Talk:List of dead links: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 00:32, 20 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)

I wasn't trying to say this page wasn't useful, just that I generally don't know what to propose as a remedy, other than going to the internet archive. The link checker I mentioned automatically looks for internet archive links, and records the url of an archived version, if there is one. I'm happy to share that file with whoever wants it. I could see a "very dead" template being useful. But if it's very dead, do we want a strikethrough, or do we want to make it invisible to the wiki reader? -- bg (talk) 00:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I don't know how exhaustive a search we want to do before marking a link "very dead" though, since the Internet Archive isn't the only archiving site. -- bg (talk) 00:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

P.P.S. If there is an internet archive link for a dead link, is it a problem if we just put in an archive link, without first checking to see if the content is still live somewhere else? Or do we want to check every link to see if it's moved? -- bg (talk) 00:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:31, 20 June 2016 (view source) Bg (talk \| contribs) No edit summary ← Older edit		Revision as of 00:32, 20 June 2016 (view source) Bg (talk \| contribs) No edit summary Newer edit →
Line 9:		Line 9:
	:* P.S. I don't know how exhaustive a search we want to do before marking a link "very dead" though, since the Internet Archive isn't the only archiving site. -- [[User:Bg\|bg]] ([[User talk:Bg\|talk]]) 00:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)		:* P.S. I don't know how exhaustive a search we want to do before marking a link "very dead" though, since the Internet Archive isn't the only archiving site. -- [[User:Bg\|bg]] ([[User talk:Bg\|talk]]) 00:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

	:* P.P.S. If there is an internet archive link for a dead link, is it a problem to just put in an archive link, without first checking to see if the content is still live somewhere else?		:* P.P.S. If there is an internet archive link for a dead link, is it a problem if we just put in an archive link, without first checking to see if the content is still live somewhere else? Or do we want to check every link to see if it's moved? -- [[User:Bg\|bg]] ([[User talk:Bg\|talk]]) 00:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)