A barnstar for you![edit]

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

Bare URL tweet refs[edit]

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[edit]

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

Fort Worth[edit]

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![edit]

	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[edit]

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![edit]

	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[edit]

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[edit]

@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=[edit]

|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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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![edit]

	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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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![edit]

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[edit]

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

Romani people[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

	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[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

		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[edit]

		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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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