Topic: About unavailable at source tag

So I tried to provide some posts with dead links the archived versions of that link, but it got me thinking, "can i actually remove the tag?" since the wiki for unavailable at source explained in general sense, but I'm curious:

• If post A had 2 (or more) sources, and only one of them is broken, should I remove the tag because the other source is still available?
• If post B had a broken source, and the archived version available expect it can't retrieve the image/video (archive only saves the artist name, comment, title, etc of the post), should I add that and remove the tag?

There's probably more that needs to be answered but for now, what should I do in those situations

Unsure about scenario A. I think I'd take it on a case-by-case basis based on how 'official' the alternate source is and the quality available there.
The alternate source is the artist's gallery on weasyl with a similar quality image? Remove the tag.
The alternate source is an uncredited cropped image on pinterest? Keep the tag.

For scenario B I think the tag should be kept.

regsmutt said:
The alternate source is an uncredited cropped image on pinterest? Keep the tag.

What if that's the only way to "source" the post, not everything can be officially archived after all, so should a repost justify removing unavailable at source?

whatismyname1234 said:

• If post A had 2 (or more) sources, and only one of them is broken, should I remove the tag because the other source is still available?

Yes, remove the tag and just mark the broken source as unavailable (i.e., -https://...).

• If post B had a broken source, and the archived version available expect it can't retrieve the image/video (archive only saves the artist name, comment, title, etc of the post), should I add that and remove the tag?

No, do not add that archived_source if you cannot get the image itself.
Maintain the original source and mark it as unavailable, also include unavailable_at_source if it is the only source.

If you feel that the archived submission page has some noteworthy information that could help in finding another source, you may include it in the comments section.
Additionally, if you have found any relevant information about the post (e.g., post details/description, story_in_description, credits, etc.), you may also copy-paste it over to our post's description.

whatismyname1234 said:
What if that's the only way to "source" the post, not everything can be officially archived after all, so should a repost justify removing unavailable at source?

See howto:source.

"Boorus or other unofficial image hosting sites" are often discouraged, but they are not invalid if they are the only source left.

whatismyname1234 said:
What if that's the only way to "source" the post, not everything can be officially archived after all, so should a repost justify removing unavailable at source?

Personally I don't think reposts are typically valid sources (even if they're the only copies available online) since they usually lack important information like the artist's name/handle and date it was originally published. Plus, the artist can usually DMCA these reposts and get them taken down.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Yes, remove the tag and just mark the broken source as unavailable (i.e., -https://...).

Huh, I didn't realize that you could do that for sources on a post.

Somewhat related question. There's a thing called the Dead Pixiv Project which archived every public Pixiv post in 2022 iirc, but is INCREDIBLY esoteric and hard to use. I spent a few days on it and only barely managed to get extracting image files from it working, but not post info (I think they are stored in separate WARC files than their images).

Would linking the archive.org page for the part that the image can be found in be an acceptable source?

Yeah I have a related question.

thegreatwolfgang said:
"Boorus or other unofficial image hosting sites" are often discouraged, but they are not invalid if they are the only source left.

If I post something that is reposted on boorus or other websites, should I tag it as archived_source?

usetheblacklist said:
Yeah I have a related question.

If I post something that is reposted on boorus or other websites, should I tag it as archived_source?

boorus are not archival sites for that tag's purpose, else all of source:*danbooru*, source:*gelbooru*, etc would be considered "archived source"

donovan_dmc said:
boorus are not archival sites for that tag's purpose, else all of source:*danbooru*, source:*gelbooru*, etc would be considered "archived source"

I wonder if there's a comprehensive list of site to use for that purpose, the tag only mentions 3. Heck, we should edit the wiki to include it for future use

Actually, this wiki page is less than ideal; it straight up suggested replacing broken source links, which isn't right. I've fixed that, but if anyone wanted to give it a revision, I'd be greatly appreciative.

aacafah said:
Actually, this wiki page is less than ideal; it straight up suggested replacing broken source links, which isn't right. I've fixed that, but if anyone wanted to give it a revision, I'd be greatly appreciative.

There are a lot of outdated information and inconsistencies. I have made a major rewrite on it to be more inline with current rules and easier for newcomers to understand.

Do comment or make changes on it if there is something that do not align with current site rules or policies.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Do comment or make changes on it if there is something that do not align with current site rules or policies.

Seems like you expand it alot, that's great! I just added this forum thread on howto:source for any newcomers that wants to know more

I found out that there isn't really a proper procedure on what to do with dead sources.
For example, are they kept indefinitely even with active alternatives? When would it be appropriate to remove dead but "valid" links?

Also just a note to self to include mentions of the *_at_source tags and explain how they work.

thegreatwolfgang said:
I found out that there isn't really a proper procedure on what to do with dead sources.
For example, are they kept indefinitely even with active alternatives? When would it be appropriate to remove dead but "valid" links?

Also just a note to self to include mentions of the *_at_source tags and explain how they work.

They should only be removed if the post has ran out of space for valid sources, that's 10 sources, which last I remember only about 500 posts had ever hit that

donovan_dmc said:
They should only be removed if the post has ran out of space for valid sources, that's 10 sources, which last I remember only about 500 posts had ever hit that

assuming that there's room for it, is it ok to just add the archived link if it's avalible then use archived source even tho it's still live? as in a "just in case" sort of way

I have made another edit to the howto:source page and included the "Quality & Sources" section (concerning the "superior"/"inferior" classification of posts).
I don't think this info is ever mentioned anywhere else on the site, so if there is a better page to mention it, do tell.