Wikipedia:Link rot/URL change requests/Archives/2019/November

clydesite.co.uk
After further research, I've found there does not seem to be an obvious mapping between the old and new sites. Some content (like the www.clydesite.co.uk/articles/... links) appears to be missing completely. However, mappings for most of the links, pointing to entries in a ship database, might be possible to get from the website authors, or maybe by a simple scraping I can throw together. Archive.org does have archives for the ones I spot-checked, as expected, so the question becomes do we urgently mark all of the links usurped because they are now potentially mailicious and point the archive params to archive.org, or wait a few days to see if I can come up with a translation map and then run a bot to just substitute the new URLs. —[ Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 19:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

for the 545 links I've found. I should be able to provide a list of articles and links tomorrow. —[ Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 19:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * For the cite template usage, add usurped, archive-url and archive-date set to the appropriate (last before access-date?) archive.
 * For the external link usage, replace with the appropriate archive URL (right?)

User:AlanM1/Clydesite now has a list of the articles and links extracted from this search. —[ Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 19:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

thanks for the list. Bot ran and.. -- Green  C  01:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Converted 581 links to archive.org and 7 to archive.today - there were also existing archive URLs with url-status converted to "usurped"
 * 2) User:GreenC/data/Clyde has a few remaining links that need attention - can you convert these to the new site?
 * 3) Converted 44 links on Commons  though some of these it added a  meaning it couldn't find an archive and would need manual switch to the new site.
 * 4) A few remain in search  that might need manual removal or converted to archives or switch to the new site.
 * 5) The domain is "Blacklisted" in IABot database, meaning iabot will treat all found cases as dead and not import any new into the database.


 * Thanks again for the quick resolution! I'll have a look and write back, probably 2019-11-08 (PST). Should I still request an edit filter? —[ Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 03:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

PAGE ]]) 21:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like handled item 2. I went through the articles at item 4, which had clydesite.co.uk in the cite's publisher, changing them to Clyde-built Ship Database instead. The only remaining mention is at Scottish inventions and discoveries, where it's part of the title (the site had a periodical called "Clydesite magazine"). —[  Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 23:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * For citations to entries in the ship database, it might be preferable to switch them over to use cite ship register so that the link scheme can be easily updated in the future if needed. A similar things was done when Det Norse Veritas moved from dnv.com to dnvgl.org (in that case, AWB was used to change cite web to a subst of an invocation of Module:Sandbox/Ahecht/Cite DNV, which parsed the parameters and spat out a properly formatted cite ship register template). --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|TALK
 * Thanks. In this case, unfortunately, they did a complete site redesign, and the ID numbers changed, so we (well, mostly ) had to just use the archived versions of the pages. Note there was also some urgency because of a concern over the new host at the old site being potentially malicious. I generally agree, though, and used the Cite ship register a couple times on the edge cases. It would have been nice, if we could have generated a map of old to new IDs, to switch to using the template. That could still be done, I suppose. Perhaps we can get the site operators to contribute such a list if they have an easier way to do it than we would? I'll note, too, that one of the ones I did manually had lost an important detail (the keel-laid date) from the entry in the transition, so I would have preferred to keep the archived site in that case. I don't know the reason or the extent to which this may have happened with other entries. —[  Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 01:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Add that custom templates create link rot in practice. When a site changes its scheme, invariably some URLs are not migrated to the new scheme, sometimes a lot of them are left behind. This is always the case, it has been in every request made here, because a change in scheme means they moved to a new server/software/owner and didn't migrate everything (by choice or accident). Those URLs require archive URLs. However, since the URLs are housed in a custom template (which may or may not have support for archive URLs), it requires custom programming specific to that template, and my bot indeed no bot has the code to deal with thousands of custom templates on Wikipedia. Stick with CS1|2 when possible it is more secure.  --  Green  C  06:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

wilhelmgustloff.com
The above mentioned domain has been usurped. I have archived all the existing links on the English wikipedia but notifying here in case anything else needs to be done. Lyndaship (talk) 11:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, blacklisted in the IABot database. -- Green  C  14:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

plimsollshipdata.org
This site is used on about 1500 cites but no longer hosts the data. The information appears to be mostly now available at plimsoll.southampton.gov.uk with similar urls. However as they are just photos of the pages from Lloyds Register of Shipping to save any urls which haven't been moved across could they be linked to the archive copies of the original website? Lyndaship (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

HighBeam Research
Hi there. HighBeam has been shut down and no longer works. There are numerous links to highbeam with https while there's only a handful with http. Some of these links have already been archived with Wayback machine, but I'm not sure how many still need an archived link. Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I did Highbeam a while back. Any remaining should be marked with a if there is no archive available. There could be some missed because the bot back then was less sophisticated. If you see some not archived or not with a dead link template, let me know. --  Green  C  00:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)