Module talk:Webarchive

Perma.cc support

I added support for the Perma.cc web archiver. In the process I also added the ability to call the webarchive function with arguments (i.e. as {{#invoke:webarchive|webarchive|url=http://perma.cc/F9NT-22AK|date=2015-04-09}} in addition to the preexisting {{#invoke:webarchive|webarchive}} (which grabs arguments from the parent). This makes the module easier to invoke from Scribunto test cases, which I added at Module:Webarchive/testcases and Module talk:Webarchive/testcases. —RP88 ^(talk) 18:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"at" versus "on"

Re: this[1]

If the rendered text said "Archived on Wayback Machine" I could see this, but most of the time it says "Archived August 3, 2015 at Wayback Machine" which is a shorthand way of saying "Archived on August 3, 2015 at the Wayback Machine". If we said "Archived on August 3, 2015 on the Wayback Machine" it's a repetitive use of "on" and it doesn't sound right. What is the "on Wayback Machine" shorthand for in this context .. It's confusing. "at the Wayback Machine" is unambiguous and without repetition. -- GreenC 14:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Green Cardamom

"it's a repetitive use of "on" and it doesn't sound right." Oh, yes, the cursed "it doesn't sound right" which I heard for years from students wrote incorrect answers in the exam because the correct answer didn't sound right. That's why I generally don't care if things sound right or not; I apply the tried and proven principle.

Maybe it doesn't sound right, but it nonetheless is right. Contents are hosted on websites, not at them. It is a simple matter of collocation.

Also, you reverted bad insertions of "the", against which MOS:COMPUTING has warned. I bet they sounded right to you.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to need to get consensus for these changes. Thanks. -- GreenC 16:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:COMPUTING, in the role of guideline, represents consensus. —Codename Lisa (talk) 05:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is consensus this template has been in use for nearly a decade in its original form and wording at template:wayback and forcing through a change in style across 100s of thousands of articles is going to need consensus. There are issues to consider such as how this change will impact existing citations and how they are worded in-context. You can use the MOS as your argument but it's not hard policy. -- GreenC 13:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not hard policy? And what do we have against this "not hard policy"? An argument of "no one bothered to fix it so far, so let's not fix it ever".

You said "consensus", I gave you consensus. Now you are changing your word. Strip all the bureaucratic nonsense from your discussion and you have no arguments whatsoever.

—Codename Lisa (talk) 08:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem at this point is your behavior and abuse of template editor permissions. Your behaving righteously and unilaterally so you can't see any disagreement as being valid ("you have no arguments whatsoever") then attribute bad faith to it ("bureaucratic nonsense"). Then you aggressively edit war over it and ignore the fact there is clear and unambiguous disagreement with your changes. The way its been for over a decade. Finally your disrespecting the well established rules about how to edit Module and Templates. See Wikipedia:Template_editor#Abuse. You made a bold edit without prior discussion, it was reverted and we briefly discussed and I asked you to please establish consensus for these significant changes. Start an RfC etc.. but you continued to revert a second time using your template editor privileges prior to resolution of the dispute, unilaterally deciding your are right. -- GreenC 15:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please be careful when making significant changes to a production Module that is so heavily used. If there is any chance of a technical problem and/or disagreement. The correct way would be to update the sandbox and wait a day or two for comment then copy it into the live Module. There are performance and backlinks database consequences with reverts. -- GreenC 14:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah? Well if you are worried about the impact on the heavily used modules, don't revert contributions that are based on principle and logic, only because they don't sound right. Better yet, don't commit those mistakes in the first place. —Codename Lisa (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved editor stopping by Just saw this listed on ANI and thought I'd look it over and give feedback. Codename_Lisa I agree with the sentiment that guidelines represent consensus - that being said all guidelines are to be treated with common sense ( MOS:Computing ) says that on the very top of the page.
That said, I will point that on WP:Template_editor , near the abuse section it does say

Any breaking changes, no matter how small. If it removes a parameter, or changes expected parameter behavior, do not do it without strong consensus, unless your reason for doing so is absolutely critical.

Your change appears to be breaking this template, so you would need to gain consensus for making this change, don't just revert , talk it out.
I also want to point out that your method of communication does come across as high-handed, dial it back a bit (I totally understand your point of view and like I said, I agree with you, but guidelines aren't set in stone -I had to learn this lesson myself! ). Explain why you believe the change is merited, and let's wait for others to join in, if consensus supports you, then you're fine. Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ 18:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]