Dw31415

RfCStats - Bad section parsing

@S Marshall, I started looking at RfCStats again. Parsing this page Talk:Killing of Alex Pretti presented a problem in that the second section as parsed by mwparserfromhell. Do you happen to see any bad markup (unclosed tags) in Talk:Killing of Alex Pretti#Extended Protected Edit Request, 2nd of Febuary, 2026 section? I looked but don't see anything wrong with the section.

(partially just letting you know I'm looking at it again, please confirm you still think it's of value).

https://github.com/earwig/mwparserfromhell/issues/311

screen shot of incorrect section parsing

Dw31415 (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

• Thank you for looking at it again. I'm not seeing anything wrong with that section either?—S Marshall T/C 16:54, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

  I just got back around to looking at this. It turns out the section had an unclosed italics tag. mwparser can be configured to ignore formatting tags. I'll try that. Dw31415 (talk) 12:51, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  @S Marshall, Please take a look and spot check one of the RfC's (just a test run with 10 samples): User:DwAlphaBot/RfcEditStats#RFC Analysis Report Dw31415 (talk) 14:00, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  I'm really liking this. Being greedy, could we make the output into a sortable Wikitable?—S Marshall T/C 16:15, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  Sure!

  @S Marshall, Separate question: Right now it’s taking the list of open RfCs as the source which means it will drop off after the RfC is delisted. Would it be better to take from the list at Wikipedia:Closure requests? Dw31415 (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  Check out update with sorting and user info. Dw31415 (talk) 20:47, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  The sorting is exactly what I needed! In an absolutely perfect world, I would be able to give the script a specific page revision and rfcid, and get it to generate the table for that rfcid. I don't see this script as a necessary thing to run on every RFC that happens -- only specific ones where appropriate.—S Marshall T/C 23:46, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  Sounds good. I’ll need to set up Toolforge. I hope to do that over the next few weeks. Stay tuned. Dw31415 (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  One small step closer: https://dw-alpha-bot.toolforge.org Dw31415 (talk) 03:16, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

  @S Marshall, I finally got around to figuring out toolforge. I think I have it set up to run every 5 minutes. The bot will look for a new topic and RfC link at User talk:DwAlphaBot/RfcEditStats . Please try it out by adding a link to an RfC in a new topic. Within 5 minutes it should look and run the analysis. Dw31415 (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• Just tried and edit conflicted with you. Will try again soon!—S Marshall T/C 00:29, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  It just ran successfully via the toolforge cron whoop. User talk:DwAlphaBot/RfcEditStats#Infobox military conflict Dw31415 (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  go for it now! Dw31415 (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  I might have broken it!—S Marshall T/C 00:45, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  I’ll have to take a look later. Thanks for trying! Dw31415 (talk) 01:07, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:FBI files on Michael Jackson on a "All RFCs" request for comment. 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 23:30, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Links to archives

- **2014–2015 – Early debates about prior discussion before RfCs**

 *Editors discussed whether starting an RfC without prior talk‑page discussion was improper or merely sub‑optimal; the emerging view was that prior discussion is good practice, not a hard requirement.*  
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Archive_7

- **2015 – Wording cleanup around “must” vs “should”**

 *Several editors worked on softening language that sounded mandatory, preferring advisory phrasing like “should” or “are encouraged to”.*  
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Archive_8

- **2016 – Broader questions about mandatory steps for RfCs**

 *A wider discussion considered whether any procedural steps (including prior discussion / RFCBEFORE‑style expectations) should be mandatory; consensus opposed adding formal prerequisites.*  
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Archive_9 Dw31415 (talk) 01:41, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Pablo Hidalgo on a "All RFCs" request for comment. 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 15:30, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Martin Van Buren on a "All RFCs" request for comment. 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 07:31, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Bird on a "All RFCs" request for comment. 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 14:31, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RfC on renaming AfD on a "All RFCs" request for comment. 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 21:30, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Note to self about timing: https://github.com/sohomdatta1/yapperbot-services/blame/main/frs/main.go#L99 Dw31415 (talk) 01:14, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:BADRCF Dw31415 (talk) 13:16, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Delay

The delay also already exists, since the bot runs once per 24 hours. Polygnotus (talk) 19:28, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Ah, interesting. I guess that means 25% of RfCs are only getting a 6 hour delay (or less). How long were you thinking for a draft phase? Dw31415 (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

~2 or 3 days. Not sure if you saw the chunky chunks. Polygnotus (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Pong. Polygnotus (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi. Man the Camaro RfC is a train wreck. Makes me lean back toward a “procedural close” it’s just an N of 1 tough. I was pinging you to see any thought on an RfC about RfCs Dw31415 (talk) 23:11, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

See Talk:Chevrolet Camaro#c-Vanguard10-20260417024800-SURVEY - Votes with explanation Dw31415 (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

It is a beautiful mess, like me.

Maybe this can push it in the right direction? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chevrolet_Camaro#c-Polygnotus-20260417234200-Vanguard10-20260417024800 Polygnotus (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

any thought on an RfC about RfCs Quite a few, but its probably wise to take that slow. It would be nice to be able to represent both sides fairly, so a cooling off period seems like a good idea. Polygnotus (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

@Polygnotus, FYI: User talk:Dw31415#Workshop - Quick RfC End - Procedural Close Dw31415 (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

RfC Singature

I appreciate this comment Wikipedia talk:Genocide#c-Boud-20260426083700-Boud-20260404200300 but I’m backing away from editing the question itself Dw31415 (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

The actual list of arguments for and against is archived. Just to avoid any misunderstanding (@WhatamIdoing: too), I wasn't proposing to edit that in place. I don't see any current discussion on the question. I was rather just thinking of a note for possible future discussions. Boud (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

I've replied at WT:Genocide; if we want to keep talking about it, then maybe we should move all of it to WT:RFC, so it would turn up in a search of the archives later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done Boud (talk) 06:53, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Rumors

• • With regard to upcoming films, etc. obviously if there is widespread coverage in the mainstream press, that falls under the phrase "the preparation itself merits encyclopedic inclusion." The problem is how to distinguish what is validly newsworthy from what is simply a publicity campaign. One extreme: The New York Times is reporting it. Another extreme: the creator of a very-low-budget film or self-published book personally creates an article about the upcoming release. Somewhere in the middle: the "press coverage" is from the rumor section of a gamer's website, or the "what's new" column of an industry trade journal that customarily prints any press release they are sent, or something like that. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:47, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dw31415 (talk) 18:47, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Workshop - Quick RfC End - Procedural Close

Starting workshop Dw31415 (talk) 22:26, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Question options (RFCEND)

A. Who may end …

Answer options (RFCEND)

A. Don’t include any B. Only Redrose ;-)

Advertising options (RFCEND)

A. 20 random SBB’s

Discussion (RFCEND)

22:34, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Lets not start a RfC workshop now, and not about so many things at once. See here. Polygnotus (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

@Polygnotus maybe a Poll instead? Those used to be a thing Dw31415 (talk) 22:43, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Most Christians

Me: Review this discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesus#c-Mevsherd-20260408025900-Literal_vs._notional

I think Mevsherd has a point that saying what “most Christians believe” is an extraordinary claim. In what sense is the source making that claim and how does it differ from a public opinion approach.

ChatGPT:

You’re putting your finger on a real distinction that often gets blurred in Wikipedia disputes: what kind of claim is being made when a source says “most Christians believe X”?

Even without the exact thread text loading cleanly, the pattern you’re reacting to is very familiar on Wikipedia talk pages—and Mevsherd’s objection is basically about category error.

1) What kind of claim the source is making

When a reliable source says something like “most Christians believe…,” it is usually not making a public-opinion claim (like a poll). Instead, it’s typically doing one of these:

A. Doctrinal / typological generalization

Scholarly or theological works often summarize traditions:

• “Christians believe X” = this is a core or widely attested doctrinal position across major denominations
• It’s based on:
  • creeds (e.g., Nicene)
  • official church teachings
  • long-standing theological consensus

This is closer to classification than measurement.

Think of it like:

“Most physicists accept quantum mechanics”

That’s not from a survey—it’s inferred from the structure of the field.

B. Interpretive synthesis of sources

Secondary sources often synthesize multiple traditions and say “most” to signal:

• cross-denominational prevalence
• absence of major dissent in mainstream traditions

This is editorial summarization of literature, not raw data.

2) How that differs from a public-opinion approach

A true public opinion claim would require:

• surveys or polling data
• defined population (“Christians in the U.S.” vs globally)
• measurable percentages

Those claims look like:

• “65% of American Christians believe…”
• “A Pew survey found…”

That’s a completely different epistemic standard.

3) Why Mevsherd’s point has bite

Mevsherd is right in this narrow sense:

Saying “most Christians believe X” sounds like a quantitative empirical claim.

But often the source is actually doing something else (doctrinal generalization). So the issue is:

• Surface form → sounds empirical (“most”)
• Actual basis → qualitative synthesis

That mismatch is what triggers disputes.

4) Why Wikipedia struggles with this

Wikipedia policy (especially around sourcing and neutrality) pushes toward:

• verifiable claims
• clear attribution
• avoiding vague generalizations

So editors will challenge:

• “most Christians believe X” because it’s:
• hard to verify quantitatively
• potentially misleading without context

This is similar to older talk-page debates where editors question phrases like “many believe…” as weasel words or unsupported generalizations.  

5) The deeper conceptual difference

You can frame it cleanly like this:

Type of claim	Basis	Example	Standard of evidence
Doctrinal generalization	Texts, traditions, theology	“Christians believe Jesus is divine”	Scholarly synthesis
Sociological/public opinion	Surveys, polling	“60% of Christians believe…”	Empirical data

The problem arises when language from one column is used to express something from the other.

6) What a cleaner formulation would look like

A more precise Wikipedia-style phrasing would be:

• “According to [scholar/source], mainstream Christian theology holds that…”
• “In most major Christian traditions…”
• “Historically, the dominant view in Christianity is…”

That keeps it in the doctrinal/typological lane and avoids implying a poll.

Bottom line

Mevsherd’s instinct is sound:

“most Christians believe” is an “extraordinary claim” if interpreted as empirical.

But in many sources, it’s not meant that way—it’s shorthand for:

“This is the dominant position across major Christian traditions.”

The real issue isn’t truth vs falsehood—it’s ambiguity about what kind of claim is being made.

If you want, I can pull the exact Mevsherd comment and break down the specific sourcing they’re reacting to—that usually reveals whether the phrase is defensible or sloppy in that instance. Dw31415 (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

User talk:Dw31415#Most Christians Dw31415 (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Happy Science on a "All RFCs" request for comment. 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 17:31, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Ahmed al-Sharaa on a "All RFCs" request for comment. 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 14:31, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello Dw31415! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Unnamed Sources, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:04, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Archive today bulk edit - May attempt

Combat Squadrons of the Air Force: World War II Dw31415 (talk) 03:07, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Combat Squadrons of the Air Force: World War II Dw31415 (talk) 03:11, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Nonprofit archive

Me: Archive today was exposed as a malicious actor. I want to consider a startup nonprofit to archive the web. What kind of publishing meets fair use criteria?

ChatGPT 5.5: If you were designing a nonprofit web archive today, the safest legal path is to think less like a “shadow publisher” and more like a preservation, indexing, and research infrastructure organization.

The recent litigation involving [Internet Archive](chatgpt://generic-entity?number=0) shows that courts are becoming much stricter when an archive distributes full expressive works in ways that substitute for the original market. Courts rejected the argument that nonprofit status alone makes broad copying “fair use.”  [oai_citation:0‡American Bar Association](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/communications_law/publications/communications_lawyer/2025-winter/second-circuit-affirms-decision-rejecting-fair-use-internet-archive-ebook/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)

That said, there are still several kinds of publishing and archiving activities that are much more defensible under U.S. fair use doctrine.

## The strongest fair-use-oriented models

### 1. Search and indexing, not substitute reading

This is the model courts have historically treated most favorably.

Examples:

- storing copies to create:

  - full-text search

  - citation verification

  - change detection

  - link rot prevention

  - historical comparison

  - metadata extraction

- showing:

  - snippets

  - thumbnails

  - excerpts

  - diffs between versions

The legal theory is “transformative use”:

the archive is not replacing the original publication experience, but enabling discovery, scholarship, or verification.

A very important distinction:

- “Here is the whole article free forever” is risky.

- “Here is evidence that the article existed, changed, or said X on date Y” is much stronger.

This is closer to how search engine caches were defended.

---

### 2. Preservation-only dark archives

A safer architecture is:

- archive broadly,

- but do not publicly distribute everything.

You preserve material for:

- historical continuity,

- legal evidence,

- journalism,

- disaster recovery,

- research access under controlled conditions.

Access can be:

- delayed,

- permission-based,

- on-site,

- scholar-only,

- or triggered only after disappearance from the live web.

Libraries and archives traditionally receive more legal sympathy when preservation is separated from mass public redistribution.

---

### 3. Public-interest evidentiary archiving

One especially defensible area is preserving:

- government publications,

- political statements,

- public corporate claims,

- scientific communications,

- deleted public records,

- journalism relevant to accountability.

The argument becomes:

- democratic transparency,

- historical record,

- anti-corruption,

- scholarly verification.

Courts and commentators often distinguish these functions from entertainment substitution.

A nonprofit explicitly focused on:

> “maintaining an immutable historical record of public communications”

would likely stand on firmer ground than:

> “free universal access to copyrighted media.”

---

### 4. Limited quotation and contextual publication

Publishing:

- short excerpts,

- screenshots,

- quoted passages,

- annotations,

- commentary,

- criticism,

- timeline comparisons

is traditionally safer than hosting entire works.

Especially strong:

- criticism,

- fact-checking,

- academic commentary,

- documenting changes over time.

For example:

- “Company X removed this claim from its website”

- “This politician altered this statement”

- “This article was revised after publication”

Those are classic transformative/documentary uses.

---

## The riskiest activities

Based on recent cases, these are high-risk:

### Full-text public distribution of copyrighted works

Especially:

- books,

- music,

- newspapers,

- paywalled journalism,

- movies,

- magazines.

Even if:

- nonprofit,

- no ads,

- educational,

- one-copy-per-user.

Courts recently rejected those arguments in the ebook context.  [oai_citation:1‡American Bar Association](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/communications_law/publications/communications_lawyer/2025-winter/second-circuit-affirms-decision-rejecting-fair-use-internet-archive-ebook/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)

---

### Becoming a replacement market

The biggest danger factor is usually market substitution.

If users can say:

> “Why subscribe or buy? I’ll just use the archive.”

that strongly weakens fair use.

Courts repeatedly focus on:

- licensing harm,

- lost subscriptions,

- competing ebook markets,

- undermining future monetization.  [oai_citation:2‡LegalClarity](https://legalclarity.org/hachette-v-internet-archive-the-copyright-case-explained/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)

---

## Architectures that could reduce legal exposure

A modern nonprofit archive could combine:

### Robots.txt and opt-out compliance

Even if imperfect philosophically, it helps show good faith.

---

### “Evidence mode”

Instead of rendering entire pages:

- preserve cryptographic hashes,

- timestamps,

- screenshots,

- excerpts,

- semantic diffs.

This shifts the function toward verification rather than republication.

---

### Time-delayed access

Example:

- public snapshot after 6–24 months,

- unless page disappears.

This reduces direct market competition.

---

### Public-interest prioritization

Archive aggressively:

- government,

- public health,

- scientific,

- legal,

- nonprofit,

- historical materials.

Archive commercial entertainment content more cautiously.

---

### Research APIs instead of consumer reading interfaces

A system aimed at:

- historians,

- journalists,

- researchers,

- courts,

- librarians

looks more transformative than:

- “free replacement internet.”

---

## A subtle but important distinction

There are really two separate legal questions:

### A. Is making archival copies lawful?

Courts often tolerate or implicitly allow a surprising amount of copying for indexing/search/preservation purposes.

### B. Is distributing those copies publicly lawful?

That is where recent cases became much harsher.

A nonprofit archive is likely strongest if it:

- preserves broadly,

- publishes selectively,

- transforms materially,

- minimizes market substitution,

- and frames itself as civic infrastructure rather than a free media platform.

This area remains unsettled and evolving, especially with AI training disputes now influencing how courts think about mass copying and archives.  [oai_citation:3‡tomshardware.com](https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/big-tech/news-outlets-are-blocking-wayback-machine-from-archiving-their-pages-23-outlets-concerned-ai-companies-might-abuse-fair-use-and-use-it-to-train-their-models?utm_source=chatgpt.com) Dw31415 (talk) 10:30, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Handling existing archive.today links

The community has determined that archive.today and its associated domains should no longer be used as citation archives. However, a large number of existing archive.today links remain in articles. There are several possible approaches for handling these existing links, and consensus is sought on whether a bot should be authorized to perform any large-scale action. ‘’‘Question’’’ What should be done with existing archive.today links that remain in articles? ‘’‘Option A: Remove archive.today links’’’ Authorize a bot to remove all archive.today links from articles. The original URL would be retained where available, but archive.today URLs would be deleted without replacement unless separately addressed by editors. Advantages: Eliminates all references to a blacklisted service. Simple to implement and audit. Avoids continued reliance on archive.today content. Disadvantages: Removes access to archived content where no alternative archive exists. May leave some citations less verifiable than before. Could result in substantial loss of archival coverage. ‘’‘Option B: Replace archive.today links with a maintenance template’’’ Authorize a bot to wrap existing archive.today links in a maintenance template. The template would display the original URL while retaining the archive.today link for tracking and future review. Advantages: Preserves information while flagging it for cleanup. Enables systematic review of affected citations. Supports future remediation. Disadvantages: Archive.today links remain in article source. May create large maintenance categories. Does not immediately resolve the issue. Previous discussion topics: Whether archive.today and related domains should be used as citation archives. The impact of blacklisting archive.today on existing citations. Methods for preserving access to archived content while complying with policy. Potential bot-assisted approaches for managing archive.today links. Use of maintenance templates to track and review affected citations. Concerns about verifiability, archival coverage, and long-term cleanup workflows. Authorize a bot to wrap existing archive.today links in a dedicated maintenance template (for example, {{Archive.today}} or similar). The template would render the original underlying URL to readers while retaining the blacklisted archive.today link in the template’s parameters for tracking, maintenance, and possible future reversal. It would categorize pages for future review and potentially provide tracking and reporting functionality. Advantages: Preserves information while flagging it for remediation. Allows editors to prioritize and review affected citations. Creates a structured workflow for future cleanup. Disadvantages: Leaves archive.today links present in article source, even if not displayed to readers. May create large maintenance categories. Does not immediately resolve the underlying issue. ‘’‘Option C: Leave existing links unchanged’’’ Take no automated action regarding existing archive.today links. Editors may continue to replace or remove links on a case-by-case basis. Advantages: Avoids large-scale automated changes. Preserves all existing citation information. Allows editorial judgment in each case. Disadvantages: Cleanup may proceed slowly or inconsistently. Archive.today links may remain indefinitely. Makes it more difficult to assess overall progress. ‘’‘Additional comments’’’ Editors are encouraged to discuss whether a combination of these approaches would be preferable, whether any bot task should be limited to specific namespaces or citation templates, and whether additional options should be considered. Dw31415 (talk) 14:39, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

last RfC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Archive.is RFC 5 Dw31415 (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Archive.today_guidance?markasread=348655942&markasreadwiki=enwiki#Wrap_standalone,_blacklisted_link

Wikipedia_talk:Archive.today_guidance#Wrap_standalone,_blacklisted_link Dw31415 (talk) 13:47, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Previous convo: Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 77#c-Mdm.Bla-20260220032100-Using a bot to apply Template:New archival link needed to references Dw31415 (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

diff

−

* Maurer, Maurer. ''[https://archive.today/20230820144531/https://media.defense.gov/2010/Dec/02/2001329899/-1/-1/0/AFD-101202-002.pdf Combat Squadrons of the Air Force: World War II]''. [[Maxwell Air Force Base]], Alabama: Office of Air Force History, 1982.

+

* Maurer, Maurer. ''[https://media.defense.gov/2010/Dec/02/2001329899/-1/-1/0/AFD-101202-002.pdf Combat Squadrons of the Air Force: World War II] <!-- CUTLASSBOT-AT: archive.today/20230820144531/https://media.defense.gov/2010/Dec/02/2001329899/-1/-1/0/AFD-101202-002.pdf -->''. [[Maxwell Air Force Base]], Alabama: Office of Air Force History, 1982.

Dw31415 (talk) 13:20, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Black Adam on a "All RFCs" request for comment. 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 18:30, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Sample

Link to sample Dw31415 (talk) 02:52, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Draft discussion

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:NOMOREARCHIVETODAY&redirect=no

In February, the WP:NOMOREARCHIVETODAY RfC reached a consensus to “remove” all links to archive today. Since then good efforts have been made to replace the links or hide them when contained in templates. However, more than 100,000 links remain visible.

This week, Wikipedia editors documented instances in which archive.today links redirected readers to the Tehran Times rather than the expected archived content. The behavior was captured on video and discussed at Wikipedia talk:Archive.today guidance. This new behavior reduces the utility of the remaining links and demonstrates that readers cannot reliably predict where these links will lead.

I intend this bot to implement the existing community consensus by replacing archive.today links with their original source URLs when those URLs can be identified. I do not intend the bot to evaluate the continued availability of the original source material. Rather, it will restore the target selected by the original editor while removing links to a service that the community has already determined should no longer be presented to readers.

I currently operate DwAlphaBot, but propose this task should be conducted by a new bot to improve traceability and distinguish these edits from DwAlphaBot’s other approved tasks. The code is not yet complete, and discussion is ongoing regarding implementation details, including whether any hidden metadata should be preserved.

I am seeking early review and guidance from BAG and interested editors and request approval for an initial trial of up to 20 edits involving only deterministic replacements where the original URL is reviewed by me.

Dw31415 (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Dw31415 (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2026 (UTC)