Should we require for quotes (as in {{Quote}}) to use mandatory archive links?
I started this conversation around a year (or more) ago on IRC or Discord (can't remember), and it was quickly determined as... unnecessary. Maybe too quickly, as it's my opinion today. At the time, others editors felt it was cumbersome to have an archivelink instead of a simple url, with the main argument being that it take longer to load an archivelink.
I think that's not the point, both on principle (keeping a solid chain of attribution) and on the basis of my personal experience. As I've the opportunity to test it (without even any systematic search), our url in quotes suffer the same fate as any internet content: link rot. At several occasion, I have encountered OOU articles, and BTS sections, with internet quotes from a decade or two ago, and with no means whatsoever to find the content from which it originated.
Sure, we use a lot of quotes from SW.com and those are easy to find back, but what about quotes from fansites interview? What about quotes from social media? Those tend to disappear without notice, and they often goes under the proverbial "radar" of archive scrapbots.
I know it's another tedious task to add to the list, but it would be much safer if we would treat url in quotes the same way as we do any other url (consistency, yeah!). If, as I hope, this proposition receive enough support, I'll move it to a CT vote.
In practice, this would require some tinkering with {{Quote}}. At first, an "archiveurl=" parameter would be introduced, and "url=" would be modified so it can tag concerned page with a new maintenance sub-category to Category:Pages with missing permanent archival links: Category:Quotes without archiveurl. When editors will have turned all "url=" into "archiveurl" (in less than a year, I hope), "url=" will then be removed from the template. -- NanoLuukeCloning facility 09:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- You've really said all that needs to be said. We should absolutely be doing this, both for consistency and for longevity. The alternative is to wait for our links to become obsolete. RattsT (talk) 10:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- This makes sense to me. I already always use archive links for quotes (see Seek) in order to avoid "link rot" as you put it. In general we should really always have an archive link over a live one for anything like this that doesn't have room for both. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed. I typically do the same if I know the url will be the quote source permanently. We should be implementing archive links wherever possible, really. Zed42 (talk) 10:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed. Why not go further and add full archive link features such as archivedate, and where needed, nobackup=1, like we do for citations, which gives us options for alternative archive linking. Also, archivedate provides the benefit of reduced byte size, which is never a bad thing. This would also mean we'd need to keep the url too, for building the archive link when only archivedate is used. Plume Tray (talk) 11:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- On archivedate: sure, why not ^^. On nobackup: My personal opinion should be that we shouldn't be keeping quotes if there is no trace of attribution. We could be accused of hosting false information, and that would simply not do. --NanoLuukeCloning facility 16:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- You are so right! It's bugged me before, but it didn't occur to me to ask about linking to an archive instead. I like this. Immi Thrax
(talk) 15:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC) - The {{Quote}} template was Wookieepedia's first foray into trying to properly source content beyond putting source lists at the end of articles, and as such, it hasn't aged that well. Really, it ought to be split, with the formatting for the content remaining in the template, and the attributions handled by standard <ref name=></ref> tags, so that all sourcing in an article is handled in the same way and so that more complicated sourcing than a single blind link is possible. If this is done, then our standard rules for including archivelinks come into play and address the problem. I don't pretend to imagine cleanup after such a change would be easy, however. jSarek (talk) 06:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- That's seems like an interesting idea! I've relayed it to Discord and some users felt interested. I hope they will weight in later. The main issue here would be integration, so if we do it, it will be optional at first (and probably for a long time), since I don't think the process could be easily automated, and it's going to requires manual integration. The process would be to first modify {{Quote}} and {{Dialogue}} (with the respective LUA modules, something I hope Cade could take care of) to allow both "traditional" quote sourcing and "regular" referencing (and adapt the trigger for Category:Unsourced_quotes), then create two new triggers and maintenance categories: one for url, so if Quote/Dialogue use url= instead of a regular ref+template combo, and a second one to track "traditional" sourcing versus "regular" referencing. In fact, the url cat would be a subcat of this one. Anyway, this would not requires any Consensus Track vote, since Quote/Dialogue parameters are not hardwired in the policies (only as examples in the Layout Guide). Still I would love more input on this from the administration and other technically inclined editors ^^. -- NanoLuukeCloning facility 13:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- This can be easily achieved by adding a parameter
ref=to both templates, and I already did some tests with it on another wiki. However, there was some disagreement on Discord whether all quotes should use references or only those where a link isn't sufficient. 01miki10 Open comlink 14:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)- For what it's worth, I'm of the opinion that standardizing the links in all cases is to the benefit of users and editors alike. Editors won't have to worry about what kind of sourcing to use, and bot edits wouldn't have to have separate parameters to fix standard sources and quote sources. Users on phones wouldn't have to leave the page (since mouse-over text doesn't work with a touchscreen) to know what a source is, and the reference will fall neatly into the numbered list at the bottom of the article instead of being absent from it. jSarek (talk) 06:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't even thought of how the current Quote/Dialog isn't mobile-friendly, nice catch jSarek! I'll wait to be done with my proposals for real-persons articles (next CT coming this WE), and I'll then focus on this issue. -- NanoLuukeCloning facility 15:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I'm of the opinion that standardizing the links in all cases is to the benefit of users and editors alike. Editors won't have to worry about what kind of sourcing to use, and bot edits wouldn't have to have separate parameters to fix standard sources and quote sources. Users on phones wouldn't have to leave the page (since mouse-over text doesn't work with a touchscreen) to know what a source is, and the reference will fall neatly into the numbered list at the bottom of the article instead of being absent from it. jSarek (talk) 06:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- This can be easily achieved by adding a parameter
- That's seems like an interesting idea! I've relayed it to Discord and some users felt interested. I hope they will weight in later. The main issue here would be integration, so if we do it, it will be optional at first (and probably for a long time), since I don't think the process could be easily automated, and it's going to requires manual integration. The process would be to first modify {{Quote}} and {{Dialogue}} (with the respective LUA modules, something I hope Cade could take care of) to allow both "traditional" quote sourcing and "regular" referencing (and adapt the trigger for Category:Unsourced_quotes), then create two new triggers and maintenance categories: one for url, so if Quote/Dialogue use url= instead of a regular ref+template combo, and a second one to track "traditional" sourcing versus "regular" referencing. In fact, the url cat would be a subcat of this one. Anyway, this would not requires any Consensus Track vote, since Quote/Dialogue parameters are not hardwired in the policies (only as examples in the Layout Guide). Still I would love more input on this from the administration and other technically inclined editors ^^. -- NanoLuukeCloning facility 13:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)