NotYourFathersOldsmobile

NotYourFathersOldsmobile, you are invited to theCo-op!

Hi there!NotYourFathersOldsmobile, you are invited toThe Co-op,a gathering place for editors where you can find mentors to help you build and improve Wikipedia. If you're looking for an editor who can help you out, pleasejoin us!I JethroBT(I'm a Co-op mentor) This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend,HostBot(talk)17:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Deleted sourced information atTokyo Story

Hello, I noticed you recentlydeletedinformation fromTokyo Storybecause you said the “site has disappeared.” However,this essaysuggests:Do not deletecited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer.WP:Verifiabilitydoes not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online.You may considerrepairing the dead linkby using an archive link instead,like so,or just using thereferenced articlein Japanese. Thanks.Hftf(talk)23:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Not really. Wikipedia shouldn't be using an emphemeral and now-disappeared blog as a source for a dubious statement like "it was a popular entertainment in Japan". I clicked on the link to find out how such a poor statement had been sourced, only to find that not only the statement but the sourcing were flawed. Rather than fuss about the link or archive, you should think about whether it was worth preserving a link to that material. Better to supply good sourcing, not emphemeral blog material, than worry about linking to archive.org.NotYourFathersOldsmobile(talk)00:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me – I trust you made the right call. I hadn’t looked too carefully at the source in question; it was mainly the reasoning in the edit summary that caught my attention. My intent was to say that, in general, information from dead links doesn’t need to be deleted, and also dead links can often be repaired. I think editors would probably concur with any removal of information if the summary also mentioned that the source was flawed or whatnot. My apologies – I should have written my message more clearly. Thanks.Hftf(talk)00:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I've been checking the references again and the links to the 1992 and 2002 sight and sound polls are either dead links or redirects to the 2012 poll. Do you know how to put the archive org links into the page for those?NotYourFathersOldsmobile(talk)00:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I believe these archive links should work:19922002.I got them by going tohttp://archive.org/,entering the dead URL into the first input box, and finding a snapshot that worked. You can take a lookhereto learn about using archive links in citations; I’m not very familiar with them yet myself. That page also contains some tips for narrowing down snapshots, submitting sites for archival, and archive-related templates. If you’re adventurous, you can also update any dead links to those or otherSight & Soundpages in similar articles, such asSight & Sound,Yasujirō Ozu,cinema of Japan,8½,Vertigoetc. Thanks.Hftf(talk)05:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Hftf. That looks like the right information I needed. I don't have time right now but I'll try to add them soon.NotYourFathersOldsmobile(talk)06:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)