kvng, when the ref is filled, readers can still go to the URL by clicking on the title. So that point is irrelevant.

The purpose of the title is twofold:

1. to allow reader to identify the nature of the webpage without clicking on the link
2. to allow editors and readers to take appropriate action if the link become dead

Both those functions were fulfilled in the edits you have complained about.

Your verbose comment about How much harm we're willing to tolerate is yet more specious nonsense. It is a straw man, because you not have identified any way in which Rlink2's edit have caused any harm at all to any article or to Wikipedia as a whole.

It really is time for you to WP:DROPTHESTICK, and to stop wasting your time and that of others by complaining about non-problems. Please devote your time to improving Wikipedia instead of harassing others who are improving it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I have to agree. It's easy for tools to locate a bare url. It is not so easy for tools (or even humans) to identify a title that isn't really a proper title. IABot (I think) creates cs1|2 templates with |title=Archived copy which is certainly not a good title but it is recognizable as not-a-good-title so cs1|2 templates can (and do) recognize that title and add the article to Category:CS1 maint: archived copy as title. An editor can go look, discover the correct title, and then make a proper repair. Most titles added by the various tools become just another string of blue-linked words in a sea of blue-lined words; cs1|2 can do nothing to help locate these marginally 'fixed' templates. Were it up to me, because reliably fetching titles from online sources is so hit and miss, all tools that cleanup bare urls should not attempt to create |title= except for sources that have been fully vetted to provide clean and correct metadata. Not on that list, citation gets a generic, trackable title so that cs1|2 can categorize those articles for human repair. This comment is more-or-less an expansion of what I wrote at User talk:Rlink2 § News story above.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk, I agree that placeholders such as "Archived copy" (esp when tracked in a category) have the advantage of being easily identified as a provisional solution.

However, while I agree about the desirability of human improvement, the reality is that human improvement happens at a much lower pace than new bare URLs are added: the number has declined only since I stared feeding them en masse to Citation bot.

It's also important to note that these provisional solutions do not seem to be more rapidly fixed than bare URLs. Category:CS1 maint: archived copy as title now contains over 168,000 pages, and the number is climbing (except when Rlink2 uses tools to add a title).

So if we rely on human edits alone, the problem of bare URLs (or placeholder tiles) will grow. We agree that human polishing is ideal; but your focus on that remedy ignores the sad fact that we do not have enough humans doing enough of that polishing. This is not a WP:NODEADLINE issue, because the problem is not that manual cleanup alone takes too long: the problem is that manual cleanup alone is a recipe for continued decline.

Meanwhile, we are nearing the limits of what can be done by Citation bot. There are many refs which it can never fill, because the Zotero servers return no data. I have already fed all bare URLs refs in the 20220101 database dump through Citation bot at least, and am getting a diminishing rate of returns as I do second passes. Unless we use other tools, the total number of articles with bare URLs will stabilise at somewhere around the 200,000 mark.

Rlink2's wonderful work helps us to tackle that 200,000 backlog. A title which contains redundant verbiage is more helpful to readers than no title; and a ref formatted in a cite template is much easier to improve than a bare URL. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

"Archived copy" was originally my suggestion to Cyberpower in the early days of IABot, because it was creating new cite web's when there is a bare archive URL without a title causing a red error. Clicking on the "Archived copy" link takes you to the archived copy of the page - seemed logical. The name is kind of nonsensical when there is no archive URL involved. Had we known it would become a general purprose placeholder for any missing title, maybe it would be "Unknown cite title - please help" to better flag passer-bys. GreenC 20:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@GreenC: I agree that the placeholder title should not be used without an archived URL.

However, I have seen no cases of "Archived copy" being used without an archived URL, let alone that it has become a general purpose placeholder for any missing title. Have I missed something? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

No I guess misread. TTM was only suggesting "a generic, trackable title" and was not suggesting "Archived copy" rather that one existed already by that name. I gave a suggestion for a better generic placeholder which IMO we should do or something similar to better engage users to manually fix. -- GreenC 21:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@GreenC: thanks. I think we all understand each other now!

At the moment, the way of marking bare URLs is to append them with {{Bare URL inline}}. About 10% of all bare URLs are now tagged that way.

If I understand it correctly, you propose taking a bare URL <ref>http://example.com/foo</ref> and replacing it with <ref>{{cite web |url=http://example.com/foo |title=Unknown cite title - please help}}</ref> ... or possibly as <ref>{{cite web |url=http://example.com/foo |title=Unknown cite title - please help |website=example.com/foo |access-date=20 January 2022}}</ref>. (If I have misunderstood your idea, please correct me).

I think that the wording of the placeholder could be improved, but that's an easily debated detail. In principle, I very much like the idea, because it is much easier for an editor to just add the title than if the bones of the cite template is already in place.

However, the downside is that tools which can fill completely bare URLs wouldn't be able to handle this placeholder unless they were upgraded. So we risk reducing te ability of existing ref-filling tools to help.

Citation bot is actively maintained, and I think it's likely that the ever-accommodating @AManWithNoPlan could be persuaded to make Citation bot support this.

However, WP:Reflinks and WP:reFill are unmaintained. So implementing this without upgrading those tools would effectively break those tools, and thereby impede filling the refs. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I've given up on those tools ever being maintained TBH. But, I don't understand why this placeholder would break them. Do those tools look out for "Archived copy" and fill in the title? -- GreenC 22:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

A new BRFA?

Hi Rlink2

I am sorry that you have had to go through the unpleasant and unjustified ANI drama, and I hope that it is coming to an end. So it is time to focus on getting approval for a bot task through which you can continue your good work of filling WP:Bare URLs.

I have been reviewing WP:BRFA/Rlink2 Bot 2, and it seems to me that it has run into the sands because it was initially drawn with too big a scope. That led to a lot of discussion in which you responded well to the feedback: you narrowed the scope and tidied up a few glitches. However, there is a lot of verbiage for any BAG member to wade through.

So I suggest that the best way forward is to withdraw that BRFA, and open a new one which explicitly builds on what emerged from that BRFA: the bot should have a narrowed scope, clearly specified. I suggest that for now you drop any idea of archiving in this bot task, and drop the user request feature. Just make this a very simple task: fill bare URLs, using list which you create by a variety of methods: database dumps, other editors list-making, and pages tagged with {{Bare URL inline}} and/or {{Cleanup bare URLs}}. Give the bot a unique name (as I suggested in the current BRFA), to emphasise that tight focus.

I recommend that you don't assume that those reviewing the BRFA have any prior knowledge of filling bare URLs, let alone the extensive experience that you have. So be explicit that the bot is just to do a first-pass improvement, and that in nearly every case the ref should be expanded further. By converting a bare URL to a cite template and adding a rough title, you are both making the ref more helpful to readers, and assisting editors who want to fill the ref more thoroughly ( because they don't have to format the ref as a cite template).

Stress also that other tool have limitations, such as Reflinks's bot's inability to even connect to thousands of websites, and that BHG's work of systematically feeding all bare URL to @Citation bot means that your work is a sort-of second line repair: you are picking up on what the others can't do.

I think that if you do this, concisely, it will be much easier to get the bot to a trial stage. If you would like any assistance in drafting that new BRFA, I would be happy to help. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. This is what should have been done is the first place. I wrote the request when I didn't have much experience with filling in bare refs. Now that I have been doing it for a while, I know exactly what I want it to do. Just make this a very simple task: fill bare URLs and that is exactly what the bot will do. I recommend that you don't assume that those reviewing the BRFA have any prior knowledge of filling bare URLs is good advice so everyone is on the same page. All good ideas. Regarding archiving, I will leave any dead or "cloudflared" links alone in the bot for now (which is in contrast to my existing filling, which used/uses web.archive.org exclusively to retrieve the dead or "cloudflared" link). This way we can avoid any more unnecessary archive drama. I think I got the handle of rewriting the BRFA, but if I need help I'll ask you ;) Rlink2 (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Glad that was helpful, Rlink2 ... even tho it sounds like you had gotten there ahead of me. BAG likes precision, so make it clear and unambiguous.

Good luck with the drafting, and if you want help, just shout. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: I just created the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/BareRefBot . Any comments before I transclude it?

@Rlink2: Hey that looks good! But yes, I have a bunch of comments. I about to cook my supper, so pls can you give me an hour or two to get back to you? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh dear. I have got my food, but the BFA seems to have gone live, with comments already added.

I you want to create a draft, you need to make it in your own userspace. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: No worries, the BRFA is on hold and I didn't transclude it anyway, so not many saw it. Will keep that in mind for the future. Rlink2 (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's too late now. But it does mean that it already has questions about issues which could an should have been answered in proposal. Not disastrous, but messy.

I have tried to answer ProcrastinatingReader's first two questions. Hope that helps. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hope for the future

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Hello Rlink2! Just wanted to tell you to stay strong and keep up the good work on here. In my opinion, any user that makes a single productive edit on this platform is doing a good service for future generations. Do not let negativity uproot your desire to contribute. My advice is to take positive note from those that offer it and shape your operation in a way that makes you satisfied with your work. Red Director (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Red Director: Thanks, means alot coming from someone like you in times like these. I like your work too. Rlink2 (talk) 02:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

For courage under fire

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		For keeping your cool and not responding in kind. John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: Thanks Rlink2 (talk) 04:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Archiving request

I've a request my friend. If possible, can you plz archive the references in a particular article—List of foreign football players in India? Lots of them are rotten there. Thanks in advance!!

@Billjones94: I am glad you appreciate my work with archiving. However, some don't, so there is an active ANI thread regarding me. I can work on this when my ANI thread is closed. Hopefully, the ANI thread does not result in a block of my account. If I remain unblocked, I will take care of those references as soon as I can. Rlink2 (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks buddy!! Keep up great work :) Billjones94 (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Billjones94: Done. Rlink2 (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, most of the URLs appear to still be live, but when an archive URL is added without a |url-status= it defaults to rendered dead ie. the archive URL is displayed first. -- GreenC 21:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@GreenC: Whoopsies! I uninstalled all my WP stuff from my browser last week, but recently just reinstalled all of my "helper" tools. When I went to do this one I think I used the older version that did not have the fix. Thanks for the trout slap. Rlink2 (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Reverted because if you wait too long new edits make it much more difficult to redo. -- GreenC 04:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@GreenC: Thanks. Was going to do the same but forgot to do so. I'll get to redoing it properly later. Rlink2 (talk) 04:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Template:Webarchive

Hi Rlink2, have you considered using the {{webarchive}} it has a few advantages. For example instead of this (from Steve Ballmer):

Archived at [https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/20211205/qFe0S3F389w Ghostarchive]{{cbignore}} and the [https://web.archive.org/web/20161107061621/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFe0S3F389w&gl=US&hl=en Wayback Machine]{{cbignore}}: {{cite web| url = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFe0S3F389w| title = Microsoft's Former CEO Says Disagreement With Gates on Smartphones Drove Them Apart | website=[[YouTube]]}}{{cbignore}}

It would be:

{{cite web |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFe0S3F389w |title=Microsoft's Former CEO Says Disagreement With Gates on Smartphones Drove Them Apart |work=Bloomberg |via=[[YouTube]] |author= |date= |access-date=January 24, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161107061621/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFe0S3F389w&gl=US&hl=en |archive-date=2016-11-07 |url-status=live}} {{webarchive |format=addlarchives |url=https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/20211205/qFe0S3F389w |date=2021-12-05 |title=Ghostarchive}}

It's cleaner, and no need to use {{cbignore}}. The webarchive template can accept up to 10 archive providers in case you want to use WayBack, Ghost and Archive.today for the same cite. You could put both archives in the webarchive template instead of one in the cite web. The title field is free form so could say whatever you like. -- GreenC 19:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@GreenC: Yes, I know about the webarchive template. I thought it was only for external link sections though? I didn't know about the title thing, that is useful advice from here on out. Thanks for letting me know. Rlink2 (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

It's often used in citations in fact the only place it makes sense with the |format=addlarchives option. By free-form |title= is meant in the webarchive template. - GreenC 20:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@GreenC: When I clean up a page manually, I spend a lot of time converting refs using {{Webarchive}} to {{Cite web}}. When an script-assisted edit is reconfiguring the whole thing, why not just put it all inside {{Cite web}}? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Put both a Wayback and Ghost URL into a single cite web? The citation looks like:

"Microsoft's Former CEO Says Disagreement With Gates on Smartphones Drove Them Apart". Bloomberg. Archived from the original on 2016-11-07. Retrieved January 24, 2022 – via YouTube. Additional archives: Ghostarchive.

Note the "Additional archives". That can have up to 10. -- GreenC 20:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Me and Redrose already had a similar discussion. It was decided that one archive service was enough usually. Two archive sites being used are only for very specific cirmustances (I can't recall the reasoning behind this one, but there was some) so I think maybe the webarchive template is more appropiate for when more than one site is being used (which is a relatively small amount) When there are two archive services, then webarchive should be used along cite web I am guessing (not sure). Of course, if there is only one web archive service in use, then cite web is always the better choice (I think). Rlink2 (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Diff is why I posted here as a suggestion to use {{webarchive}} because it is designed for this situation. -- GreenC 20:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, for two archive services, webarchive is the better choice. But when there is a cite web and only one web archive, then the webarchive should be in the cite web if I am understanding BHG's words correctly. Here is a example diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Internet&diff=1067717351&oldid=1065863951 Rlink2 (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes. |format=addlarchives is a special use case of {{webarchive}} that follows a CS1|2 template when there are additional (> 1) archives. The diff you link is correct. In that case, there are no additional archives only 1 archive thus webarchive can be merged into the CS1|2 template. -- GreenC 20:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@GreenC & @Rlink2: if there are cases where two or more archive links are desirable, why not ask for that functionality to be built into {{Cite web}} etc? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

It's come up before there has been no support for it, and I agree it's better off in a support template then in the core due to the overhead that is required, and maintenance problems it introduces. Our archival system of one archive URL per cite is fundamentally flawed, but adding multiple archive URLs into wikitext just compounds the problems. It could be like the ISBN system where you go to a landing page that is dynamically generated with 100's of archive URLs from dozens of archive providers. Or similar a drop-down list in the wikitext to choose various URLs. With mechanisms to "pin" certain archive URLs as preferred or suggested, such based on dates and user choices. -- GreenC 05:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@GreenC: if adding multiple archive URLs into wikitext just compounds the problems, then why have you been suggesting that Rlink2 do just that by using {{Webarchive}}? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

We're on two levels now. A general system-wide view long-term, and a certain specific diff. There is also the difference between a single diff, and systematic policy at scale ie. automated tools doing it thousands of times. My views on the bigger scale are we should not be doing multiple archives, that includes mainstreaming it in CS1|2. On the smaller scale if someone wants to do an occasional one due to special conditions it should be allowable via special tools like webarchive. When I saw Rlink2 added multiple archives I figured this was a special case. It turned out they were actually doing it as a bot policy but had stopped doing it after a discussion with Redrose which I agree was a good idea to stop. -- GreenC 01:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

My views on the bigger scale are we should not be doing multiple archives and On the smaller scale if someone wants to do an occasional one due to special conditions it should be allowable via special tools like webarchive. Yes. Rlink2 (talk) 01:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Your ANI thread

Hello Rlink2. This is a courtesy note to let you know that I have closed the ANI thread about you. As part of the closure, I have interpreted the community to have warned you that the rate of your editing with AWB has been too fast and that you should slow down to avoid problems in the future. If you have any questions, please feel free to let me know. All the best, Mz7 (talk) 09:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mz7: Yeah, I was going too fast on the Wikipedia highway. Thanks for the speeding ticket. I have BRFAs in the queue, and now I will try to submit more whenever I think I may be going too fast. Rlink2 (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Edits causing duplicate parameter errors

Some of your edits are causing duplicate parameter errors. This edit added archive-url and archive-date parameters to a citation template, but those parameters were already present. This causes articles to be placed in Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls. Please review and fix any of your edits that caused this error. One way to fix it is like this, removing the empty duplicate parameters and leaving the populated ones. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Here is another example, and here is another. If you browse through the error category, you will find the rest. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: Thanks. I was under the impression that if there were two, then the last one would override anything else so it wouldn't matter? And I don't see any red text on the diffs. I guess it is a "silent" error so I will make sure there are no dup parameters. Rlink2 (talk) 13:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

An error message appears at the top of the Preview window when the condition is present, and there is a hidden tracking category shown at the bottom of the page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I noticed this happened again yesterday on a page on my watchlist, in this case adding a duplicate archive date parameter: [6]. This particular instance of the error has already been fixed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@Trainsandotherthings: Nice to see you around again. I was also under the impression that if any two parameters are the same, it wouldn't cause an error (since theres no ambiguity to what the value is). In the diff you linked, the two archive-dates had the same date, so I assumed that the cite wouldn't throw a silent error like it did when there were duplicate parameters with different values. Thanks for letting me know, and I will have to also be wary of duplicate parmaters with duplicate values. Rlink2 (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like there was an error before you edited the page, as there was an archive date but no archive link. No big deal in the grand scheme of things, just wanted to make sure you were aware. Thanks. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

For almost all templates, two of the same parameter will cause the error, regardless of content. There is a bot that will fix certain instances of duplicate parameters, but sometimes human-performed context analysis is required to determine which one to keep. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Wayback Machine via HTTPS

Thanks for fixing dead links like this, but could you please add Wayback Machine links as https://web.archive.org/...? (see Village Pump archive for why). Cheers. --bender235 (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me. I had been using https for the Wayback machine (even have another bot that's approved to change http to https), but I had forgotten about it. Thanks for the trout slap. Rlink2 (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Սան

Սան Ոչանսան 45.146.38.66 (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Can you please provide the links for removing the Vaishnavite influence of Lord Jaganath’s influenced food culture? Check the history

Please issue a talk discussion first, before reverting it, it was provided what the cite had, no vandalism was made. Have you checked those sources? 223.182.98.230 (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I didn't revert such edit, I don't even know what article you are talking about. Rlink2 (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	I have seen your anti-vandalism and bare reference fixing work. Today I re scrutinized your contributions and am really happy with it. Continue your work like this and I hope you bring a change to this place. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 03:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: Thanks, it's really appreciated. Same with you too, keep up the good work. I hope you also continue your work on enwiki and other Wikimedia projects. Rlink2 (talk) 04:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah sure. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 04:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

HTTP 410

Hi Rlink2

As promised[7] at the BRFA, here are some URLs which returned a HTTP status 410:

1. Palauan passport: http://www.palauembassy.com/Documents/CitizenshipStatus.pdf
2. Palauan passport: http://www.palauembassy.com/Bulletins/200701171.htm
3. Palauan passport: http://www.palauembassy.com/Documents/PassportApplication.pdf
4. Paolo Bürgi: http://www.slant.eu/Paolo%20L.Burgi.pdf
5. Paul N. Stockton: http://homeland.house.gov/sites/homeland.house.gov/files/Testimony%20-%20Aimone.pdf
6. Physics education research: http://www4.ncsu.edu/~jdgaffne/grad_symposium.pdf
7. Physosterna cribripes: http://www.biodiversity.org.na/taxondisplay.php?nr=7781
8. Picture framing glass: http://www.sage-ec.com/pages/glossary.html
9. Antelope Island bison herd: http://www.uarc.com/campaigns/antelope_island/index.html

They should all have been tagged as {{Dead link}}, so you will need to set up a test page to check your code's handling of them.

Hope this helps. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: Ok, I tested it in the code and it seems to be working (was a very simple fix to do). Thanks for this list. As always, if there is another change you think should be made in the bot, leave a message at the BRFA and if it is possible, I will try to implement it as soon as possible. Rlink2 (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Glad that works. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Archive date and access date

This edit adds recent archive links. Shouldn't we be striving to present archives more coincident with the stated |access-date=? ~Kvng (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Some of the links in that diff link to the earliest version the Wayback machine has, which happened to be later than the access-date.

For the others, while it is possible, the link usually is always alive on the first capture of it, while sometimes the access-date is inaccurate and on that date the link is dead. On other ocassions, imagine we have this scenario :

2015: Working link captured by Wayback

2017: Link added to WP article, accessdate added

2018: Link dies, Wayback captures 404.

In that case, the closest version to the access-date is dead, while the earliest version is always still alive. Hence why I use the earliest version. Rlink2 (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Content drift is a common problem, always linking to the oldest by default is not necessary. The Wayback API was designed to handle this. You can say "show me available working archives nearest this date". You can say "only show me pages with status 2xx". -- GreenC 20:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I was using the Wayback api but I didn't know it could do that. Rlink2 (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Are you using version 2? Probably not. I'll send an email in a minute. -- GreenC 21:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Cbignore?

Re your edit to add an archive link in Burton Agnes drum: what does {{cbignore}} do? Why should this ref be ignored by the bot in future? Thanks for any explanation. PamD 06:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@PamD: Cbignore is a temporary fix for a bug in IABot and some archive links.

I should start marking them for easier removal once the bug is fixed. Thank you for your kind words, I always enjoy reading your articles, keep up the good work. Rlink2 (talk) 12:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Rlink2: Thanks for explanation "temporary fix for bug" makes perfect sense. And for the kind words - my articles are a pretty mixed bag, but this one cropped up on the news or on a FB news feed or something and seemed worth an article (although I think it's probably just one BM press release recycled everywhere at present it looks solid and should have potential for expansion some time). Happy Editing! PamD 17:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Dead YouTube links

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Template:Dead YouTube links, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Jonesey95, template has thousands of transclusions, so I'm not sure I understand the CSD rationale.Slywriter (talk) 14:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I had some documentation written, it all of a sudden disappeared, strange ......

See the talk page for the rationale behind the template. Rlink2 (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

My mistake. The template is blank, which is usually an indication that it is a test page. The template needs to have some sort of content. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jonesey95 See Template_talk:Dead_YouTube_links for the attempt to add info to the template. Rlink2 (talk) 15:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

It looks like you have done it again with {{Dead Facebook links}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The difference between the youtube one, is that i had transcluded it many times, and the missing documentation was due to the name change.

I had never transcluded the facebook template, or used it anywhere. Rlink2 (talk) 13:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The correct Spanish translation of Point Reyes is Punta Reyes or Punta de Reyes. Is incorrect to translate it as Punto. Thanks for the article it was very informative and helpful. Keep up the good work!

Punta Reyes or Punta de Reyes will be the correct Spanish translation of Point Reyes. Thanks for your article it is very informative and helpful. Just trying to help here. Kagdilla (talk) 04:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Fix archive urls

Can you repair and archive the following urls: https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/FyEkrzQOUmo and https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/ihmLlmemQQM. I tried to archive them but the process says, "There was an issue trying to archive your webpage or video. Usually, webpages that are bigger than 50 megabytes, or videos longer than 15 minutes, may fail to archive." Chompy Ace 22:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Chompy Ace: Well if the video you are trying to archive is 1 hour long, and the site says videos longer than 15 minutes may fail to archive then you have the reason for why that may be the case. I can't even access the first video ("Video not avaliable in your country" is the error YT gives me), and Wayback does not have it either.

But all is not lost, because the 2nd video is on the Wayback machine (http://web.archive.org/web/20220120022159/https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=ihmLlmemQQM). It's one gigabyte, and the web interface is a bit slow since it's a large file, but if you use any downloader tool you can retreive the video for further offline watching (which might be faster than trying to watch it through the web page). If this is for a WP article, you can just link to the Wayback machine version instead. Rlink2 (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

BareRefBot, Trial 2

Hi Rlink2

Just a quick note to say that @Primefac has authorised a second trial for BareRefBot: see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BareRefBot#Trial_2.

Primefac didn't ping you, so I just wanted to be sure that you hadn't missed it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: Thanks for letting me know. I will run the 2nd trial later today (Wikimedia time, or GMT). Rlink2 (talk) 04:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

That's great!

This may not be the last trial, but we are getting closer. Fingers crossed BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Rlink2: is it time for Trial 3? ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl

Yes, but since the bot is following CB now, I will need the list that you fed to Citation bot. Thank you for all your hard work on this. Wouldn't have been possible without you. Rlink2 (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey you are doing great work building this bot, so I am happy to help however I can.

I can send you the lists whenever you are ready to roll. Just ping me when the trial is authorised.

When the bot is fully authorised, would you be OK with taking the lists out of the the history of my log page? For example, here is my most recent completed list: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:BrownHairedGirl/Articles_with_bare_links&oldid=1075996895#Articles_tagged_with_Template:Bare_URL_inline_or_Template:Cleanup_bare_URLs_as_of_20220306,_part_3_of_4

If that's OK with you, I can just post msgs for you like this:

• Articles tagged with Template:Bare URL inline or Template:Cleanup bare URLs as of 20220306, part 3 of 4 now processed by Citation bot, and ready for BareRefBot.

I can email if you prefer, but this is less work for me. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl

When the bot is fully authorised, would you be OK with taking the lists out of the the history of my log page? This is also fine.

If that's OK with you, I can just post msgs for you like this... Please do, this is also easier for me as well. Rlink2 (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Rlink2: That's great. I like it when each of us prefers the same method. Win-win.

I had another thought about BareRefBot. I am reckoning that it will be a kindof last-chance tool for filing bare refs. This will need to be tested, but I reckon that if neither Citation bot nor BareRefBot can fill a ref, then other tool such a WP:REFILL and WP:REFLINKS will fail too.

So doing a full cleanup will require analysing what's left after BareRefBot, and why the tools fail. And to do that, we need two things:

1. BareRefBot edit summaries which record its successes/failures on that page, e.g. filled 3 of 5 bare URL refs; tagged 1 as {{Bare URL PDF}}
2. lists of what pages BareRefBot has processed, ideally linked from the edit summary, e.g. [[User:BareRefBot/Batch005|Batch005]]: filled 3 of 4 [[WP:Bare URLs|bare URL]](s); tagged 2 {{[[Template:Bare URL PDF|Bare URL PDF]]}} refs, which renders as Batch005: filled 3 of 4 bare URL(s); tagged 2 {{Bare URL PDF}} refs

I know I have been a bit of a pain pushing for BareRefBot improvements, so I am sorry to add another one. That's why I raise it here rather than at BRFA, so you feel less pressured. Whaddaya think? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl

I know I have been a bit of a pain pushing for BareRefBot improvements, so I am sorry to add another one. No worries. The goal of Wikipedia is to build a high quality encylopedia, after all, so edit summaries add to that. If I can't do something, I'll let you know. But so far all of your sugesstions have been resonable.

Whaddaya think? Yes, these edit summaries and pages are a good idea. I will implement them. So you give me the list, I make another page with the list, and the bot will link to that page in the edit summary.

And also, if a dead link is tagged, shouldnt it also say that in the edit summary? You already sugessted it for "bare URL PDF". Rlink2 (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, @Rlink2. That's great again.

And yes, dead links should be noted too. Silly me forgot them.

So with three possible actions, maybe the way to construct the summary is to start by listing the total number of bare URLs found, then list each of the 3 actions. Something like:

Batch 0005: Found 7 bare URLs: Filled 3; Tagged 2 as {{Dead link}}; Tagged 1 as {{Bare URL PDF}} BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

@Rlink2: After nearly a week, there has been no response to the request for a third trial of BareRefBot. May I suggest that you try using {{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} and/or leaving a msg on Primefac's talk? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl Done and done.

BTW, I'm working on the dead link backlog of bare refs (I'm leaving the live bare refs for Citation Bot and BareRefBot when approved, as discussed). Rlink2 (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Great work, @Rlink2: ... and very prompt! I hope that Trial3 can start soon.

Have you done some tests runs of the latest BareRefBot in sandboxes to check that it is all polished, and that edit summaries are neat? I hope that Trial3 will be the final step before a big green light is illuminated, and it would be a pity if minor issues clouded the appraisal.

Great to hear that you are at work on the deadlink bare URLs. There be a feck of a lot of them, and any serious dent in the necropolis will be big boost to the verifiability of the 'pedia.

As you may have noticed, I too have been busy with dead bare URLs, in my case by tagging them. My first step was done in two rounds in February, when I tagged dead links on about 60K (yes, sixty thou) articles. I tagged only those which returned HTTP 404 or 410. That made a big dent in the total number of ABURs, cutting it from ~215K to ~155K.

Then I tagged all the {{bare URL PDF}}s, about 35K of them. Then I removed the square brackets from all non-dead-tagged bare URLs (about 20K). The result of all that is that my crude search for bare URLs is now pretty accurate. With another few passes after the next database dump, it will be complete.

The data I collected from my tagging of URLs returning HTTP 404/410 included logging all of the squillions of HTTP requests. That included a lot of URLs where my Perl script returned "No such host is known", i.e. no DNS ... which is probably a dead website. The happened with about 11.5K unique hosts.

To verify that these are not transient outages, I left the list aside until mid-March, and then tested the whole set again ten times, using my VPN to make each round of checks in a different country (USA east coast, USA west cost, Japan, India, Brazil, Oz, Seth Efrica, Germany, UK). That left 9.7K hosts which failed all eleven tests. I rate that as dead enough to tag.

I found just over 12K articles with bare URL refs to those 9.7K hosts, and am busy tagging them now (see e.g. [8]). When that is all done (probably on Saturday), the total number of articles with untagged bare URLs will be down to about 130K. Then I hope that BareRefBot can get the tally well below 100K.

However, I am left with a set of ~1,800 hosts which returned "No such host is known" in February, but not in one of my subsequent tests. I have been wondering what to do with these "ghost" sites, which my small sample checks show in nearly all cases to be either unstable DNS info or domains which were dead but are now usurped.

I have excluded the "ghost" sites from my current tagging, but I don't think that is an ideal solution. Tagging them as dead would raise some "but it worked for me" complaints from those who hit it lucky, so that seems like a path to drama. OTOH, leaving them as live is unsatisfactory, because for most readers most of the time they will be dead.

This evening it occurred to me that your work might provide a solution. Would it be possible for you to archive these refs without first tagging them as dead? If that was possible, then readers would get the benefit of access to the archived copy, without the troublesome intermediate phase of a challengeable {{dead link}} tag.

Best wishes BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl

Have you done some tests runs of the latest BareRefBot in sandboxes to check that it is all polished, and that edit summaries are neat? Not yet, but I ought to. I will do this.

Great to hear that you are at work on the deadlink bare URLs. There be a feck of a lot of them, and any serious dent in the necropolis will be big boost to the verifiability of the 'pedia. Yes, thank you for that. On a semirelated note, I have recently found many of the Youtube links I preempt archived in December are now dead, including some of my personal favorite Youtube videos. Google apperently does a yearly, if not quarterly purge, of videos, and it seems like these were part of it. If it weren't for my preempt archive efforts, they would have been dead forever.

My first step was done in two rounds in February, when I tagged dead links on about 60K (yes, sixty thou) articles. I tagged only those which returned HTTP 404 or 410. That made a big dent in the total number of ABURs, cutting it from ~215K to ~155K. Yes, I am aware, hence why I am clearing the log.

To verify that these are not transient outages, I left the list aside until mid-March, and then tested the whole set again ten times, Intresting, nice to see you are putting in alot of effort into this. On Wikipedia, Competence is required, and you have shown yourself to be very competent.

Then I hope that BareRefBot can get the tally well below 100K. Me too.

Tagging them as dead would raise some "but it worked for me" complaints from those who hit it lucky, so that seems like a path to drama. It is always been my personal opinion that we should have links that work. We should do what works for most readers. If the website can't be bothered to fix their config then its a "dead link" in a way.

This evening it occurred to me that your work might provide a solution. Would it be possible for you to archive these refs without first tagging them as dead? Yes, do you have a list of the "ghost" sites and/or a list of the articles with the "ghost sites" you'd like me to look? Or do you just want me to look out and archive dead bare refs in general (Both of which I can do) Rlink2 (talk) 04:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Rlink2. I am enjoying the way that we are developing techniques collaboratively, and how the work of each of us is complementing the work of the other. It has allowed us to make huge progress, with much more to come.

Thank you too for offering to look at the "ghost" sites. That will be a huge help.

I will put together some lists and start a new section to explain it all. I will give you a list or websites and a list of articles, but I don't want to just give you the lists; I want to give you the tools to verify them. Do you have Perl installed? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl thank you. There are some times where I just feel like quitting and giving up on Wiki. Lyrics from this song come to mind.

However, thanks to editors like you, I find myself being able to stay and make contributions. You keep me going even when my spirits are low.

I will put together some lists and start a new section to explain it all. I will give you a list or websites and a list of articles, but I don't want to just give you the lists; I want to give you the tools to verify them. Sounds good.

Do you have Perl installed? I should (isn't it one of the things that come with every computer?) but if not I can easily install and set it up. Rlink2 (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

archive-url when url-status=live?

Why are you adding archive-url values when url-status is set to 'live', as in part of this edit? At Category:CS1 maint: url-status, the intro says that "cs1|2 templates that have |url-status= but not |archive-url= should be repaired", but ... "if the value is live, remove |url-status=" (emphasis is mine). The archive-url is only to be added if url-status is not 'live'. —ADavidB 06:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Adavidb:

The category documentation says in the next sentence that adding archive-url/archive-date is also acceptable.

If I simply just remove "url-status=live", then that is a cosmetic edit, which is not allowed.

If I add an archive link while "url-status=live" is set, then not only does it remove it from the maint category, it adds value and substance to the article by providing an alternate link for if the original one dies later. Rlink2 (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. My understanding of "Otherwise" at that point in the documentation is "If url-status is not 'live' " rather than "Another option is". When an edit would only be cosmetic, we are allowed to skip it.

I've found that archive.org archives most all new Wikipedia source URL's, so most all new ones will have alternate links a short time later. Including so many 'just in case' doesn't seem to be the intended purpose of archive-url. The (only) example of archive-url usage at {{cite news}} suggests a good use is for normally subscription-based sources. —ADavidB 15:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

"If url-status is not 'live' The whole category consists of articles with URL-status=live, I think you meant to say "if the URL is not live".

Including so many 'just in case' is a perfectly acceptable thing to do (see Wikipedia:Citing_sources/Further_considerations#Pre-emptive_archiving, that's why "url-status" exists so the existing citation continues to go to the original URL even with the addition of archived links.

As for subscription-based sources. an archive link is also fine but url-status=live is still set for those, as the purpose of the archive link is to not necessarily bypass paywalls. Rlink2 (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I accept pre-emptive archiving and inclusion of archive URLs in source citations, but still have an issue with the wording in the category page text. The category says it includes articles with citations having proper url-status values (i.e. 'live', 'dead', and other values) but without any archive-url value. The point of the category is to help with resolution of this situation. It clearly states, "if the value is live, remove |url-status= ." (Otherwise, follow other instructions.) Are you in favor of (or without objection to) modified text on the category page to more clearly state options other than removal of url-status when it is set to 'live'?

(talk page stalker) I have clarified the instructions on the category page. Feedback is welcome. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks good. Thank you. —ADavidB 19:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Well I see that the promotion of this archive continues. At least make sure that url-status=live when the link is live? I had to fix some at the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article. Without url-status, people may click on the archive link and who knows where that information goes. —PaleoNeonate – 23:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

That is a fast moving article, people copy paste citations and add/remove things quickly as the conflict is evolving. Stuff happen and citation information could have disappered somehow. Also there were live links without url-status before I edited that article by the way.

I made two archive runs on the article, and probably should do a 3rd. The first was all good. I will admit there may have been some goofs on my 2nd archive run (due to the fast pace of the article), so I immediately made followup edits to add archive-date and url-status=live to the citations that didn't have them (whether they were mine or not), as well as removing any duplicate params. Rlink2 (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

And just did a 3rd run, all citations that were live (even ones that were not placed by me) should have url-status=live on them. Rlink2 (talk) 03:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

If anyone needs an example of archive.today being better than archive.org

When the page contains javascript? Given this URL: https://www.centreforcities.org/city/milton-keynes/

• This is the best that archive.org can do: https://web.archive.org/web/20220219173050/https://www.centreforcities.org/city/milton-keynes/ Just the pretty picture, none of the actual statistics.
• But archive.today manages to capture the dynamic content: https://archive.ph/CQj65

No doubt there are counter examples, of course. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: Thank you for this, this example will come in handy for future discussions.

Another good option for when sites don't work with archive.org is ghostarchive.org . In this particular case, if you are viewing the Webrecorder version of the page (https://ghostarchive.org/archive/mmhGq?wr=true , should work if you are using an updated version of your browser), not only are all the stats saved and displayed, you can even interact with the actual buttons like you would on the actual page ("filter button"), etc.. The "noscript" version also has the stats too (like archive.today) but because it is script-free you can't interact with the page and use the filter buttons.

Of course there are counter examples, thats why I use all three. All of these sites have their advantages and differences. Thanks again for sharing this, and keep up your good work around here! Rlink2 (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Talk:WLVI/GA1

Wanted to let you know I responded to your GA review. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie: Thank you, I will look at it later today. Rlink2 (talk) 15:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi

• Hello. Can you write this article in English and improve it and add more sections? The Russian Wikipedia is biased against Chechens and their struggle for freedom from Russia, articles are deleted. If this article were available in other Wikipedia sections and in other languages, it would be left in the Russian Wikipedia. https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A7%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B6%D0%B0%D1%85%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%8B_%D0%B2_%D0%A1%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8 25let (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikiwings

		Wikiwings
		For your valuable additions of archived links for references on aircraft articles. - Ahunt (talk) 13:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Ahunt. Keep up the good work, editors like you encourage me to keep editing even when my motivation gets very low. Rlink2 (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Well than I am glad we are all supporting each other in writing this encyclopedia! - Ahunt (talk) 23:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Codeberg

Template:Codeberg has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 09:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Sourcehut

Template:Sourcehut has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@WikiCleanerMan: @Gonnym: Thanks. You can also nomainate all of the other templates I've created so far for deletion (I never got around to doing anything with them, and some were just test templates), and no need to notify me (on those ones). Rlink2 (talk) 01:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey, you can tag your templates with Template:Db-g7 to speedy this up if you want. Gonnym (talk) 06:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I've nominated your Nitter template for February 24, 2022, Tfd. You're free to tag it under G7 per Gonnym's recommendation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@WikiCleanerMan: I was about to tag it at the exact same time you messaged me.Ccoincidencial timing. Thanks. Rlink2 (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Wow, all templates deleted within 5 minutes. Fastily lives up to his name. Rlink2 (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Dead Facebook links

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Template:Dead Facebook links, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 11:41, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@SmartyPants22: The template is a day old, it would have been better to wait instead of immediately jumping on the speedy deletion. Anyway, i responded on the talk page Rlink2 (talk) 12:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

DYK prep sets

Thank you for helping with the prep sets! It would be nice to see in an edit summary that you promoted a hook to prep (minimum), and I have seen others (tlc especially) also saying which prep, and if the hook was modified saying so with a ping to the nominator (luxury). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt

Thanks for letting me know, I will try to include that info in the edit summaries from now on, I am still new to the process so any help is appreciated.

I did not modify the hook in question, so I didn't think there was a need to ping.

By the way, I like your articles, always a pleasure to read, keep up the good work. Rlink2 (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, and I think I clarified what I'd need - that this edit is the close - and what is nice, and absolutely the ping only if. Sorry if that was unclear, - English is not my first language, and that's my main reason for not prep-building myself, the second that I'm unfamiliar with American culture past and present, so can't really judge diversity well enough. I like your first set! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: That is not a problem, you still write amazing articles and are a net positive to the project. Your english is better than some native speakers I know, so there's that ;)

I like your first set! Anyways thank you. I like the prep work so I think I'll be doing that stuff from now on. It's nice getting to do new things, now that the bare ref fixing is delegated to a bot, and I'm almost done with preemptive archiving Facebook and Instagram citations.

Again, keep up the good work. Rlink2 (talk) 02:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, and I laughed loud when getting to the "native speakers", on a train ;) - I watch the preps constantly, and will tell you if something's wrong. We should say more when things are right, but then we'd have no time for article writing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Picture of Kansas Historical Marker

I don’t know how to update wiki but can I email picture I just took of the sign in Kiowa Kansas. It would be nice to have on page since this is where Carry began her campaign. Redgrashoper (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Teahouse Responses

Note that this sort of replies are passive and are not encouraged, what you want to is, communicate as if it were a real life interaction, passive responses such as the one you gave sounds a little bit like an automated response. Please keep this in mind moving forward. Celestina007 (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Celestina007

I will, thank you. Rlink2 (talk) 00:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Prayer for Ukraine

I took this pic in 2009. It was on the German MP yesterday, with this song from 1885, in English Prayer for Ukraine. - Thank you for your appreciation. I nominated it for English DYK before the German, but faced incredible reservations against "taking side in a conflict". - "waiting until the conflict is over" was mentioned. Sadly, I don't expect that during my lifetime. - The nom needs a review, and then someone to move it to prep, - perhaps the latter is more for you ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt

Thank your for your kind message and image. I personally think the hook is OK since it is stating a fact "that the chamber choir Oreya (pictured) chose the spiritual anthem Prayer for Ukraine, published in 1885, a" and is not necessarily biased towards any one side, but others may disagree. I would give it an OK but nominating isn't really part of my balliwack (done that a few times before moving stuff over to prep, maybe I'll start doing both). I'll be happy to move it to prep if its approved and no one does it before me. Rlink2 (talk) 00:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the offer. We have an RfC, and I don't know what to say, ashamed that we even have that. If I have to choose to follow my heart or the rules, I know where I stand. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm disgusted that multiple editors tried to block such DYK nominations, but they never bothered to start a discussion with the rest of the Wikipedia community. I think of it as them pushing their weight around to get their way. SL93 (talk) 02:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I guess I should retract part per AGF, but the whole thing is wrong to me. SL93 (talk) 02:27, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@SL93 Yeah, I know how you feel, trust me. Hopefully the RFC ends up with the right option (which is to allow the hooks) Rlink2 (talk) 02:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Ghost and IABot

Update: IABot now supports Ghostarchive.org - {{cbignore}} is no longer needed, and existing {{cbignore}} should be removed. Is this something you want to do or should we find someone? The problem now is we don't know who added the cbignore - yourself or someone else - since |bot= was not used in the template to identify who added it so we risk removing legitimate cases addd by other users, but I don't think they will be very many if we quickly get this done sooner than later. -- GreenC 19:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@GreenC

I can create a script since any usage of ghostarchive and cbignore is 99.99999% due to the phab bug (hence why I didn't add the bot parameter). So anyone can just go remove cbignore, as long as the cite in question is a ghost link (the person just need to check that the cbignore belongs to a ghostarchive link and not something else). Hence there is also not necessarily a need to get it done "as soon as possible", but of course it should be done sooner rather than later, if not to improve wiki text readability.

The other cbignore placements are due to things like Google books, webrecorder.io, your bot placements etc.....

I'll file a BRFA and maybe make AWB time for it. Rlink2 (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Now that this is fixed, maybe the "blocked from editing" bug will also be fixed now? Rlink2 (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

That remains a mystery, don't even know if it's IABot causing. -- GreenC 20:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

IMO I don't think this would require BRFA. It was known where they were added they would need to be removed, which was part of the original discussion I think. Unless you want to cover bases. -- GreenC 20:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Well it would fall under Rlink2 Bot task 1 I think, but it is always good to make sure.

Anyway I tried again and it looks like the bug is still there. I guess the next version with the bug fix is yet to be deployed? Rlink2 (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

What did you try? GreenC 23:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Rlink2: Can you confirm your are sitll seeing IABot remove Ghost links? Cyberpower678 and I tested it yesterday and it seemed to be OK. The ticket for it has been closed as resolved. If you are seeing different that's important. Do you have a diff we can see? -- GreenC 15:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

There is a diff here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rlink2/sandbox&diff=1075821011&oldid=1075820945 Rlink2 (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you think User:GreenC/testcases/ghostarchive is a complete list of Ghostarchive.org URL varieties? -- GreenC 22:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@GreenC

Looks good to me, in my opinion. The "/archive" long form is universal and can be used for any given link (ex: instagram, normal, or video), and the website will redirect to the appropiate archived page from there (/archive, /varchive, or /iarchive). Could be useful for checking for an archive just from the original URL in the WP citation.

Example:

https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20210728022510/https://www.instagram.com/p/BMUccRPg4Ow/ redirects to https://ghostarchive.org/iarchive/instagram/georgemofficial/1374848874216391600.

Note that there is also /iarchive/facebook (which has the same format, just instead of "instagram" its "facebook")

There is one more /iarchive format. It goes like this:

https://ghostarchive.org/iarchive/s/instagram/Bi-NSa4l5NS/.

When archiving a instagram URL, this is the format that shows up before going to the other main format, it's kinda like the archive.today "/wip/" added when a page is still being archived (I think).

I'd argue that the "/iarchive" aren't short form. The whole reasoning behind the short form/long form arguments was because short form hides the destination of the final link.

The RFC debated long form links like https://ghostarchive.org/archive/2020/https://en.wikipedia.org and short form links like https://ghostarchive.org/archive/wOPfV. In this case, the short form is hiding the resulting webpage, while the long form URL still has information about it.

The "/iarchive" formats isn't hiding any information. The original URL is something like "https://www.instagram.com/p/Bi-NSa4l5NS/" and the ghostarchive url is "https://ghostarchive.org/iarchive/instagram/therock/1782920942907265874" and/or "https://ghostarchive.org/iarchive/s/instagram/Bi-NSa4l5NS/" From these URLs, we know the destination site is Instagram. In fact the ghostarchive URL is more informative then the original URL, since it includes the username of the user who made the post (and the original doesn't).

Luckily I do not think there are many Instagram and Facebook citations on enwiki (and I find many of the articles that rely on Instagram citations end up getting deleted for not having enough WP:RS). The vast majority are "archive" and "varchive", both of which use the traditional long format.

That's about it. A bit more complex than archive.today, but less complicated than pandora web archives.

Hope that helps. Rlink2 (talk) 03:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Great, thanks for this. I updated the page. The problem with Instagram and Facebook is IABot requires archive URLs to have a 4-14 digit timestamp, and the full original URL to be part of the archive URL. For example how do you convert https://ghostarchive.org/iarchive/instagram/georgemofficial/1374848874216391600 into https://www.instagram.com/p/BMUccRPg4Ow/. The bots need to convert the source URL both to and from archive URLs. And need date of archive. This probably can be solved with a /longform/ API only need to ask the Ghost admin if it can be done. There are currently about 1,700 with iarchive/facebook and about 2,000 with iarchive/instagram -- GreenC 16:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Isn't there something like /iarchive/ilongurl just like /varchive/vlongurl? For example, https://ghostarchive.org/iarchive/ilongurl/instagram/georgemofficial/1374848874216391600 displays https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20211223192114/https://instagram.com/p/BMUccRPg4Ow.

It doesn't work for Facebook though (which is probably an bug). The google form is a good way of reporting any issues with the site. Rlink2 (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh awesome. Will update page. -- GreenC 20:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually this does not work: http://ghostarchive.org/varchive/vlongurl/tVBMiwxDUKI .. but this does: http://ghostarchive.org/vlongurl/tVBMiwxDUKI -- GreenC 20:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Broke ghostarchive

See cite #13 and #27 fixed here. Presuming there are a bunch which will make removal of the {{cbignore}} more complex. We'll need a bot to fix these first I think. -- GreenC 19:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@GreenC

You'd think it would make removal more complicated, and it would be if you are making a new "cbignore" handler from scratch. However, the method of which the cbignores were placed can simply be walked back, so even if the cbignore is in the wrong place it can still be removed (but note that it may not necessarily fix already existing cite errors in articles, just bring it back to its previous state without cbignore) Rlink2 (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

It looks like the curly brackets were not correctly aligned. You could walk back the entire edit assuming nothing else important was done. --GreenC 20:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

See cite #30 - missing title generates red error. -- GreenC 19:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

..title was already missing. GIGO -- GreenC 20:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for your efforts

		The Current Events Barnstar
		Awarded for efforts in expanding and verifying articles related to the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis and 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 7 March 2022 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Awarded for being the top contributor to an article related to the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis and 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Cdjp1, thank you very much. Rlink2 (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

March songs

Thank you for support in the related RfC for DYK! Listening to the charity concert mentioned here. I created the articles of the composer and the soprano. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt

Thank you, I like listening to opera and classical music too (I have my favorites, but picking "one" I feel may undervalue the other ones, which is not the indended goal since all of the songs are very good).

Regarding the RFC it's one of those ones where the sensible option is avaliable at the get go but instead people just drag the eventual result. As long as the hooks meet the requirements, I don't see what's wrong with a Russia or Ukraine hook. And I do think Option A will be the one that ends up "winning" based on the responses I see there, so that's good for us. Reminds me of another timewaster RFC..... ;) Rlink2 (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree. - Now, you can also listen on YouTube, and more music, the piece by Anna Korsun begins after about one hour, and the voices call "Freiheit!" (freedom, instead of "Freude", joy). Music every day, pictured in songs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for promoting Bezsmertna to prep1, but ... I have already a hook in that set, which should be avoided, ... I'd love to see her pictured, in women's month, - also, if not pictured, the ALT hook says a bit more, - the original was created to match the pic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: the hook appears to be pictured for April 3? Funnily enough, I also wanted a picture slot for WHM... this is exactly what I warned BlueMoonset about, and I got an earful for it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt @Theleekycauldron

Is there any way to know which prep set will be running on which days? I dont know of a page that has it listed necessarily. Rlink2 (talk) 22:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Rlink2: It'd be in the queues page, here. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

why did I ping you at your own talk page? who knows. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

tlc is faster ;) - T:DYK/Q, linked from a sidebar on all DYK pages if you look for "preps and queues" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The Prayer is on the Main page, finally + new flowers, and btw: the TFA is tlc's first --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Prep 4

Thanks for building preps. I'm just letting you know that bio hooks shouldn't be right by each other. Otherwise, everything is phenomenal. SL93 (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@SL93

I didm't know that. Thank you. Will keep in mind in the future. By "bio hooks", I assume you mean biographies, right? Rlink2 (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I do. SL93 (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Archived pages

Hi, I saw that you've recently gone about adding archives to some Bolivia-related pages. I ask that you don't do so for references that site the websites atlaselectoral.oep.org.bo and gacetaoficialdebolivia.gob.bo as archives for those cites simply don't work. Examples:

• Electoral Atlas - (Does not archive electoral data)
• Official Gazette - (Full text of the document cannot be read through archives)

Thanks! Krisgabwoosh (talk) 02:19, 13 March 2022 (UTC) Krisgabwoosh (talk) 02:19, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Krisgabwoosh Hello, and thank you for your work on those Bolivia articles as well!

As for the first one, it appears it doesn't work with the Wayback Machine upon further inspection, but it does seem to work with ghostarchive.org. See https://ghostarchive.org/archive/cnOqG?wr=true

I don't understand what you mean by the 2nd one, it seems to work for me?

In any case, url-status is set to live, so the original link is still the preferred source anyway. So even if the archive is semi broken, people will still be clicking on the main link. I will avoid these sites due to your request anyway. Rlink2 (talk) 02:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much! In terms of the Official Gazette, clicking on "Ver Norma" shows the full text of the decree rather than just the title. However, it cannot be clicked in the archived version. As for the Electoral Atlas, that's actually quite useful, thanks for bringing it to my attention, I might actually use it in the future. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 02:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

References

How can I archive Youtube videos and other moving films in GhostArchive Efficiently?

Hello and I have seen some archive efforts of yours. I want to join in to learn and help in some tasks. I humbly ask the process in which you use to archive YT vids of different kinds, including YT URLs not included here in Wikipedia. As you may know, Ghostarchive implemented an HCaptcha for every entry which is time-consuming and pain-stakingly problematic for me. Do you use a bot for easy archival? I have a lot of URLs bookmarked to be archived, and to be used in Wikipedia soon. I would be glad if you can help me in this demeanor of mine. Thank you :) --Likhasik (talk) 10:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Likhasik

Hello and I have seen some archive efforts of yours. I want to join in to learn and help in some tasks. Thank you, it is always nice to see people appreciate my work. I use a tool called AutoWikiBrowser to add archived links to articles.

As you may know, Ghostarchive implemented an HCaptcha for every entry which is time-consuming and pain-stakingly problematic for me. Usually the captcha is temporary, it comes when there is alot of submissions I think. It should go away soon.

If you want though, they have a bookmarklet (javascript:void(window.open('https://ghostarchive.org/save/'+location.href))) If you add it to your browser, you can archive any youtube video just by clicking on the bookmark at the top of your browser, saving you time. As of right now, saving Youtube videos through the bookmarklet does not have a captcha.

Do note that videos over a certain length (25-35 minutes in my estimation) will not archive, due to file limits. In that case, you can either try the Wayback Machine (which may archive longer videos), uploading it directly to the archive.org, or saving a copy locally.

I would be glad if you can help me in this demeanor of mine. I would be happy to, please let me know if you have any questions. Rlink2 (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

HOLY Shieeeed. THANK YOU. SO MUCH!!! I was looking for a bookmarklet for this unfortunately I can't code. This saved my time and Hcaptcha problem. Thank you so much. BTW, do you have a group or Wikiproject for overall archiving? Discord, FB, Wikipedia, Reddit, etc.? I have a lot of Bookmarked URLs and links that I would like to archive myself or if perchance, by anyone else.

Also, do you have some sort of automation for archive.today? I found this useful and I also want to archive a lot of things. If you have some sort of automation that automatically crawls whole websites, please let me know. I am still getting the hang of Archiving now. --Likhasik (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Likhasik

unfortunately I can't code I only have an extremely basic understanding of coding (enough for WP purposes, haven't done anything outside of that), but computer science is intresting to me.

This saved my time and Hcaptcha problem. I'm glad it helped.

BTW, do you have a group or Wikiproject for overall archiving? I am not aware of any. There was an attempt to get a Wikiproject off the ground but I don't think it got anywhere.

As of right now, the de facto place for archive discussion also Wikipedia_talk:Link_rot as a place for general archiving discussion. There is also a thread about Ghostarchive specifically at Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Ghostarchive, and a talk page about archive.today at Help_talk:Using_archive.today. You can always come to me for questions as well.

Also, do you have some sort of automation for archive.today? The owner does not want mass submissions, see https://blog.archive.today/post/678411898279067648/hello-i-am-developing-an-application-that#notes , hence the captcha. There is a bookmarklet on Wikipedia:Citing_sources/Further_considerations#Archive.today, but you will still have to complete the captcha.

automatically crawls whole websites Archive.org crawls entire sites, as they are the biggest archive with the most resources. If you have a huge chunk of links, you can also use the archive.org bookmarklet, or put all the links in a Google Sheet and upload them to archive.org (see https://archive.org/services/wayback-gsheets/).

Other sites like archive.today and ghostarchive.org can be used for one off archiving and more specialized instances, such as Instagram, Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, etc..... There are many sites that only work with ghostarchive.org and archive.today. Rlink2 (talk) 15:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Again some AWB help

Hi Rlink. I wanted to know how I could remove country and language linking in television infoboxes using AWB. Is there such a maintenance category? Like there was a maintenance category for articles having infobox television and an unnecessary name paramter. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 04:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible

Use the existing config but replace the word "name" with "country" and make another rule (copy pasted) for "language". Does that make sense?

I don't know of any maintence category, but you can always do an AWB search for articles containing it. Rlink2 (talk) 12:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Rlink2 No I don't get what you say. Also what is an AWB search? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 12:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible

In the "options" menu there is the "normal settings" box, if you go in there you will see the first one you did (which is has the name parameter in the first box). So to remove "country" you would use the same regex, but where it says "name" in the first box you would use "country". And since you want another rule you would copy and paste, and then do the same.

The AWB search is the "make list" to the left of everything. To see all the uses of Infobox television, you can click "What transcludes page" for source and then enter "Template:Infobox television" for "what emeds" and then click "make list" Rlink2 (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I am afraid that I still don't understand both your answers. Can you explain those two to me in a more proper way? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 15:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible,

Regarding the "normal settings" and regex there is screenshots and more info here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/User_manual#Options_tab

regarding the AWB search, there are some screenshots here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/User_manual#Make_list . After that, it should make more sense to you. There is no category tracking country/language linking (as far as I know), so you'll need to get all the usages of Infobox television and start removing from there. Rlink2 (talk) 11:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

quick note

hey! sorry to bother- looks like C. J. Cregg got promoted into the April Fools' Day set, but it's for Women's History Month? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron Whoops, my mistake. Sorry. I only realized prep 2 was for April fools just now. I will move it into another queue. Thank for you letting me know. Rlink2 (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

no problem- thanks for everything you do here! :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

oy, sorry I wasn't clear before- looks like that set is April 2, Women's History Month is march. would you be all right with going to p1? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, thats also fine. Will move @Theleekycauldron Rlink2 (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	thx for hard vork Spacegoat1 (talk) 13:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@Spacegoat1, thank you. Rlink2 (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Magnolia677 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Rlink2 to be Editor of the Week for doing the hard work required to clean-up and archive dead bare URLs. This is one example out of thousands. A fairly new editor (9-1-2021) but they have certainly done a lot of clean-up in a short time and helped combat article vandalism with over 99% (260K edits) to mainspace. One of the top contributors to articles related to the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis and 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Always very collegial and cooperative. Keeps cool and doesn't respond in kind.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 17:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)