Jump to content

Template talk:Dead link/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Permanent?

Dispenser stated that If "last known good version" is needed then it should be done using {{waybackdate}}. We wouldn't want this to become permanent like dlw* has become. Why not? Λυδαcιτγ 01:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem was that editors had in the past used templates {{dlw}} and {{dlw-inline}} to replace the dead links. This defeated the purpose of having {{wayback}}, {{waybackdate}}, and {{waybackref}}. So to increase the distinction between the wayback templates and this template we cut back the usefulness. This emphasized that the template is suppose to merely inform other editors that the link is dead and it should be replaced with a working one. And onto that end the history is just suppose to help them find that working link again. —Dispenser 01:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

How can this be combined with citation templates such as {{cite news}}? For instance, the following citation appears in the article Jessie Gilbert:

"?". AOL. 2006-12-16. Retrieved Down?. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

The "Down?" was clearly an attempt to indicate that the link listed no longer works. When I saw it I wanted to replace the date field entry "Down?" with the last known date that the link worked (probably 2006-12-16) and flag up the linkrot using {{dead link}} instead but couldn't work out how to, since the url is not enclosed in square brackets. Does anyone have any advice? Purgatorio 17:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Just append {{dead link}} after the template, my tool converts the cite template to the bracketed formated before doing its processing. So in most cases it should "just work". The only problem arises with multiple links in a template but those are uncommon. —Dispenser 17:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Soon to be dead parameter?

Links to news.yahoo and some other news sites die after a few days, aren't cached, and aren't archived. Can a new parameter e.g. "badsite=yes" be added that adds the page to a category the bots can patrol? Bots going thru that category should be less server intensive than going thru all text in the article namespace. -- Jeandré, 2008-07-12t13:50z

Its more effective to have a bot watch #wikipedia-en-spam agianst a wikilist for shortly lived links, or even to use the linksearch. — Dispenser 00:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Time outs

Is it appropriate to use this template for sites that time out? --Adoniscik(t, c) 01:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection sign

{{editprotected}}

Change the semi-protected icon to a full-protected icon. MC10 | Sign here! 04:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It's cascade-protected from the Main Page. No need to change it for that. --- RockMFR 05:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Poor Documentation! Help!

The documentation should explain what using this template does, i.e. what bots it interacts with/triggers. E.g. I imagine a bot going out and checking to see if a dead link was available in archive, such as the Internet Archive, webcitation.org, etc. I imagine a bot going out and checking to see if a link came back from the dead too. I'd like to know if such bots exist, and the existing dox hint that there are bots doing SOMETHING... --Elvey (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well to some extent that is orthogonal. SmackBot dates the tags as a housekeeping chore, and I believe there is a bot that checks the validity of links over several days. Look at WP:BOT to find more about the active bots. Rich Farmbrough, 00:30 19 May 2009 (UTC).
Well, if they don't interact, they should. I don't think they are orthogonal in meaning; if they are orthogonal, action-wise, there's an opportunity for a useful bot or two! Are you saying you're confident that there's no bot that looks for use of this template, and that there's no bot that places or removes this template?

Protection template

{{editprotected}} Please change the incorrect protection template to the correct {{Pp-template|small=yes}}. Debresser (talk) 00:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Skier Dude (talk) 03:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Dead external links" has been moved to "Wikipedia:Linkrot"

{{Editprotected}} Following the move of Wikipedia:Dead external links to Wikipedia:Linkrot, shouldn't this template now link to that page directly? I know about WP:NOTBROKEN, but I feel that a different standard might apply to templates, especially heavily used ones. If it doesn't, and it is determined that I used the template {{Editprotected}} unnecessarily, I apologise. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ambiguity

I find the procedure confusing where it says, "The notice would then appear in the body of the text instead of in the footnote reference—this is not recommended." Which is not recommended, the former or the latter? Should one do the preceding or not? Hertz1888 (talk) 15:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I am also confused by this. A quick look at pages using this template didn't really show a consensus, though give or take, 7 of 10 put {{dead link}} in the footnote rather than in the prose (as such, that is what I'll do). -M.Nelson (talk) 03:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it means that you shouldn't put it after the /ref. Put it immediately after the link or template (e.g., {{cite web}}) that contains the link. —Mrwojo (talk) 04:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I've copyedited the procedure to specify using this tag immediately following </ref>, which I believe was the original intent, and to take out other unnecessary complexities of the wording. I hope this correctly clarifies the matter. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
The original intent was to have it before </ref> since this is the easiest for bots to read, modify, and insert. A short while later users started using after </ref> (as it's more prominent in the body) and I updated Checklinks and the documentation indicating partial support. If we're standardizing on notation then we should place it before </ref>, as it does not affect the articles verifiability or any other major issues merely indicating an inconvenience so it doesn't need prominence. — Dispenser 03:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
You sound like the first one here who understands what's actually involved, on the programming level. Would you please reword the procedure to clearly reflect the one best way to apply the notice? It was previously worded in a way that bewildered me and others. Utmost clarity, please. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks—that looks better. An example would cinch it. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Color

Would this be better if it were in color, specifically, red? Like {{error}} does. Something like this:

[dead link]

If you take a look at Microprocessor#Notes and references, there are some dead links there, but this tag is hard to spot in all the other text and links. If it was red, it would stand out nicely. Thoughts? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 17:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

That would be confusing with other WP:Red links. Plus it's an editor-aimed template, and isn't critical-to-fix as anything wrapped in {error} should be, so shouldn't be quite as unmissable as that for all readers. I'd suggest adding a css id name to the template, so that we could add a class to our monobooks so that these get highlighted. I'll try to get back to rethink this once I've had sufficient coffee... -- Quiddity (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, that's a good point, I didn't even think of redlinks. Duh. I didn't mean to suggest that these be considered as serious as most {error} usages, just that it's hard to spot the blue "dead link" in a field of also blue working links. Hmmm. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Using the url= parameter should affect category placement?

When used, shouldn't this cause the article to be removed from Category:Articles with dead external links since the deadlink has now been 'fixed'? How does one go about cleaning out the Category:Articles with dead external links backlog? Should we be replacing {{dead link}} with {{Wayback}}? If so that would make the url= parameter a bit useless if that's the goal. -- Ϫ 00:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The url= parameter is for bot use (or lazy people). However, if there is a valid version (i.e. matching the accessdate) in the archive it should be pointed to that version so the link is stable. I would discourage use of {{Wayback}} (the lazy people again wont fill it in correctly) and use the directly Internet Archive URL or in {{Cite web}}'s archiveurl=. — Dispenser 14:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes but this does not answer my question regarding category placement. Regardless of whether a bot or a human uses {{deadlink}} with url= and/or {{wayback}}, when either are used then the link is no longer 'dead' and therefore usage of url= or wayback or archiveurl= should automatically cause the article to be removed from Category:Articles with dead external links, am I right? Otherwise, how else are we to clean out the backlog? By removing {{deadlink}} entirely and replacing it with the new archived link? Once again, this would make the url= parameter and wayback useless towards that goal. -- Ϫ 21:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I've never seen the url= parameter used. It does seem a bit odd - possibly it was used by a bot at one time?
I just remove the {dead link} template once I've fixed the problem. (either: (1) update the deadlink if the same content is just at a new url; (2) add the archiveurl= link if it's in the wayback archive; (3) replace the link entirely with a new source that verifies the same information). HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Can't follow placement instructions

Citation templates sometimes contain 2 URLs, or a URL generated automatically: see the following example.

Placing the dead link parameter after the citation is clearly problematic: which link is dead?

Placing it after the broken URL is also problematic:

The format paramter in this case is useful:

but this is discouraged at User_talk:Citation_bot#Placing_a_dead_link_template_in_a_ref.

What is the optimal behaviour?

Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 15:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Placing it after the end of the {cite} template is the preferred method (as in the /docs). The urls can easily be checked by clicking, and the automated links (ISBN PMID) aren't likely to be the broken links! It's not perfect, but none of the alternatives are either. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Editprotected request involving this template

This message is to inform people monitoring this talk page that there is an "editprotected" request involving this and several other templates at Template talk:! cymru.lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 20:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Why double categories?

I noticed that this template puts articles using it into two categories. See for example Chris-Craft, which is in both Category:All articles with dead external links and Category:Articles with dead external links from October 2010. Since the relevant Wikipedia guideline Wikipedia:Categorization says in part in the "Categorizing pages" section Pages are not placed directly into every possible category, only into the most specific one in any branch. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C. I was wondering what the rationale for such double categorization is. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:All articles with dead external links is not a parent cat of Category:Articles with dead external links from October 2010; both of these are sub-categories of Category:Articles with dead external links.
This dual categorisation is in common with most other cleanup templates. See, for example, {{Unreferenced}} (Category:All articles lacking sources and Category:Articles lacking sources from Month Year); {{Citation needed}} (Category:All articles with unsourced statements, Category:Articles with unsourced statements from Month Year); etc.
The "All articles..." category is useful for assessing the general scale of the problem; the cats for specific month/year combinations show for how long the problem has remained unsorted.
Also, note that Category:All articles with dead external links is not a normal encyclopedia category; see the blue box at the top. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks - I figured it was something like that (assume most users never even see the hidden cats). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
No... they're hidden... you need to be a registered user and have gone for Special:Preferences, "Appearance", and checked "Show hidden categories". Otherwise people generally only know about them if they read the template documentation. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Propose double placement

I think this tag should be placed both inside the <ref> </ref> markups and immediately following the closing </ref>. That way the url itself will be marked and the broken link will be identified to the reader of the text. __meco (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought this was the rule. At least, if the material is disputed, it needs to be with the dispute (outside the ref), even if inside the ref. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
{{dead link}} isn't for marking disputed claims. It's for indicating that the URL given in the reference is no longer available. As such, it should be placed in such a way that on the rendered page it is visible close to the dead link. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Revise 'Usage' text?

Should we not update the text under 'Usage' to encourage people to not use this, but rather try and fix dead links (e.g. with use of Wayback links)? I know, many times this template is added by a 'bot, but if it's a human (who, after all, will be the only entities to actually read the 'Usage' section) doing it, it would be nice if they'd actually fix the link, not just tag it. Noel (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I have added the following sentences: "Please also consider doing a search for an archived copy of the dead link and thereby avoid using the tag altogether. This is of course the best solution when you find a dead link." Please feel free to revise. Debresser (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Dead domain

It could be useful to add a parameter which indicates whether or not the entire domain is dead as well as whether a robots.txt block is known to have been in place. For instance, in the case of Template:AJmuni, which transcludes one dead link to dozens of articles, the entire domain "belediyye.org" is gone; the site further was not indexed by Internet Archive due to a robots.txt block. So, the two parameters might be "robotsblock=yes" as the only valid value and "domaindead=yes" as the only valid value. This would help with prioritizing future attempts to fix the link, perhaps. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

As both a warning and an invitation for correction. So I think we should remove this text:

If the article uses clickable footnotes, then this tag should be placed just before the </ref> that contains the dead link. The notice will then correctly appear in the reference section (instead of in the body of the text, which is not recommended).

Thoughts? PraetorianFury (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:MULTI, let's keep this at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Shouldn't dead link be an in-line template, like citation needed?. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Date optional

I think it's misleading to describe the parameter |date= as "optional". It may be a technically correct description because the template works without it, but I think there's not a single undated template out there. Changing the description here to "required" might encourage users to provide a date and thus avoid a bot edit. -- Michael Bednarek (talk)

Parameters are either mandatory or optional. It is optional, but note that the "Common form" example has the date. I think that is the most we can do. Debresser (talk) 08:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Is the template code working correctly?

Several templates display the string "from <date>" in the tool tip. I can see from the code that there is some attempt to make this happen in {{Dead link}} but when I float my mouse cursor over the {{Dead link}}'s link I get the string "Wikipedia:Link rot".[dead link] Fix this?

--Trappist the monk (talk) 13:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The tooltip works here (Firefox 12) if the correct parameter |date= is used: [dead link]. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Here is the HTML markup (taken from your post):
<sup class="noprint Inline-Template"><span title=" since May 2012" style="white-space: nowrap;">[<i><a href="/wiki/Wikipedia:Link_rot" title="Wikipedia:Link rot">dead link</a></i>]</span></sup>
As you can see, there are two title parameters in that markup. The first is the "since May 2012" string and the second is the "Wikipedia:Link rot" string. Both titles can't be used at the same time so the browser must choose one. Chrome chooses the second, as does IE7. Still, this isn't a browser issue but rather a server-side issue. The template should only issue one title parameter for this markup.
--Trappist the monk (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I see your point. Still, when I'm logged in (and thus use MonoBook and have WP:POPUPS enabled), I see the tooltip "since May 2012" floating over the popup to Wikipedia:Link rot. When I'm not logged in (using the Vector skin), I see only the tooltip "Wikipedia:Link rot". Mystery. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Aye, a mystery. For comparison, here is the markup from a {{citation needed}}[citation needed] template:
<sup class="Template-Fact" style="white-space:nowrap;">[<i><a href="/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed" title="Wikipedia:Citation needed"><span title="This claim needs references to reliable sources from May 2012">citation needed</span></a></i>]</sup>
Here again, two title parameters. The big difference though is that the default text ("Wikipedia:Citation needed") comes first in the {{cn}} markup whereas in the {{Dead link}} markup, the default text, "Wikipedia:Link rot", comes last.
Still, in both cases, there should not be two title parameters.
--Trappist the monk (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm using Firefox 3.6.28 (still), and with care I can see either of two tooltips. If I hover over the link, I get "Wikipedia:Link rot"; if I hover over either of the two square brackets, I see " since May 2012". --Redrose64 (talk) 17:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
In fact, that is what I get with {{Dead link}} output but not with the {{cn}} output. It is still wrong and still needs to be fixed. There should be only one title parameter in the html markup.
--Trappist the monk (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Returning to this issue I've noticed that the {{dead link}}tooltip presents correctly when the template includes |url= :

{{dead link|date=October 2013 |url=http://www.example.org}} → [dead link]

That, and the fact that neither {{dead link}} nor {{fix}} have any code that emits a second title, led me to speculate that the second title is produced by the Wikimedia parser as part of its normal operation. Yet, other templates that use {{fix}} don't have the problem so it must be a result of how {{dead link}} applies the title to the links. Taking a hint from {{citation needed}}, I changed how title is applied to both the external url and the internal wikilink:

{{dead link/sandbox}} → [dead link] (default tool tip because no |date=)
{{dead link/sandbox |date=October 2013}} → [dead link] (since October 2013 tootltip)
{{dead link/sandbox |url=http://www.example.org}} → [dead link] (no tooltip because no |date=)
{{dead link/sandbox |date=October 2013 |url=http://www.example.org}} → [dead link]

Is there a better way to fix this?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

There being no response, I have synched the live version from the sandbox.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Drag racing?

Why does it say "Before considering whether to use the Template:Drag racing template"? Why drag racing? 46.208.221.218 (talk) 05:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that so I don't know what this was about. Jason Quinn (talk) 04:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

An anomaly regarding usage of {{dead link|{{subst:DATE}}}}

I added the {{dead link}} template on this page as is suggested here. Still, after my edit, a bot had to add some code ({{dead link|{{subst:DATE}}|date=March 2015}}) like this. Can anyone tell me what went wrong with my edit? Rishidigital1055 (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Substitution doesn't work inside of <ref>...</ref> tags. See Help:Substitution#Limitation.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 March 2016

Change
<span title="{{{title|}}}{{#if:{{{date|}}}| since {{{date}}}}}">dead link</span>]|[[Wikipedia:Link rot|<span title="{{{title|}}}{{#if:{{{date|}}}| since {{{date}}}}}">dead link</span>]]}}</i>]</span>
to
<span title="{{{title|}}}{{#if:{{{date|}}}| since {{{date}}}}}">dead link</span>]|[[Wikipedia:Link rot|<span title="{{{title|}}}{{#if:{{{date|}}}| Dead link since {{{date}}}}}">dead link</span>]]}}</i>]</span> .

Basically, add a tiny bit of text to when you hover over the dead link template. It currently says "since[sic] March 2016", I'm proposing it say "Dead link since March 2016". Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done Debresser (talk) 08:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Adding a "fix attempted" parameter

At this point, Cyberbot II has processed every link on English Wikipedia that is marked with the dead link template. The remaining links that are still marked are cases where the Internet Archive doesn't have a suitable archive of the URL. Rather than have people unsuccessfully try to rescue these links over and over, to no avail, it would be nice if there was a way to indicate that someone has already tried to rescue a dead link and has failed, so that they can work on finding new citations or URLs for these cases instead of wasting time on searching the Internet Archive again. My proposal would be to add an 'att' parameter similar to the one used by the {{Orphan}} template (which would stand for "attempted rescue"). Kaldari (talk) 22:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

As an addendum, {{Dead link|att=yes}} will mean that the link rescue was attempted and failed. The output could the turn into "permanent dead link".—cyberpowerChat:Online 22:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Surely a better parameter name can be found that |att=? That cryptic abbreviation doesn't convey any meaning to the uninitiated and looks like a spelling error. |fix-attempt=? |not-archived=? Perhaps the value of the parameter should be a date rather than yes? Should this parameter cause the template to change how the article is categorized? Templates with this parameter get put in a category of dead, unarchived links perhaps?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps "perm"? Why should it be a date? It wouldn't matter if there is no archive today, tomorrow, or yesterday. Changing categorization is also an idea.—cyberpowerChat:Online 01:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
@Trappist the monk and C678: How about {{Dead link|fix-attempted=yes}}? That should be clear to everyone. I agree with cyberpower that there probably isn't any use in recording a date. Also agree that adding a category for pages with this parameter is a good idea. Kaldari (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it would be nice to not have people and bots checking the same dead links -- it would make it easier to focus on the links that can be rescued. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
@Trappist the monk and C678: If no one objects, I'll go ahead and add the parameter this week. Kaldari (talk) 21:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I object to the fact that you would think I would object to something like this. :p—cyberpowerChat:Online 22:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
The parameter has been added and the new Category:Articles with permanently dead external links has been created. Kaldari (talk) 21:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Kaldari / User:Cyberpower678 / User:DannyH (WMF) -- Finding links on Internet Archive is sometimes an art. What may appear unavailable actually is, with a little digging. Example:

Found by following the "Want to search for all archived pages under ..?" link and then manually checking for a working page. There are other methods such as using mementoweb.org whose API sometimes returns a wayback URL that the Wayback Machine itself doesn't return! But those are redirects to redirects leading to "search for more", check snapshot has (correct) content, etc.. impossible to automate. Also, there are other archives besides wayback, dozens. I understand the need for a bot to mark it as checked-out, but wondering if this is the best method given how uncertain it is. Perhaps instead of "fix-attempted=yes" have "fix-attempted=iabot" ? That way there is a record of who made the attempt instead of an absolute determination. -- GreenC 21:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion: A way to indicate non-working doi's should be made, separate from {{dead link}}. Because the underlying problem, which may be widespread and is with one external site, having a separate tabulation may enable automated correction (or reversal of the indication if old doi's are restored.)

Example of the issue: In the Burnside's problem article, the last two references contained doi's which are no longer valid. The 'cite journal' template generates dead links from these doi's. There is no clear guidance on how to indicate dead doi's, since {{dead link}} seems to pertain to explicit links only.

In the end, I opted for moving the doi parameter to the last position in the 'cite journal' instance and added {{dead link}} after the close of the 'cite journal'. Although this renders correctly to the human reader, the automated software may incorrectly pick up the url=, which is a reference to the original Russian article in this case and is probably working fine.

Why some doi's are broken: These breaks are due to recent changes in the crossreference site, so alternative, live, doi's may be available, or the old doi's may be restored. (Their idea that they can get rid of cross references that aren't used much is at variance with the usage patterns of the literature ... while there are frequent requests for new, popular articles, there is a long tail in the distribution of requests - possibly representing the majority of requests and accordingly much of the value of the service - where requests are "one-off's")

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.66.189.2 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

It sounds like a special bot is needed to deal with doi breaks. The regular link rot bots won't register it as a dead link since it returns status code 200 (working page), and even with the {{dead link}} at the end, they will only examine the |url= field. Do you know if it's possible to determine what the new doi link should be? I agree that there should be a way for {{dead link}} to signal the |doi= is broken vs. the |url=. -- GreenC 17:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Please sign your posts on talk pages (four tildes). Are you sure? The dois for Zelmanov 1990 and 1991 don't appear to be dead to me. When I click the links I don't get error messages but a choice of two sources for the documents (though both seem to end up at IOP Publishing where the documents are behind a paywall. Paywall is not a dead link.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
The DOIs and URLs are working fine in both of those references.
There are already parameters in {{cite journal}} to meet this request. Use |dead-url= for URLs and |doi-inactive-date= for DOIs that don't work. Citation bot adds |doi-inactive-date= where it is needed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

|url= vs. |archiveurl=

It's very annoying that |url= is actually the dead link, leading to the generic web archive URL. It's not possible to specify a specific snapshot (like is done with the |archiveurl= parameter in {{cite}}) using this template. Why does this parameter exist then (url)?

Then |date= is actually the date the link died, not the date of the snapshot. This is inconsistent. |url= is the original URL, which is automatically linked via The Wayback Machine, so one would assume if the specific Wayback URL can't be used that the date parameter is for pointing automatically at the snapshot in question, but it's not, and it deals with the original URL's (dying) date.

I can't point {{deadlink}} to a certain snapshot, which is sometimes important to have, since a link isn't always really offline, but perhaps removed, or is a 404 (meaning that "new" snapshots would be available, but the intended content is present before a certain point). —Hexafluoride Ping me if you need help, or post on my talk 19:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

For linking to a snapshot, why not use {{webarchive}} (or |archiveurl= in a CS1|2) - and remove the {{dead link}} template? {{dead link}} is basically a flag requesting help to find a working snapshot and once it is found the {{dead link}} is removed. -- GreenC 20:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Because it produces a less visually appealing result. For example, with use of {{URL}}, a small [dead link] next to it when used inline or in a template, is much better than having the result of {{webarchive}}. —Hexafluoride Ping me if you need help, or post on my talk 20:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Like this:
Inmate Locator[dead link]
Versus this:
Inmate Locator at the Wayback Machine (archived 2016-01-01(Timestamp length))
It's not obvious the former is more visually appealing, it just has less information displayed, which some may value or not. It's also not really what {{dead link}} was designed for - bots regularly delete {{dead link}} templates once an archive link is established. It creates challenges for link rot bots (which do the majority of link rot work). The question is do we (the community) want to handle link rot that way. If so, {{webarchive}} should be modified to (optionally) display a super-script "dead link". -- GreenC 22:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
See the infobox in Egypt Economic Development Conference. The info {{webarchive}} provides is too long, and too much for an infobox. That would be acceptable in the external links section. So yes, a mini version should be available. —Hexafluoride Ping me if you need help, or post on my talk 07:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes understood it's not ideal for infoboxen though works just not what it was designed for in mind. I don't like the superscript "dead link" as it looks like a dead link tag. Any other ideas how a mini or abbreviated webarchive would display, particularly in mind for official websites inside infobox? This can be enabled using webarchive's |format= argument, there are other format displays. -- GreenC 02:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be a [dead link] superscript, it could be [archived]. Anything, really, would suffice, as long as there is a short version. —Hexafluoride Ping me if you need help, or post on my talk 08:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
How about if it displays as currently but without the date ie |format=nodate. That would give flexibility to modify the |title= for the underlying archive link. I'm concerned about using superscript generally as its non-standard. It would render:
For official URLs where you want the domain name to display it would be:
"www.bop.gov" is set with the |title= argument. -- GreenC 19:34, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
That's still too long. Consider this use case: {{URL}} is used, the URL is visible, but it's dead. It needs a little indicator that informs and points to an archived version. So www.bop.gov [archived]. I guess it doesn't matter if it said [archived at the Wayback Machine] (although it's a bit long), as long as there's a clear visual indicator that the {{webarchive}} output isn't part of the text (hence the use of superscript). —Hexafluoride Ping me if you need help, or post on my talk 20:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
The other problem with using superscript is what if there is no {{URL}} and only the {{webarchive}} then it would be a hanging superscript which is confusing. If the intention is to have small text make the text small font, but not superscript, which is used for inline meta information. But small text presents its own problems it will look different from other text for no apparent reason under certain scenarios, it's non-standard. The best solution is to make an abbreviated version. If "at the Wayback Machine" is too long for infoboxes (which is not clear), make it "at Wayback":
www.bop.gov at Wayback
Using {{URL}} + {{webarchive}} doesn't make sense to me, rather use {{webarchive}} standalone. The |title= argument allows output to mirror that of {{URL}}. But maybe there is a reason to use {{URL}} I don't know. -- GreenC 22:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
We only need a superscript version, it doesn't have to change entirely to that by default. The {{URL}} template should be used to display links to make them machine-readable per the template's documentation. I don't know how that goes for URLs within other templates. —Hexafluoride Ping me if you need help, or post on my talk 07:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Tool to fix dead links: what was it?

I recently tried a tool (an external website, not a script) that replaces dead links with the Wayback Machine version. I don't seem to have bookmarked it. Can anyone tell me where it is, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Hehe, you can access it straight from the page history of any page. Just click the "Fix dead links" link. :)—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I find the text "permanent dead link" rather odd. Could we change it to "permanently dead link"? It's an adverb, saying that the link is dead in a permanent way, i.e. permanently dead; it's not the link that is permanent. Compare also with the name Category:Articles with permanently dead external links. --Jhertel (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's supposed to be a grammatical sentence, it's just a tag with brevity in mind. Like we say {{cite web}} not {{cite a web page}}. It might even be called "perma dead link" because "permalink" and "perma link" have common usage. -- GreenC 22:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
GreenC, I see you agree that the grammar is bad; good to have that part settled.
Now, it is in fact supposed to be a grammatically correct clause. First of all, the text is presented directly to the end user, and only to the end user. That's why it's especially important to be correct. It's not some internal tag or name. But even internally, we do use grammatically correct names for templates (and if not, they are candidates for review). Bad grammar is a cause of misunderstandings and confusion. Cite web, as you mention, happens to be a good example: It's a perfectly grammatically correct clause. We are citing the web, and the imperative form of that is "cite web". Same with "cite book", "cite journal", etc. But that is even "internal" use (nothing is really internal to Wikipedia, as everybody can edit, which is another reason it's important to use correct grammar even "internally"); the "permanent dead link" text is presented directly to the end user who might never have edited anything on Wikipedia (which is probably by far the most common user). And it's important that the end user understands what it means, as it will be part of that individual's assessment of how much they can trust the claims in the article.
Regarding "permalink" etc.: The word "permalink" is correct, cf. permafrost and wikt:Category:English words prefixed with perma-, but "perma link" or "perma dead link" are bad; "perma-" is a prefix and can only be used in a compound. Then you could argue about creating a new word "permadead" for the occasion ("permadead link"), but that just sounds off. And there is no real reason to shorten it. "Permanently dead" is way better and more immediately understandable. --Jhertel (talk) 09:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
I always thought "dead link" is used as a compound noun. Like you wouldn't say "perfectly full moon", because you cannot adverb "full" on its own. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
That's an interesting way to look at it. I don't think it's meant as a two-word compound, I believe it's just a link that's dead, like a black bird that isn't a blackbird. But even as a compound, the "deadlink" would not be permanent, as it can be removed. The link, however, meaning the destination of the link, is permanently dead, i.e. unrevivable. So I maintain that the permanence refers to the attribute of being dead, not to the link or the "deadlink" as a whole. Regarding the "perfect full moon" (however that differs from a "normal" full moon), you wouldn't say "a perfectly full moon" because you probably don't intend to say that it is being perfectly full (I wonder what that would mean, a total eclipse of the Moon?), but instead that the full moon as such is "perfect", however you would define that. So the two situations are different. In the dead link case, it is about the link being permanently dead; the "dead link" as such is not permanent. --Jhertel (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

New parameter suggestion - fixtry

Suggesting the inclusion of a new parameter to indicate that an attempt has been made to fix the link and the attempt has failed. the blank template with this expansion:

{{deadlink|date=(Month Year)|fixtry=(yes/no)}}

For a transtion from template {{deadlink|date=September 2008}} to {{deadlink|date=September 2008|fixtry=yes}}, the article would be moved from Category:Articles with dead external links from September 2008 to Category:Fix attempted for articles with dead external links from September 2008. The deadlink bot would by default enter "no" in the case where either {{deadlink}} or {{deadlink|date=(Month Year)}} were used. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

This has potential. I've had similar thoughts for this before, actually.
There are many ways to repair dead links, be it internal to the website or external. What do you propose would be the criteria? Wayback and WebCite? — possibly Archive.is? Though I think the point of not saying "I've tried it already" is for people to have a fresh “go” at it, I can see this as time-saving for news articles, e.g. the New York Times. Then we know not to check internet archives (due to its Robot-exclusion policy) but to instead do a web search. meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 10:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
For later readers: there is now a "fix-attempted=yes" parameter for this ourpose.[permanent dead link] Pol098 (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Here is an example. In Noma Dumezweni#Theatre, there are 3 references for the statement "In spring of 2009 she appeared in the RSC's The Winter's Tale." The last of these three references maybe originally went to a review of The Winter's Tale, but now it goes to today's page for "The Stage". ("The Stage" has an expensive to access archive, which I have not examined.) I improved one of the two existing references, and added a new reference to support the statement about "The Winter's Tale", and I would like to mark what now appears as the third reference in some way. Is the "dead link" template appropriate in this case? Is there some other template which would be better?CWBoast (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

{{Dead link}} is not the right template, obviously. Perhaps {{Verification failed}} would be appropriate in such a case. Debresser (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Instead, I marked it as "(Subscription required.)" since I really didn't even determine whether or not the "verification failed". All I really know is that it would cost money to find out. Any further thoughts would be appreciated.CWBoast (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I am having this problem right now with http://www.chushigangdruk.org which was a website for Dhokham Chushi Gangdruk (wayback), however current site is probably a SEO-link site as the owner put up some related Spanish text laced it with a few links to porn sites. --Voidvector (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Not directly addressing this issue, what I've used in some cases where a meaningful link has been redirected to something quite different (in this case owned by the same organisation, but could be a link taken over by anyone), but a good archived version exists, is the "dead-link-usurped" or equivalent dead-link=unfit" parameter in the {{Cite}} template. E.g., from UCKG article[1]. This displays the archived link, but suppresses the original.
  1. ^ "Yellow rose- for prosperity". UKCG Web. Archived from the original on 2 April 2015. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Pol098 (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Bots

Hi! Are there any bots that place this template on dead links automatically? --DixonD (talk) 08:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at MW:Manual_talk:Pywikipediabot/weblinkchecker.py#deadlinks-*.dat_syntax. JackPotte (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Is the bot in function at the present time? Linuxo (talk) 07:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Starting in late 2016, the bot is User:InternetArchiveBot. It currently runs in about 2 dozens Wikipedia languages include here enwiki. It can be manually triggered to run on any page. In the History tab, click "Fix dead links" at the top. It also runs automatically across all articles though can take a long time to cycle through. -- GreenC 13:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I've been doing some dead link repair recently and occasionally come across a dead link tag even though the original link either works now or has been redirected it to an appropriate archive services URL. It seems pretty obvious to me that if the link works now, the dead link tag should be removed. Is there a reason not to remove it when the link now points to a working archive location? Here's an example of where I removed the tag. Is that appropriate? Thanks for the feedback. --sanfranman59 (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any reason to keep the tag if the link works. The bot fixed that link, but there was text between the link and the tag, so it didn't remove it. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 20:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

is the template supposed to be removed after its made accessible through archive?

If the original URL is dead, but the contents supporting the statement is available in archive, is this template supposed to remain on to indicate the original URL is dead? Graywalls (talk) 23:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

If the citation has an archive url, the template should be removed. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 07:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes remove template. When using CS1|2 templates set |dead=yes. If a free-form cite just remove the template. -- GreenC 12:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Where to place the transclusion in Visual Editor?

The instructions do not seem to tell where to place the transclusion when using the Visual Editor and the dead link is in a {{cite}} transclusion. In Visual Editor it doesn't seem to be possible to place something between a {{cite}} and the </ref> tag. What is the proper place in that case? After the {{cite}}, I guess? Maybe we should mention that. It would be awesome if Visual Editor had a simple built-in way to simply mark a link as dead, doing it in the right way, but I don't think it has that currently. --Jhertel (talk) 10:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

How to specify that the URL cited no longer supports the citation?

At ampersand#etymology, the website cited (adobe.com) still exists but the specific information is no longer available. Times change. Adobe.com is not dead but the detailed url just goes to a holding page with no access to the source.

That original URL is still recognised by archive.org and I have added an archive-url= to the cite web string. But the original URL is still given in the citation even though it is essentially a waste of space and of the time of any reader who follows it. Is there some way to flag it as such? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

John Maynard Friedman, add |url-status=dead. -- GreenC 15:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
@GreenC: I knew that! I knew that! D'oh! (Mutters thank you and crawls back into hole). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
John Maynard Friedman: It's OK. It is actually a bit confusing because when the link is dead but has an archive available do like above, but when the link is dead but no archive available/known instead add a {{dead link}} template. -- GreenC 16:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Substing dates

Substing dates does not work. I've tried, but it does nothing.--Auric talk 15:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes it does: {{subst:dead link}} → [dead link]. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 30 December 2020

States and union territories of India I found a dead link please replace it with this link [1]

--Hello2ddn (talk) 08:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC) Hello2ddn (talk) 08:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Dead link}}. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://lawmin.gov.in/

Need help adding a new parameter

I'm trying to add a parameter called |unknown= – which would add a question mark to the end of the text and change the hover text to indicate that the link appears to be dead, but that this is not known for certain – to this template in its sandbox, but it isn't working. Can anyone advise? Thanks, DesertPipeline (talk) 13:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, I feel dumb. I am not good at computers, but at least it's fixed now :) DesertPipeline (talk) 13:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 11 March 2021

After figuring out how to get it working, I added a parameter on the sandbox for this template which appends a question mark to the end of the text to reflect an unknown state for a link, where it appears that it could be dead (but that it may have moved, or some such). One slight problem though – I wasn't sure where to put the if statement for a change in hover text. If the unknown parameter doesn't exist (or is null), the hover text should be as it is, and if it exists and isn't null then the hover text should be replaced with "This link may be dead, or it may have moved. If possible, please replace it with a live link to the same source. ([Date])". Not sure if I can ask for that in an edit request; if not, if the responder could point me in the right direction for how to implement this myself in the sandbox first, I'll do so and then reactivate my request :) Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 14:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Is there a demonstrated need for this functionality? For fourteen years we have not had this functionality, why do we need it now?
Further, it looks like your edits to {{dead link/sandbox}} did not account for changes made by other editors directly to the live template. That means that current functionality of the live template will be lost if it is overwritten by the sandbox template. If you wish to pursue this, copy the live template to the sandbox and then make the necessary changes to a copy of the live template.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
I do also question the utility of this. In principle, I understand how flagging links like so could be beneficial. But such benefits only come when a decent number of usages are flagged. For example, we know that page moves are a common cause for link rot and such links could be restored to live versions. But who is going to check/tag them? At best, I can see a bot do this who knows that a certain websites/domain's links tend to be moved/renamed and likely available at a different url. But what humans are going to perform this check for the countless dead links? There are so many citations and so many dead ones that we have long resigned to using automated tools, even accepting the false positive/negative rate.
And additionally, this functionality is only being proposed for this template. What about {{cite web}} citation family's |url-status=? It is presumed that the two use cases are "compatible" and bots/scripts would "lose" this parameter on conversion. How does one handle this? —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 16:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
In cs1|2, |url-status= (empty) serves no other purpose than to occupy space when the template does not have |archive-url=. When |archive-url= is present and has a value, |url-status=live causes the template to use |url= to link |title= to the source. When |archive-url= is present and has a value, |url-status=dead causes the template to use |archive-url= to link |title= to the archived source – this is the default condition so when |url-status= is present but empty or omitted entirely, the cs1|2 template presumes that the value in |url= has gone 404 and uses |archive-url= to link |title=. |url-status= and {{dead link}} serve distinctly different purposes.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough, I am not sure I understood the proposal (and reading the below additions, I am still not sure I do). I thought this was adding a "dead status unknown" in-between the dead/live. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Oops, sorry. I didn't realise that the sandbox code wasn't up to date. Should've checked :) As for the use case, I've sometimes come across references that are just a link (or external links in the article text that are serving as references), and when I try to use the automatic reference generator, it fails (or gives me some other link which suggests the resource isn't there any more). I can't actually check these myself, so I manually put them in a reference and then add the "dead link" tag – but that's not accurate because I don't know for certain. User:Trappist the monk, is that a reasonable use case? :) Thanks, DesertPipeline (talk) 03:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by automatic reference generator. If you mean WP:RefToolbar or the reference editor in WP:VE, they are not wholly reliable tools because the autofilling (WP:CITOID) relies on poorly curated lists (WorldCat for one) and website scraping which websites may or may not present information in forms usable by the tools.
I can't actually check these myself What? Why can't you check? Click on the link. If it is dead, attempt to locate an appropriate archive snapshot and then write an appropriate citation that includes the link to the archive. If the link is live and it points to a source that supports the en.wiki article text, write an appropriate citation. Only fallback on {{dead link}} when you are unable to locate an appropriate archive snapshot.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
User:Trappist the monk Yeah, I use the Visual Editor's automatic reference generator. And this is going to sound silly, but I have severe paranoia and worry when it comes to visiting websites I don't know, even ones which would be trustworthy :( I installed a terminal browser called Lynx to try to use for any website that I fear visiting, but I struggle to use even that, so I guess that goes to show how big this problem is. I'm sorry, I know it's a ridiculous fear. I do genuinely think that this parameter would be useful though – for instance, maybe a link moves in a way that someone doesn't know where it is. At the very least it would hopefully encourage others to try to find the resource, and as the saying goes, more pairs of eyes usually gets things done :) DesertPipeline (talk) 03:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that including a question mark in the rendering of {{dead link}} will make it more likely that other editors will attempt to fix the link (if it is indeed broken). If ve fails in some way and doesn't report what caused the failure, that is another ve problem that should be taken up with the ve developers and not masked by manipulating {{dead link}}.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
User:Trappist the monk: Okay, let me try to explain myself a little better. As it stands, without a question mark, I would say that the tag means "this link is definitely dead and needs fixing if possible". With a question mark, however, it would mean "it couldn't be verified whether or not the resource at this particular link which is apparently dead still exists elsewhere. Please try to locate the resource if possible". Also, I agree that if the VisualEditor isn't providing useful error messages for automatic link generation, that should be fixed, but I do think this parameter has utility for purposes unrelated to a VisualEditor problem. Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 03:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I have, in the not too recent past, repaired dead links that had been declared permanently dead and left for dead. I may look at a link, see that it is dead, mark it with {{dead link}}. Another editor may come along an hour, a day, a month, a year later and discover that it is not dead. The presence of a {{dead link}} template is no guarantee that the link is actually dead. Because there is no guarantee of death, {{dead link}} already means that while this link is apparently dead, it is not known if the link is certifiably dead so |unknown= doesn't really add any value.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
User:Trappist the monk: In that case, then, would you be opposed to the idea of having a question mark in the template without any parameter, and hover text which says something to the effect of "This link may or may not be dead"? If it's already the case that there's no guarantee a link is dead, it might encourage people to try to fix them when they see the template, because "dead link" suggests a statement of fact which cannot be resolved, whereas "dead link?" suggests a possibility that things could be fixed. What do you think? Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 04:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
This feel like you are conflating when a link is dead with when the source material at the linked location is unavailable. A tagged link is always dead (unless it is by mistake). The purpose of this tag is to show that the link itself doesn't lead to where it was supposed to for whatever reason. Whether the source material is still available at a different location, doesn't change the fact that the link is dead. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
The proper venue for a template-move discussion is at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion, not here.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
User:Trappist the monk: I'm suggesting that the link text display "dead link?" and the hover text display a suitable message to reflect that death is not guaranteed, not to move this template.
User:Hellknowz: But Trappist just mentioned that they've found and repaired links that were supposedly dead before? DesertPipeline (talk) 04:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Questia -- DL fixes?

Questia is dead. Will this template help if we tag Questia.com links? (If not, should we remove the questia.com urls from the citations?) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 01:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Both before and after </ref>?

At one time long ago I remember the documentation for this template suggesting placing it both within the reference and after it,<ref>This is a reference with a URL{{Dead link|date=January 2007}}</ref>{{Dead link|date=January 2007}} so that the superscript note appeared both in the text and the Reflist. I have tended to do this, but on rechecking note that its use is now recommended only once, within the reference. It seems to me to make sense to be notified in the text that a link is dead, and also in the reference list.[1][dead link] Does anyone have any comment on this? Should I change what I have been doing to follow the documentation change?

  1. ^ This is a reference with a URL[dead link]

Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 15:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pol098: I've been through the entire history of Template:Dead link/doc, and it has never suggested that. The first mention of </ref> is in this edit (June 2008); it gives the option of placing either before or after, but not in both positions. This edit (November 2008) recommends against putting the tag after the </ref>. The position was flipped with this edit (November 2009) and corrected two hours later in this edit. It was substantially rewritten in this edit (January 2018), but the position is the same: {{dead link}} goes before </ref>. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Many thanks, I'll modify the way I do things. I'm quite sure I saw the recommendation to flag dead links in the way I mentioned somewhere, many years ago (it's not an opinion I formed, though I did agree with it), but that's irrelevant. I have double-tagged a lot of dead links over the years ... (and nobody has ever commented on it). Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Dead_link/Archive_1&oldid=1244867712"