Talk:Link rot

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Link rot article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 12 months

Internet Mid‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computing: Websites Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Websites (assessed as Mid-importance).

Text and/or other creative content from Dead link was copied or moved into Link rot with [permanent diff this edit]. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Why a target?

This article clearly gets way more than the usual dose of vandalism, and the application of pending changes protection by Ymblanter has proven to be a prudent measure. I'm left wondering, though, why this article? I'd kinda understand the attraction if the vandals were breaking links within the article to be ironic, but most of the vandalism is not that. The subject matter is pretty dry so this isn't vandalism as a response to controversy; it isn't about a K-Pop band, a kids TV show, or Brazilian footballer, so this isn't vandalism as a natural side effect of high page views. What am I missing? Cheers —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 17:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should rotten links simply be deleted?

There are recurring issues in Wikipedia where link rot leads to removed references, which leads to challenged content as uncited (which isn't really true), which has even led to AFDs. There doesn't seem to be any guideline or consensus discusson on this.

SOFIXIT would suggest that the solution should be to automatically find archives of rotten links, rather than the normal modus operandi of simply deleting things. But the practice of link rot -> article rot continues unabated. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 05:35, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keith, if you haven't yet, I recommend that you seek information on that issue at WP:LINKROT and/or its talk page. This is the talk page for the article on link rot. Sorry for the slow response! —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 13:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between Archived Search Destinations and Deleted ones

Can Wikipedia figure out which 'type' of rot link we're running into for each search. For example, can you program the 'linked to page' to determine what info is gone for good vs. what info still exists somewhere on the internet. I know that if this idea works, we still won't have access to the data we were after in the first place*. The benefit will be the time we'll save in not searching for information that doesn't exist.

One step at a time

Thank you for reading, Mary Hughes 2600:4040:5D9A:1B00:28F7:F24:F572:4B66 (talk) 06:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]