Template talk:Dual

ArchiveURL
Would it make sense to have an archiveURL parameter on this template? URLs are notoriously unstable over time and what once was accessible may have had the URL renamed, hosted on another site or just disappear altogether. An archiveURL parameter similar to the one in the cite template would allow the recording of an archived version of the original source. -- Whpq (talk) 03:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably. I have no idea whatsoever how to implement such a thing. :) I'm staring at the template right now trying to figure out if there's some way to toggle it so that the url can go under source if there is no individual article and the release is a general website. (P.S. Sorry I'm only just now seeing this! This page, for some reason, I didn't watchlist.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. 1.5 years ago... Since that time, my technical abilities with templates has gone from zero to zero plus epsilon where epsilon is an arbitrarily small number larger than zero.  Perhaps you know of somebody proficient in template coding who can pitch in? -- Whpq (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL! I've asked User:VernoWhitney to have a look to see if he can help with my issue; maybe he can help with yours. :) If not, I'll poke about until I find somebody who knows such things. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Adding archiveurl and archivedate as optional parameters to just add more text on the end like it's used in the cite templates shouldn't be a problem. With regards to the url under the source - do you mean that when sourcearticle isn't defined it would instead use "this article uses content from [sourcepath source]" and just drop the last sentence? VernoWhitney (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's exactly it. I just needed it for Center for International Forestry Research, and in that case there are multiple publications that are in use. Oh, I also changed the language there, as it has occurred to me that we may mislead people with this template into thinking that the entire source has been licensed, whereas in fact it may only be the relevant portion used in the article. Do you think the template should be changed likewise? -Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I should be able to change the template to do that once I have some time to sit down and test it without breaking it. Maybe the language should be changed to read more like ConfirmationOTRS so it refers to the material in the article instead of the whole source? VernoWhitney (talk) 19:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Good idea! On it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, the template has now been updated to include MRG's suggested change - I'll get around to the documentation later. I'm still digging through citation error syntax in order to add on archiveurl and archivedate parameters, so that hasn't been updated yet. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Documentation I can manage. :) Thank you! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)