Editing Help talk:Citation Style 1 (section)

===Archive error error===

{{mdf|Help talk:CS1 errors#Archive error error}}
The template is claiming that https://archive.today/20081012124828/http://www.thefa.com/TheFACup/TheFACommunityShield/NewsAndFeatures/Postings/2003/08/60753.htm is an archive url error, the help page does not describe the format for archive.today urls, but this url certainly works.  There are three such error messages in [[2003 FA Community Shield]].  All the best: ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]''<small> 20:28, 18 January 2026 (UTC).<br /></small>
:{{ping|Rich Farmbrough}} This is the same issue at [[Help talk:Citation Style 1#Error with origin_date for archive.today]]. It's because archive.today was founded in 2013 so cannot have archived a page in 2008. They must have copied it from archive.org: https://web.archive.org/web/20081012124828/http://www.thefa.com/TheFACup/TheFACommunityShield/NewsAndFeatures/Postings/2003/08/60753.htm. No doubt someone could write a bot to go through changing all instances of *archive.today/200* to <s>*web.archive.org/web/200*</s> <ins>point at the original archive rather than a copy</ins>. [[User:DrKay|DrKay]] ([[User talk:DrKay|talk]]) 22:47, 21 January 2026 (UTC) Amended. 13:50, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
::But the archive link to archive.today redirects to archive.md – and when that URL is substituted in the template, all is fine. So why should a working URL cause an error message, and worse, suppress the archive link? -- [[User:Michael Bednarek|Michael Bednarek]] ([[User talk:Michael Bednarek|talk]]) 13:05, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
:::If you're asking about the technical point, because, as explained at [[Help talk:Citation Style 1#Error with origin_date for archive.today]], "According to line 2486 of Module:Citation/CS1, <syntaxhighlight lang="lua" inline="1">-- <origin_date> is 1996 for archive.org; 2012 for archive.today</syntaxhighlight>". There's no error tracking for archive.md. This is all in lines 2486 ff. of the module. If you're asking about the policy or wisdom of setting up such error tracking, then I make no comment and have made no comment. [[User:DrKay|DrKay]] ([[User talk:DrKay|talk]]) 13:40, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
::::As archive.today is forwarded (redirected) to archive.md, a datecheck for the former seems unnecessary when a replacement in the citations with the latter is accepted. -- [[User:Michael Bednarek|Michael Bednarek]] ([[User talk:Michael Bednarek|talk]]) 15:44, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
::PS: Surely, >11,000 entries in [[:Category:CS1 errors: archive-url]] indicate a diagnostic problem. -- [[User:Michael Bednarek|Michael Bednarek]] ([[User talk:Michael Bednarek|talk]]) 13:12, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
::Another issue is that where the original is from webcitation.org there is no date-checking we can do in those webcitation urls.  I see no reason we should not support proleptic archive.today dates.  An inappropriate range check is still a range check but it also still inappropriate. All the best: ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]''<small> 14:04, 23 January 2026 (UTC).<br /></small>
:::{{Ping|Trappist the monk}} can we fix this by setting an earlier or no origin date for archive.today please. All the best: ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]''<small> 14:10, 23 January 2026 (UTC).<br /></small>
::::Agreed, e.g. there is nothing wrong with {{cite web|title=1, Aney Marg: Rabri gets second eviction notice |date=17 December 2005 |url=http://www.indianexpress.com/oldStory/84135/ |archiveurl=https://archive.today/20090528133703/http://www.indianexpress.com/oldStory/84135/ |archivedate=2009-05-28 |url-status=live |accessdate=2009-05-26 }} based on a prior webcitation.org snapshot. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 18:44, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::So an archive link with a correctly formatted date and a URL that works gets suppressed because the system believes that archive, archive.today, cannot possibly hold that page – but it does. If a normal user would remove en masse working links to archived pages from our articles, they would correctly be accused of disruptive editing and vandalism and would quickly be censured. But here we have a system wickedly behaving with impunity. I don't know whether the obvious solution, a bot replacing archive.to with archive.md, is feasible, but these unfounded and erroneous {{citation error|1={{!}}archive-url= is malformed: timestamp}} action must stop immediately. -- [[User:Michael Bednarek|Michael Bednarek]] ([[User talk:Michael Bednarek|talk]]) 23:51, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
::Wait, so what is the expectation from the editors, we are supposed to now start taking all of these "Saved from" URLs from archive.today headings, and copying them into the citations instead?
::Surely a bot should be doing such a mundane change, not bothering readers and editors? --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 11:42, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
:::And there is no guarantee that the "saved from" is still live.  All the best: ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]''<small> 12:00, 12 February 2026 (UTC).<br /></small>