Talk:Perma.cc

Perma.cc and Wikipedia
This is to start a general conversation about usage of Perma.cc on Wikipedia which is currently 52 links in 30 articles.

Perma.cc provides links in two formats:
 * https://perma.cc/C7DF-GKMX
 * http://perma-archives.org/warc/20160507230202/https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/attachments/2014/11/20/2014-11-19-auth-prioritize-removal.pdf

(note the different domain names)

The first a web-shortened version the second is the long-version. This is the same way WebCite and Archive.is work and according to a recent RfC, it was decided we would not use web shortened versions when possible due to Wikipedia policy disallowing web shortening. It permits editors to link to otherwise blacklisted content, and it makes link rot maintenance difficult.

The long-version can be obtained using the Memento API TimeMap. The TimeMap is in the page header of the short version URL. -- Green  C  16:04, 11 March 2017 (UTC)


 * IABot is only familiar with the short form. I never realized there existed a long form.  IABot will fail to acknownedge it as an archive.— CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 16:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm currently running a search for archiveurl across the entire site and filtering for unique archive services and URL formats to see what we are dealing with so it might be incorporated into IABot and WaybackMedic and wherever else. -- Green  C  16:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree on all points, Green Cardamom. I just completely archived Herman Vandenburg Ames using perma.cc after I wrote it. The only issue is the cap of 10 URLs per month. In this case - because I had a lot to archive - I had to do it over the course of two months. Chetsford (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * (I am Green Cardamom; name changed). Wish there was a way we could apply for Wikipedia users to use the service. They may not be interested due to the volume. But 10 links a month is fairly limiting. -- Green  C  22:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the mix-up. Yes, that would be great, even if it were through an application service a la WP Library. Chetsford (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

FWIW - yes - *entirely* agree - a better way for editors to utilize the Perma.cc archival service(s) on behalf of Wikipedia would be *greatly* welcomed by many I would think - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * To be honest I'm not sure how interested they are in Wikipedia. I've sent them a number of emails about issues and get no response. Other archive providers have xpressed concern about Wikipedia due to scale, too many links and traffic using their resources. Also, now that they only support the short-form URLs it is a URL shortening service which is disallowed on Wikipedia (in a soft sense). Regardless, I think the 10 link a month limit will ensure they never have much Wikipedia coverage. -- Green  C  15:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Archive.today
I undid an addition of archive.today to the See also section (diff), but I made an error in my edit description, which was: "Not important enough to include; does not automatically archive websites as do other established archival databases." Plus, I did not realize that archive.today is the new archive.is - I restored the addition. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 17:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

http2
does perma.cc support this? Arlo James Barnes 09:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)