Template talk:Webarchive

Quick reference

WP:WEBARCHIVES gives details of (all?) available web archiving services. This may be helpful when discussing this template and its Lua module.

Yeah I made that page, and this template, the template is largely up to date displaying those archives. But thanks for linking to that page it is relevant. -- GreenC 15:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

date display format

It seem that the date display format of this template is independent from other date parameters and does not follow the formatting rules of |cs1-dates= used in for example {{Use dmy dates}}. Ought this display format not to behave in the same way?  Ohc ^{revolution of our times} 08:52, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

It's not a CS1|2 template. {{Use dmy dates}} says |cs1-dates= is used for "How dates should be formatted in CS1 citations". It's technically an external links template one of thousands they generally don't support CS1. We could have something in the docs that recommends your user tool User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates.js to maintain date consistency since this template is common. Some editors prefer ISO for archive and access dates, and mdy/dmy for other dates. The current WYSIWYG system is simple and easy to maintain it also works across all wiki language sites and date styles. -- GreenC 20:12, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Why external links and not citations?

The documentation says that the template is for external links, not citations. It has been used in citations in articles which do not use {{cite web}} (e.g. Cole Porter) to preemptively provide archived versions of cited articles. Is that usage acceptable, and if not why not? Dave Schweisguth (talk) 01:40, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

That's an infobox message. Nothing about it the actual documentation. Probably if your using a citation style that doesn't use a CS1|2 template ie. square links, it would be appropriate. It's not ideal, really best to convert citations to CS1|2. -- GreenC 19:30, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Order of the parameters

I think the examples here should place the |title= parameter first, before |url= and |date=.

I think placing |title= first here (and in use) would make it easier for editors to understand and use this template and parameter in the markup.

I think it would encourage editors to use the |title= parameter. It is good to use this parameter because it makes a nicer link. It also allows removal of the often-broken, sometimes-dangerous original link, which is often only in brackets or bare, especially in the External links section.

Based on this, I would change the examples on this documentation page, for example, changing this example:

Usage with |url=, |date=, and |title=

{{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160802001301/http://example.com/ |date=August 2, 2016 |title=Page Title}}

[produces]

Page Title at the Wayback Machine (archived August 2, 2016)

to this:

Usage with |title=, |url=, and |date=

{{webarchive |title=Page Title |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160802001301/http://example.com/ |date=August 2, 2016}}

[produces]

Page Title at the Wayback Machine (archived August 2, 2016)

Here is a non-dummy example:

• {{webarchive |title=Śrīmad Bhāgavatam, Canto 3 Chapter 30 Verse 25. former Bhaktivedanta VedaBase. |url=http://web.archive.org/web/20210308053009/https://vedabase.io/en/library/sb/3/30/25/ |date=2021-03-08}}

[produces]

• Śrīmad Bhāgavatam, Canto 3 Chapter 30 Verse 25. former Bhaktivedanta VedaBase. at the Wayback Machine (archived 2021-03-08)

Points in favor of the proposed change:

• The title is the most important param of a link. The title identifies the linked content. It belongs first.
• The title ideally is static. (The title (and original URL) are how replacement content might be found when desired.)
• The archive URL can change. The URL (or whole site) could break and need to be replaced. The archive URL and archive date could be updated (for a working or better copy).
• Which parameters "are mandatory" and which are "optional" has no bearing on a preferable order of placing them. Human readability is more important.
  • One "optional" parameter is already placed first: |format= is optional, rarely used, and is listed last in the TemplateData section. But it is placed first in the examples (and I would not change that). The example shows it first, intuitively and obviously, because it transforms the result and its impact is displayed first. (Sensibility prevailed in this case.)
• Most times, the title (if present) is consumed first. The archive date and URL are consumed afterward.
• The title belongs first not because it is anyone's "favorite parameter", but for clarity. ("Front-seat placement" is not some kind of privilege bestowed upon a parameter.)
• Better examples really can improve the documentation, by improving usage of a template.
• Change is not a bad thing. (If it doesn't actually hurt the article, try to roll with it. Yes-and and yes-but, not NO.)
• Order of parameters in use and in examples might not matter at all to most, but it matters to some. The order is not set in stone nor owned.
• Stomping on enthusiasm is unkind. -A876 (talk) 18:19, 15 August 2025 (UTC)