Talk:List of dead links: Difference between revisions
From IFWiki
(Created page with "==Not sure what remedies to propose== If I'm not sure what remedies to propose, generally speaking, is it still useful for me to add dead links to this list? I am using a lin...") |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
If I'm not sure what remedies to propose, generally speaking, is it still useful for me to add dead links to this list? I am using a link checking tool that turns up lots of dead links, far more than I know what to do with. I can also pass a file of them on to you, David Welbourn, or whoever wants to work on fixing them. -- [[User:Bg|bg]] ([[User talk:Bg|talk]]) 23:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC) | If I'm not sure what remedies to propose, generally speaking, is it still useful for me to add dead links to this list? I am using a link checking tool that turns up lots of dead links, far more than I know what to do with. I can also pass a file of them on to you, David Welbourn, or whoever wants to work on fixing them. -- [[User:Bg|bg]] ([[User talk:Bg|talk]]) 23:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC) | ||
* I'm not sure how useful this page is either; perhaps it's too verbose? Like, we probably only have a few limited strategies in dealing with a dead link. I think I had in the back of my mind way back when that this page might be useful for other website authors to tackle linkrot in their pages too, but that's probably wishful thinking beyond the pale. My main concern with dead links now is that there's two types that look identical: (1) normal dead links which might get be fixed someday via Wayback or the content was moved to another site and please someone go look, and (2) very dead links which are really really dead, gone forever, never archived, or robots.txt is blocking it so don't bother trying. Perhaps visually, a very dead link can have a strikethrough markup. Like, do we want a "Template:very dead link" to do that? Is that a reasonable thing to do? -- [[User:Dswxyz|David Welbourn]] ([[User talk:Dswxyz|talk]]) 23:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:58, 19 June 2016
Not sure what remedies to propose
If I'm not sure what remedies to propose, generally speaking, is it still useful for me to add dead links to this list? I am using a link checking tool that turns up lots of dead links, far more than I know what to do with. I can also pass a file of them on to you, David Welbourn, or whoever wants to work on fixing them. -- bg (talk) 23:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how useful this page is either; perhaps it's too verbose? Like, we probably only have a few limited strategies in dealing with a dead link. I think I had in the back of my mind way back when that this page might be useful for other website authors to tackle linkrot in their pages too, but that's probably wishful thinking beyond the pale. My main concern with dead links now is that there's two types that look identical: (1) normal dead links which might get be fixed someday via Wayback or the content was moved to another site and please someone go look, and (2) very dead links which are really really dead, gone forever, never archived, or robots.txt is blocking it so don't bother trying. Perhaps visually, a very dead link can have a strikethrough markup. Like, do we want a "Template:very dead link" to do that? Is that a reasonable thing to do? -- David Welbourn (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)