Referencing Dead Link[edit]
Hello! I'm relatively new to editing here (know how to basic edit, more familiar with the magic words over on FANDOM's platform). On the Charlie Dimmock article, I've added a link to a Wayback Machine article as the website it is from technically no longer exists (redirects to something else). Is there a way to mark the "original" as a dead link? Thanks. EmmerdaleFan1972 (talk) 10:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- EmmerdaleFan1972, hello! The citation templates do this implicitly.
- For example, your code is:
{{citation |url=http://www.hollyoaks.com/article.asp?a=06/08/02 |title=Official Hollyoaks Website |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20020819042700/http://www.hollyoaks.com/article.asp?a=06/08/02 |archive-date=19 August 2002 |date=6 August 2002}}
- which produces:
- Official Hollyoaks Website, 6 August 2002, archived from the original on 19 August 2002
- So implicitly, the archived URL appears first if
|url-status=dead or if this parameter is not set, & the original URL appears second. Generally it can be assumed that the user will click on the first link. If for "fun & giggles" or by mistake one clicks on the original link, one quickly learns the convention when one fails to retrieve the target page.
- Under Template:Citation#URL, it states:
-
- url-status: this optional parameter is ignored if archive-url is not set. If omitted, or with null value, the default value is
|url-status=dead. When the URL is still live, but pre-emptively archived, then set |url-status=live; this changes the display order, with the title retaining the original link and the archive linked at the end. When the original URL has been usurped for the purposes of spam, advertising, or is otherwise unsuitable, setting |url-status=unfit or |url-status=usurped suppresses display of the original URL (but |url= and |archive-url= are still required).
- There are situations in which it is good to present the archive link even when the original URL is live by using
|url-status=live. I would recommend this in particular for links at television or radio stations, because they often seem to change their website structures, so that the original URL will change to something else or disappear altogether.
- I believe it good practice to set
|url-status=dead rather than to depend on the default.
- I do not recommend using the
|url-status=unfit or |url-status=usurped values. I have seen them cause errors. I believe that |url-status=dead suffices for all situations when the original URL is unavailable.
- I hope this answer is good enough. It is uncustomary to further mark a URL in a a citation template as dead.
- Please let me know if you have any further questions. Peaceray (talk) 06:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Dear Peaceray,
- Thank you for your assistance. I have done as recommended, and added "|url-status=dead" to the citation. I had expected that "|url-status=dead" may have done something with the "|url=" field. In the late 2000s, the Official Hollyoaks website was closed and redirected to network Channel 4's page on the site (which displays significantly less information), therefore removing all information from that site.
- Thanks again,
- EmmerdaleFan1972 (talk) 08:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
- You can choose to be reminded when you have not added an edit summary. This can be done in your preferences. This could conflict with the CAPTCHA. This has now been fixed. [1]
- You can link to specific log entries. You can get these links for example by clicking the timestamps in the log. Until now, such links to private log entries showed no entry even if you had permission to view private log entries. The links now show the entry. [2]
- Admins can use the abuse filter tool to automatically prevent bad edits. Three changes happened last week:
- The filter editing interface now shows syntax errors while you type. This is similar to JavaScript pages. It also shows a warning for regular expressions that match the empty string. New warnings will be added later. [3]
- Oversighters can now hide multiple filter log entries at once using checkboxes on Special:AbuseLog. This is how the usual revision deletion works. [4]
- When a filter matches too many actions after it has been changed it is "throttled". The most powerful actions are disabled. This is to avoid many editors getting blocked when an administrator made a mistake. The administrator will now get a notification about this "throttle".
 There is a new tool to build new skins. You can also see existing skins. You can give feedback. [5]- Bots using the API no longer watch pages automatically based on account preferences. Setting the
watchlist to watch will still work. This is to reduce the size of the watchlist data in the database. [6]
- Scribunto's file metadata now includes length. [7]
- CSS and JavaScript code pages now have link anchors to line numbers. You can use wikilinks like w:en:MediaWiki:Common.js#L-50. [8]
 There was a new version of MediaWiki last week. You can read a detailed log of all 763 changes. Most of them are very small and will not affect you.
Changes later this week
- The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 12 January. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 13 January. It will be on all wikis from 14 January (calendar).
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
15:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
--Wikimedia New York City Team 14:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service[edit]
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Thomas Jefferson Ramsdell on a "Social sciences and society" Good Article nomination, and at Talk:2012 Istanbul suicide bombing on a "History" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Removing edit on Margaret Sanger's page[edit]
Hi, so I don't think there's anything wrong with being honest and including "eugenicist" in her bio. This is a site to teach people and anyone who doesn't scroll down to the eugenics section, might not be aware of her history in the subject. If you look at any politicians or doctors who have dabbled in this area, they're regularly branded "white supremacists" however while that title could be applied to her too, I thought that might be a bit harsh and used the more restrained term of "eugenicist." This really shouldn't be a problem for someone who legitimately believed in eugenics LetMeSeeYourBones (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- LetMeSeeYourBones, (talk page watcher) comment: Please review the previous discussions at Talk:Margaret Sanger in which editors have discussed this suggestion. (The archives of the talk page have older discussions about it.) If you have new arguments to make in support of your edit, you should start a new discussion and see if you get consensus from other editors. Schazjmd (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- LetMeSeeYourBones, the question is about what are the things for which Margaret Sanger is notable.That is what should be in the lead sentence. Advocating eugenics is hardly high up on the list. There are many influential eugenicists that do not have "eugenicist" in the lead sentence; there is no reason why we would make an exception for someone for whom eugenics was not a primary focus.
- My suspicion is that by adding the eugenicist label to the lead sentence is in reality an attempt to denigrate the progress that she made with birth control, Planned Parenthood, & women's rights. Please see WP:LABEL in this regard.
- I would invite you to open a discussion on Talk:Margaret Sanger if you feel otherwise. That way other editors could see & comment the discussion. First, I would advise you to read or review MOS:LEADSENTENCE, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, WP:UNDUE, & WP:EDITCONSENSUS. Peaceray (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you[edit]
Hello! I just wanted to thank you very much for reaching out to me with such helpful information that I really needed... Have a wonderful day and Stay Awesome
Sincerely AnestisM.
Greetings from Greece 🇬🇷 Anestis99 (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
16:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
|
There is a new tool to 
There was a 
