Wikipedia talk:Link rot/Cases/chartarchive.org and chartstats.com

Update

@GreenC: Hello. As you've made this link rot list, I thought I let you know that there are other instances of Chart Archive/Chart Stats when I do some searching:

In Source: chartarchive.org and chartstats.com if I search via insource. Same if I search with chartarchive with insource. A lot of the chartstats insource one seem to be ref names.
Other examples: While these sites are also named in Publisher/wesbites like these three examples, they're not that bad for number of instances. I removed the one instance of chartstats.com used as a website name in the ref.

I'm leaving this list here as it relates to the link rot list. Also, should these links be depreceated? --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I removed the 5 chartsstats.com insource. Also, I just found that most of the chartarchive.org are ones published under scans.chartarchive.org for insource. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MrLinkinPark333, I missed the scans hostname, looks like less than 100. What would you convert http://scans.chartarchive.org/UK/1981/UK%20Charts%201981%20-%20Singles%20and%20albums.pdf to or should they be treated as dead links and archived (easiest method)? -- GreenC 00:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenC: If possible, I'd try to convert them to cite magazine/newspaper without the URL. Also, they're not technically dead as the scans domain is active. For your example, the only problem is I don't see a date for it. If the date was found, then it could be converted to a hardcopy of Record Mirror with date/page number then remove the URL. Here's an example: the one referenced in Shirley Bassey could be converted to: "Top Compilations". Music Week. October 23, 1999. p. 16. Otherwise, a webcopy exists here.

--MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MrLinkinPark333, I think I will pass on doing any more work on this. It was a messy project due to how mangled the data is, programming took weeks working full-time. To give a sense what this work requires here is one source file there are two more. Whatever is left I would suggest doing manually, the bot did what it could. -- GreenC 16:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough @GreenC: Thanks for making a huge dent with this! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 16:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]