Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Link rot/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Not dead. What to do?

The links 68-74 on Baltimore Police Department - Barbro Martinsson section on Wikipedia:Dead external links/404/b are not dead. In fact all the Daily Star (Bangladesh) and Banglapedia links that may have faced temporary troubles are back online, and are dead no more. What to do? Aditya(talk • contribs) 10:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Living in the past

As of the 6 November 2006 database dump, Wikipedia contained 2,578,134 external links, and roughly 10% of these links are broken in some manner can someone rerun this and update it for 2008! Gnevin (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Euphemism please

When links to obituaries go missing, as in Comair Flight 191, tagging them with [dead link‍] is somewhat unfortunate. Can this tag be made to actually display "[broken link]"? 82.1.57.47 (talk) 04:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored.--Unscented (talk) 22:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

What on earth has censorship got to do with it? I'd like to improve the article by using a more appropriate tag. 82.1.63.98 (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

504error?

I was trying to add a title to the link [1] for the page Douglas F. Attaway and I was redirected to the page [2]. I can't find the 504 error listed here. Can somebody tell me what it stands for? --Guthrie (talk) 00:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi folks, just created this[3]. Basically, it's a tool where you input wikiname, wikitype (eg. wikibooks, wikipedia, etc) and an article, and are served a list of any dead links. Let me know if there is anything that can be done to improve this. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 02:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Not as fast or as good as mine ;-). Of course my isn't as consistent in the interface as its trying to do everything. Keep working on it, no reason why we need to limit our selves to one way of doing things. — Dispenser 23:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No reason to link to an archive copy of a page

We just had a discussion about this on the main External links talk page, and I am bringing it up here.

I think encouraging replacing dead links to archives is a direct violation of or prohibition against linking to sites with copyright violations. Archive sites -- whether they be unofficial archives of news articles on personal sites or organizations who want to use the article to promote a cause or some organization specifically devoted to archiving the Internet-- do not get prior permission to duplicate copyrighted material. They just work under the assumption that they can violate copyrights until such time as they get a cease and desist. If those sites want to do that, they can decide to do that, but I think that's counter to how we at Wikipedia are instructed to deal with copyrights. If a site is down, it's down, perhaps because they site went out of business/owner lost interest (which tends not to be sites we link to anyway) or the person who had the info up decided to take it down for some reason -- and we don't have any overwhelming need or policy-based reason to have a link to it anymore that would overrule our good faith adherence to copyright laws.

We had consensus to remove the mention of archiving on the main page, so I removed it from here as well. Based upon how far the "archiving" idea has spread we may have to have separate discussions in many locations to clear this up. Not only does it seem pointless to link to an archive -- we are not a web directory, if we lose a link who cares? -- but it seems clearly a violation of policy. DreamGuy (talk) 21:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to mull that over a bit. On the flip side, just because the original link went dead, it does not invalidate the citation— it existed somewhere at some point. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 00:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
This is absurd. The Internet Archive is a vital tool for any kind of serious research. It is the only practical way I can think of to demonstrate to a skeptical person that an online citation is valid after the original is no longer available.
The remark about a business/owner losing interest is totally off the mark. One of the most important uses of the Internet Archive is that some pages undergo continual change, and it can be crucial to show the version that corresponds to what was actually cited.
The only half-reasonable alternative would be to keep the original citation (including date accessed) and leave it to the knowledgeable user to check the Internet Archive if they wanted to verify the accuracy. This would be tremendously less convenient for the reader. It would also be burdensome and time-consuming for any editor who wants to validate that the now-broken link actually was a legitimate citation. I can imagine it leading to rejection and deletion of numerous completely accurate and verifiable citations.
The Internet Archive honors all appropriate requests to remove copyrighted material. They make it easy to mark your pages in such a way that they won't be archived. As far as I can tell, what they do falls under fair use, not copyright violation. They certainly seem to think so, themselves, and they are a big enough organization that I am sure they have talked to their lawyers about it.
With respect to the Internet Archive being fair use: it is worth remembering that there is a lot of material that we exclude from Wikipedia itself not because we wouldn't have a perfectly good fair use justification to use it, but because we intend our content to be freely reusable, including in commercial contexts. Thus, we put extremely narrow restrictions on what kind of fair use justifications we allow within Wikipedia. This does not mean that we cannot link to sites that lack this intention and this restriction. - Jmabel | Talk 04:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
A slight further expansion on that last remark: within Wikipedia, we build fences around fences so that this wide-open project intended to create content that can be reused freely does not stray even remotely into the territory of violating copyrights. We get used to thinking of "fair use" as meaning the very narrow range of fair use that is allowed by Wikipedia. We should not forget why Wikipedia is so restrictive.
In other words, trying to stamp out all but the most justified cases of fair use within Wikipedia—holding ourselves to the standards that would apply to a commercial entity even though we are not one—should not morph into a crusade against the fair use doctrine in intellectual property rights law in the world at large. - Jmabel | Talk 04:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Your understanding of Fair Use seems seriously skewed, and you also seem to want to promote certain goals within copyright law that are at odds with how Wikipedia works. You are free to believe whatever you want, but we must follow Wikipedia's rules here, not yours. DreamGuy (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Considering the number of sources that I've seen removed simply because they are dead links, not to mention how {{dead link}} is used throughout Wikipedia, I'm not seeing how linking to an archive site is a problem...--Bobblehead (rants) 00:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd have to agree. assuming that the link to the original site was valid under wikipedia policy, then linking to the archive of the same site should pose no problem. the only time I can see it would be a problem is if someone had placed a site in the public domain, and then (for some reason) removed it from the public domain - then wikipedia ought to respect that removal. but I suspect the internet archive already does that. --Ludwigs2 00:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. But I'm informed that the equivalent language has been removed from Wikipedia:External links. I'm not in the mood for a fight about policy, but I will link my remarks here from the talk page of that project page. - Jmabel | Talk 03:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I entirely agree with Joe's cogent arguments and the others opposed to this. If archive.org were "a copyvio site", rather than the officially recognized library it is, if the problem were real rather than imaginary, it would be in big legal trouble. It isn't. The statement that there is "No reason to link to an archive copy of a page" is astounding. We are an online encylopedia. Links have always been an essential part of that. Links go dead, and usually the only practical replacement is the wayback machine. If links are removed, often the content will eventually go. This content is the purpose of wikipedia. This is putting an extreme, unnecessary and useless interpretation of wikipedia and copyright rules above the cardinal purpose of this encyclopedia, which is to be uh, an encyclopedia.John Z (talk) 04:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Archive.org is not fair use. That's just riduclous. Copying 100% of something without permission is plainly not fair use. It's xeroxing, copying... we would not need a new phrase if "fair use" meant the same as "100% copy". They are the definition of a copyvio site, and should never be externally linked to, just as google cache's should not be. And most obviously, if a website has moved an article into its pay section, linking to an archive.org page instead is both simple theft and very obnoxious. Also of note, the external links guideline is different than citations where an argument can be made that something needs to be kept until a replacement is found. With external links by definition they are not vital to the article, and thus linking to an archive page not important. 2005 (talk) 01:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
You haven't read enough in US copyright law. Under Section 108 in US Copyright law libraries and archives are allowed to make 100% full copies without permission. This falls under the umbrella term fair use. — Dispenser 02:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
It appears you need to take a look... any such copy or phonorecord that is reproduced in digital format is not made available to the public in that format outside the premises of the library or archives in lawful possession of such copy... The rights of reproduction and distribution under this section extend to the isolated and unrelated reproduction or distribution of a single copy or phonorecord of the same material on separate occasions, but do not extend to cases where the library or archives... is engaging in the related or concerted reproduction or distribution of multiple copies or phonorecords of the same material, whether made on one occasion or over a period of time, and whether intended for aggregate use by one or more individuals or for separate use by the individual members of a group etc. One copy is plainly meaning a paper or digital copy in a building, not endless cyber copies used by multiple people. Regardless of this though, there is no reason to use an archive version for an external link. They should just be deleted because they will usually be outdated, unimportant or being served for pay by the copyright user. If you want to make a different case for citations, fine, but concerning external links it is a bad idea to encourage archive copies. That's the key point. If somebody thinks it is really really important and there is no consensus about the copyvio stuff, fine, use one. But there is no reason to suggest archive copies for the external links section. 2005 (talk) 03:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

←I'd assume that Internet Archive would use the fact that these copies are temporal, thus only make one copy available at a time. They would only be applying claim in §108(a) which is supported by a comment in their footer, and not claims in §108(c)(2), §108(g), §108(g)(1) as you quote. However, since I'm not a copyright expert and since much of copyright law in the US is created by the court system, so we will only truly known when someone decides to sue them.

While I generally agree that the external links section shouldn't need to use archived copies, its a slippery slope between the blatant copyright infringement and needing to research a given work to ensure the website indeed has redistribution rights (As this is apparently an example of). — Dispenser 04:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to emphasize again, the principal issue is there is no need to reccomend archive copies for external links. We should simply state nothing about archive.org. The current text states: Such dead links should either be updated or removed. "Updated" could in some cases mean an archive.org link. If nothing else, the current wording is less contentious. Nothing is reccomended and editors can make their own choices. 2005 (talk) 06:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
The point is exactly that the External links can often be incorporated into the article's References at a later time. Unless they've been deleted. If the links were suitable for inclusion in the first place, then they should remain available if it is possible. (The guideline used to say for things to link to "5. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference." I don't know when that got slipped out.)
For over two years, it said this, then a 4 person decision in 2 days, based on unclear reasoning (it is not a "copyvio site"), altered it (and have now reverted back to your non-consensus version. You were bold, I reverted back to the way it was for 2 years, next should be discussion, not you reverting again). frustrated (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Then start a discussion on the external links guideline page. Since the overwhelming consensus has been moving away from external links being a dumping ground and keeping them to a minimum, I doubt you'll find much support for a CREEPy suggestion that could be done but is certainly not something that should be done automatically. Also where you said "then they should remain available if it is possible" that is just wrong. Just because an external link was meritable at one time does not mean it will be for eternity. A link that has gone dead usually is both not as good as some live links and also likely oudated. We should not make reccomendations that approach things backwards or lazily. Dead links are a sign the content may no longer have merit and should be checked, not a signal that that content should be preserved. 2005 (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
In the first 16 entries at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Wayback, the template is found in the external links of these 6 articles: Common Desktop Environment, Encyclopædia Britannica, Economy of Germany, London Heathrow Airport, John Wilkes Booth, Metabolism. (that includes 2 featured article and 1 good article). frustrated (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
My main concern is not so much the inclusion of these in the external links section as such, but with the use of them in citations. Is there a proposed substitute that will do as much to preserve the integrity and usefulness of the citation apparatus? - Jmabel | Talk 22:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Compression

If compression is not absolutely necessary, it would be more convenient to have these links point to webpages with lists of links, rather than .tar.gz files. Stevage 02:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


Clearing house statement in project page

I'm a bit confused at the following statement on the project page:
"This page is intended to be a clearing house for all such external links. If you make corrections to the source article to fix a broken link, please indicate so below to prevent a duplication of effort. Also, use of the following edit summary can help increase the awareness of the problem..."

I don't understand what they mean by "indicate below"

--Sultec (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Project Relaunch

Hello,

Since this project appears to be dead/out of date, I am going to take the initiative to relaunch it. Writing some code to test every link in the last Database Dump is simply enough, but will take some time to actually run (probably weeks).

In addition to detecting 404s and such, I hope to make it detect pages that are "valid" [i.e status code 200] but aren't what was actually desired. That is, primarily domains that expired and now are used by a domain squatter.

I will organize the new "dead links" by status code first, then by domain rather than by the Wikipedia page it is found on. That scheme makes a lot more sense for someone trying to actually fix broken domains than the current one. The new lists will also be formatted for ease of use.

Any other "wish list" requests are certainly welcome.

Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you make it possible to order the dead links by occurrence? That way we could could change the most frequent with your bot User:DeadLinkBOT. Tim1357 (talk) 00:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
This reminds me - a really need to generate that list... Yes, I will output two lists - a complete alphabetical one & a separate list with the most "popular" dead links. I'll make finally finishing the program the make this list my top priority for the next week.--ThaddeusB (talk) 00:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Tim1357 (talk) 22:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Any Progress? Tim1357 (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Huh?

Does anyone know what is meant by "Please indicate your correction status in the form "123: ABC - XYZ", eg, "404: African Academy of Sciences - anonymous remailer"" in the "Downloads" section of the main project page? It goes all the way back to the initiation of the project in September 2005. Just wondering ... --sanfranman59 (talk) 01:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It probably related to a defunct formulation of the lists. In any case, I will be overhauling this project with better lists & instructions shortly. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I look forward to your lists. Organizing them by domain is definitely the way to go. --sanfranman59 (talk) 03:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The dead link template {{dead link}} should be mentioned somewhere in this article, but I am unsure where. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It's already in the 1st subsection, Wikipedia:Dead external links#Repairing. ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 22:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Does this count as a dead link?

If a web page still exists (no error code etc), but has changed so that the material being referenced no longer appears there, should it be marked as a deadlink or something else? Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The first option would, of course, be to find the necessary info elsewhere - eitehr in an archived version of the page or another source. Failing that, marking it as dead seems reasonable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
{{deadlink}} with a <!-- terse hidden comment indicating the trouble--> would be helpful. --Lexein (talk) 05:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Rant to offload

Grrrrr! Frustration! I've just been examining some of the articles I've worked on in the past. And I used to use a resource called "Find Articles" which had articles from British newspapers going back to just before they started printing everything online. "Find Articles" has been taken over by someone called BNET and none of my references work any more, they all go to "page not found".

I'm not asking for advice on this, I know I can try to rehabilitate them all.... but it's damn annoying. I spent a lot of time and care getting those refs put in there. And now it all seems to have been wasted. (Swears uncontrollably for 2 minutes). --bodnotbod (talk) 03:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

FindArticles was a Gale/LookSmart joint effort. You may find that Gale's AccessMyLibrary will still be able to help. Not sure if there's a systemic way of rehabbing them all, but if may be worth looking into. You'll probably need a US or Canadian library card to use it. LeadSongDog come howl 21:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Web hosting costs money. Because of this, links die, information and culture are lost forever. Only by ending the capitalist system of violence, slavery, and extortion can we preserve our collected intelligence in perpetuity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.136.123 (talk) 05:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

A bot

What about a bot that looks for these web pages on the Internet Archive it seems simple enough

Checklinks is a tool that lets you do this, but it is not a bot. You need to enter each article name in the tool: this is an example with Belgium. 84user (talk) 08:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

At WP:EL we are continuing to discuss the usage of official websites on web.archive.org here: Wikipedia_talk:External_links#ELs_of_official_websites_archived_on_web.archive.org

(Copy of note left on my talkpage. See also the thread above on this page, #No reason to link to an archive copy of a page, for a discussion from last year.) -- Quiddity (talk) 06:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

New name for this page?

The title of this page is ambiguous, and I propose changing it from WP:Dead external links to WP:Dead links. Why? In this page's context, an "External Link" is any link to the outside internet. However, Wikipedia:External links only refers to those links in the ==External links== section of pages. Therefore, we should change the title of this particular page to the more expansive title of WP:Dead links, so that this page can include dead External links, Inline Citations, and general Reference links.--Blargh29 (talk) 03:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Please do so. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I assume the page was named "external" to distinguish from "dead internal links" as opposed to referring to the "external links" section. However, I have no problem with a rename. --ThaddeusB (talk) 12:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
No major objections. The same clarification could be made by way of editing the intro text though. "This page concerns all external links, whether in the EL section, or in citations and references." or similar. Either or both is fine by me. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

What about changing it to WP:Linkrot? To me, that is the main thrust of where this policy should go. Thoughts on that?--Blargh29 (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Linkrot is probably a better title - it describes the problem rather than the outcome of the problem. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

rewrite

I just began the "Prevent link rot" section. Someone can expand it or otherwise edit it as they please. I will continue to expand it myself, to include alternate methods of preservation, including using the quote= parameter.--Blargh29 (talk) 04:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The original article should be linked first. The archived version should be secondary. 86.44.30.188 (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Also citation are not mandatory and some think they are evil. You rather give the impression that they are the only way to do it. 86.44.30.188 (talk) 18:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand.--Blargh29 (talk) 01:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
That citations aren't mandatory is (or should be) explained at the (policy) page Wikipedia:Verifiability. This page is a how-to, and hence only addresses that specific topic for which it was built.
I think the IP means that the instructions currently seem to seem to indicate that "all webcitations should use an 'archiveurl' by default". I agree that it does seem to say this, and that this is inaccurate. (unless recommendations have changed somewhere recently?) Should be clarified, or add a footnote link to the last discussion of the dispute. -- Quiddity (talk) 06:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I got the impression that the IP was opposed to citation templates in general. --Blargh29 (talk) 06:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I have removed some technical material that seems out of place here: much of it seems to have been unused for a long period of time or superseded by recent developments, like User:WebCiteBOT or User:DeadLinkBOT.--Blargh29 (talk) 05:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed were the Status Codes and the Downloads sections. I wonder if we could preserve these somewhere else, or if they have been updated elsewhere? Worth further investigation. -- Quiddity (talk) 06:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, they didn't seem to have been used anymore. I would be all for a new home for that material, if anyone thinks it is useful.--Blargh29 (talk) 06:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Agreed - the original content was so out of date that it was useless... This started out as a WikiProject to fix deadlinks, and I hope to revive that aspect one day soon (here or elsewhere), but for now it definitely is not needed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The re-write is complete. We need people to read through and make suggestions for grammar, completeness, and clarity.--Blargh29 (talk) 05:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The overall rewrite of the how-to-fix looks great. Much thanks. I'll give it (and the removed material) another look when I have more time and wakefulness. -- Quiddity (talk) 06:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I posted a notice at Village Pump asking for more suggestions, etc.--Blargh29 (talk) 06:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw the village pump notice and came to read over. I did a bit of copyediting, to correct grammar and to dewordinessify a bit, in the interests of WP:KISS. I hope the changes are okay. • Anakin (talk) 01:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, those were good edits. Thank you!--Blargh29 (talk) 02:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have written a short blurb about the re-write for submission at to the Wikipedia Signpost. It is located at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions. I'm new to the Signpost, so any re-write of what I submitted would be appreciated.--Blargh29 (talk) 06:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments

I think this looks pretty good, here are some fairly nitpicky suggestions for possible improvement:

  • General point - the article reads a little bit in places like the only reliable sources are online ones. I often cite print sources that are also online (Google books, for example) - even if the link goes bad, the print source is still valid.
  • Would it make sense to use "but" instead of "and" in the nutshell Link rot is a threat to the encyclopedia, but steps may be taken to reduce its effect. ?
  • Does link rot really threaten our policies and guidlines as This presents a significant threat to Wikipedia's reliability policy and its source citation guideline. implies? Or does it threaten the usefulness of the data presented, especially with regard to verifiability?
    • I think it does, but I will defer is people disagree.--22:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Would "can" be better than "will" here If the link goes bad, this added information will help a future Wikipedian or reader locate a new source for the original text, either online, or a print copy of the article at their local library. Also there are many places to find print sources, though local libraries are certainly important.
  • Under Web archive services, my understanding is that the Internet Archive saves copies of what it wants and if you are in luck, you can find your website there about 6 months later. On the other hand, while WebCite can be used the same way, it also has the additional feature that you can request a copy of a specific URL be saved. Should this feature be mentioned?
  • Repairing a dead link - I would change the order of the two paragraphs here - I find it easier to look for things have moved URLs first, then check the archives. For example, I know of some maps published by a county that change URL every six months to a year - not sure why. By searching a bit in their website, I have always found the new URL, which is sometimes also an updated version of the map (and so more current for the article). An archive service would only find the old map.
  • Would "subscription" be a better word choice than "expensive" in Sometimes, finding an appropriate source is not possible, or would require more extensive research techniques, such as a visit to a library or the use of an expensive database.

Other than these minor points, I think this looks good and thank you for updating it. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the differences between WebCite and the Internet Archive should be mentioned. The on-demand nature of WebCite makes it a better a tool at preventing linkrot in most cases than the Internet Archive. The latter is generally used more to repair dead links.MaesterTonberry (talk) 21:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I added some short descriptions about them, but what do you think about making a separate paragraph to compare and contrast the two? Also, are there other services out there?--Blargh29 (talk) 22:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Appearance in Signpost

This essay appeared in the November 9, 2009 version of the Wikipedia Signpost, available at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-11-09/News and notes.--Blargh29 (talk) 02:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


See previous Village Pump, and BRFA discussions regarding this same template (or similar templates)
So I am bringing this back again, because I think it has a reasonable amount of support. I want to get consensus to use the template : {{Dead link header}} on the top of sections that contain the template {{Dead link}}. Here is what it would look like

Section Name

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicin[1] elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

References
  1. ^ [example.com] [dead link‍]

The template is small, discrete, and provides a link to Dispenser's external link tool: check-links.

Tim1357 (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

O yea, and this would be automatically added by Skybot , or another bot, if he isn't still up to it. Tim1357 (talk) 02:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better just reworking {{linkrot}} to cover both bare URLs and dead ones? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Why would we do this? We use in-article banners to notify readers of potential issues with article content. Unreferenced, COI, or NPOV tags are there to benefit the readers understanding of what is in an article and disclose what problems there may be. Dead links do not cause any problem for the reader that would need to be disclosed in the middle of the article. If we are going to continue to tolerate dead-link tagging (which I find ridiculous since they are as easy to fix as they are to tag) then the only place a banner like this might be useful is in the references section. Since the dead-link tag is already sitting next to the footnote, the template is redundant and seems excessive. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 14:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

So what about putting at the beginning of the references section? Tim1357 (talk) 04:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Most maintenance banners have an equivalent inline version. Equazcion (talk) 06:06, 21 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Redirects?

I have removed a section about the use of redirects for the prevention of linkrot. I have removed it for three reasons. First, redirects are an inter-Wiki tool and are not used to prevent link rot. Second, the language was confusing and garbled. Third, it contained a threat of de-sysoping which is totally unacceptable for this essay.

Agreed that the material doesn't belong here (or anywhere else, most likely). --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I very agree about the desysop threat (hence why I removed it from Nemo's original addition). No comment about the language (having edited it myself), but I must admit I'm in two minds about the usefulness of its inclusion somewhere (this particular essay having a deliberately outward-looking feel to it and thus being unsuitable). At the end of the day, suppressing redirects does mean breaking links - just in the main not ours. We hate other sites for moving pages around constantly, for example, so maybe we should try to avoid doing it ourselves. Maybe. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 19:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Disappearing source: Editor & Publisher

Wikipedia has over 600 links to the legendary publishing periodical Editor & Publisher, which is now ceasing publication. I suspect that the website will soon be shuttered as well. We need a massive effort to 1) preemptively archive (via WP:WebCite?) many of these articles as possible and 2) repair already dead links (via WP:WAYBACK?). We should coordinate our efforts on this talk page. --Blargh29 (talk) 03:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good job for a bot. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
User:WebCiteBOT's operator (User:ThaddeusB) notified. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Link_rot/Archive_2&oldid=1146356499"