Projects talk:Archive everything

There are two main places to archive things, the Internet Archive, and archive.today if the IA says no (from my understanding). Would like to incorporate this into the article but have no clue how to lol. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 07:26, 19 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Also, there is an IA extension which I use, it makes archiving extremely easy. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 07:29, 19 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I'll add this into the 'What you need to do' bit Keith (talk) 08:52, 19 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Which extension do you use in particular? addons dot mozilla dot org has several and it would be useful to have a recommendation.

By the way, Archive.today has a "Install Firefox Extension" button which leads to its github repo and the user can install it by Releases (right side), downloading the .zip and installing it through Manage your Add-Ons > Install from file. The explanation may be helpful for less tech-savvy wiki people. Raster (talk) 08:32, 4 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Firefox: [1]

Chrome (ew): [2]

Rest can be found at bottom left of https://web.archive.org/ AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

worryingly, it looks like archive.today is down at the moment. I'm hoping this is not a permenant thing, as I think they were getting into some legal squabbles recently Keith (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

nvm, might just be a firefox thing? Keith (talk) 17:57, 4 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

up for me right now and I'm using LibreWolf (a fork of firefox). AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

There's also https://preservetube.com/ and https://ghostarchive.org/ both of which I saw used to archive a few references, and had added to the list but unfortunately my edit updating the list entries all the way up to and including F was lost in a merge error. 185.230.125.6 00:11, 23 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Worth looking at for other options. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 06:38, 23 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

a lot of the ones that say "Yes" are not infact very yes.

1Password#cite_note-14

4k_Video_Downloader+#cite_note-4KVD-1, 4k_Video_Downloader+#cite_note-4KDL-2

Activision_Blizzard#cite_note-6

Adobe#cite_note-1, Adobe#cite_ref-8 SinexTitan (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

please update before I call the police SinexTitan (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Archived em and updated the list accordingly, thanks for pointing them out since some of the older entries like those might be less accurate, cheers! (pls don't call the cops) Tempo123 (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I nearly placed the call but the situation's resolved itself. good work people keep it up SinexTitan (talk) 09:43, 24 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I was looking through the Amazon page and noticed there's nearly two dozen video references. Video files are way bigger than webpage snapshots, and it shows by PreserveTube being the only one listed on this page (implying that if there's another archive for that purpose, it's not too popular).

For references leaning more on video, would it be better for one to work toward finding non-video references as well? e.g. finding websites that Louis shows in his videos? It would be a mountain of work, but as the saying goes we can't put all our archive (eggs) in one basket (host). Raster (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I'd say that, where possible, we should prefer to archive webpages/documents over videos, especially when the it's the original/primary source and the video only references it. Tempo123 (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

PreserveTube seems good for archiving videos. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 20:37, 23 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

With the recent controversy (see the related Wikipedia community conversation), where does that leave citations that have no easy replacement?

An example I have for this is the Vont article page that I created last year, specifically the passage regarding Vont's store page on Amazon and its activity. I first tried using Internet Archive, but it had resulted in an error — which led me to use Archive.today. And originally, I hadn't even planned on multiple captures but that changed when I noticed the postings looked different while I was drafting the article in my sandbox.

I just tried archiving their Amazon storefront page using the IA and it actually worked this time, so hopefully I'll be able to "re-build" the archival links that'll still illustrate the same point (see the archive.is history for comparison). But if not, I would rather the citations be left alone in this instance.

Any other thoughts? — Sojourna (talk) 05:46, 23 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

"[...] an analysis of existing links has shown that most of its uses can be replaced. Several editors started to work out implementation details during this RfC and the community should figure out how to efficiently remove links to archive.today."

I think it wise to follow in the footsteps of this conclusion of the Wikipedia RFC: making a best-effort to replace all Archive.today links with alternatives. It will probably be a slow process anyhow, and any content that is difficult to archive on IA or elsewhere can be left until last, by which time hopefully we will have found a suitable Archive.today replacement for such content. Tempo123 (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

UPDATE: Since the Wayback Machine has proven to be unreliable in the instance I provided, I'll have to splice together the captures and upload to CRW. Not ideal, but the community is determined to rid itself of any Archive.today usage and I will do my best to comply. — Sojourna (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I see many of the pages listed as not archived have been updated by Bananabot (usually early today), which is as its name implies, a bot.

Eg: Cerberus, Cloudflare, Denon HEOS Speakers

Is there a plan to segment pages into the ones humans need to add archive links to, vs ones that a bot can take care of? It's great if this task can be automated, and if so, it would be nice if we carbon-based contributors could focus on those pages the bot(s) can't handle. Or is there a way we ourselves can look at a page and determine that?

And when we add archive links, do we need to manually update "The list" with the new status for those pages? Or is the list updated through some automatic process periodically? (I looked at some history and can't tell.) Either way, could mention of that be added to the directions? Thanks! Marc84 (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'd like to first say that Bananabot is not a bot made by the CRW team, it is made by User:Banana (who sounds pretty cool btw). I think we should manually update the table for now unless Banana wants to code that in themself. There's no plan to segment pages, we only recently got an archiving bot anyway. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

The list is currently manually maintained, I think it would be lovely if it could be automated, it took a fair amount of human effort to initially fill it out and standardise its look.

I'm not sure how Bananabot or similar work and which pages bots can or cannot handle. Tempo123 (talk) 20:37, 23 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

It would indeed be good, but it depends on whether Banana (who is simply a volunteer, not someone who is paid) wants to code it. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Also, due to how archiving works, Bananabot is (i think) able to handle all pages the IA can. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Bananabot can handle everything that IA can save. Right now limits are rate on IA itself (itgets rate limited + uploading takes quite a while). About project page table - I'll check out if I can automate it Banana (talk) 10:05, 24 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for all the answers! And cool bot, @Banana. Marc84 (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

So the main reason Archive.Today is supposedly untrustworthy is that they supposedly falsified snapshots.

Of course, this would be very bad if it were true, but if you actually dig to the bottom of the Archive.Today drama, past the sensationalized news articles by Ars Technica and others, you end up on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Archive.is RFC 5 § Evidence of altering snapshots.

Now, let's see what groundbreaking evidence they have, shall we?

• (Redacted) ~2026-10956-05 12:48, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Where exactly are you getting this information from? MEN KISSING 13:13, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Your link returns a 404 error. (Redacted) sapphaline 13:26, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

(signatures shortened to usernames only)

Awesome. "Just take our word for it, bro!"

Sorry, but if someone can't show me actual evidence, I don't trust it, and neither should you. If you can't see it, it might as well not exist. Redacted evidence doesn't count. Don't give credence to it. JodyBruchonFan (talk) 10:41, 25 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

The evidence is archived further down that Wiki RFC thread. There are IA and Megalodon archives of the Archive.today page showing "Nora Puchreiner" being altered to show "Jani Patokallio". The original Archive.today snapshot has since been reverted back to the original "Nora Puchreiner", but the Megalodon and IA archives are existing evidence of the snapshot having indeed been altered at a certain point in time. Just a single minor instance, however insignificant, of snapshots being altered completely invalidates the reliability of Archive.today as an archival service. That is all, of course, not mentioning the character of the individual Archive.today admin being petty and malign enough to direct visitors' traffic to unknowingly DDoS someone's personal blog site and levy various additional threats, which in my mind is alone enough of a reason to cease using their service. Tempo123 (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

I agree that falsifying snapshots is a severe breach of trust, but: "The evidence is archived further down that Wiki RFC thread." - If it is the same evidence, what was the point of redacting the original evidence in the first place? JodyBruchonFan (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2026 (UTC)Reply