→Where is the tool?: Don't know. |
GoingBatty (talk | contribs) →Where is the tool?: The tool is Reflinks - see User:Dispenser/Reflinks |
||
Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
: Don't know what to tell you. It's a link outside Wikipedia. Surely somebody must know, but not me. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 04:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC) |
: Don't know what to tell you. It's a link outside Wikipedia. Surely somebody must know, but not me. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 04:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
::The tool is Reflinks - see [[User:Dispenser/Reflinks]] [[User:GoingBatty|GoingBatty]] ([[User talk:GoingBatty|talk]]) 04:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:07, 17 August 2011
Link rot?
Can anyone tell me why bare URLs are more susceptible to link rot than prettily piped links? No - I thought not. I have re-worded the template and provided my ideas of the real objections. If these changes are acceptable, I propose:
- move this template to template:cleanup-bare URLs
- add
bare URLs =
to template:article issues.
— RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's not that a bare URL is more susceptible to link rot that a citation using {{cite web}} or something similar. But the advantage of using the citation template is that you can provide title, author, publication date, publisher, a quote etc, all of which will make finding the resource a lot easier in the event that the link goes dead. I think that's the point. So by not using bare links, we can mitigate problems with link rot before they happen. That being said, I have no problem with your proposal to move the template. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Query
Is there any categories or anything specific to this tag that I can use to find bare urls? It's just that I love typing out citewebs, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 17:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Not really. But you can start at Category:Articles with broken citations, which has some 5-10 instances a day of {{Cite web}} with a missing title (or incorrect use of the template). Debresser (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- You might want to have a look at the cleanup box at tools:~dispenser/view/Reflinks, let me know of any interface improvement you might like to see in the reflinks tool. — Dispenser 00:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- You can use Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Cleanup-link rot and I think that category of pages that transclude this template should be created. Svick (talk) 12:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- I created Category:Articles needing link rot cleanup that contains all articles that have this template transcluded. Svick (talk) 13:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Emphasis
The message says the following data elements are important: title, date, publisher, publication, and author. I don't think that's the right list.
- Author ought to be earlier in the list than it is.
- Publication should probably be changed to a more generic term like web site name or work.
- Publisher is not important if the web site is well known, and it's often unnecessary even for less well-known sites. For example, is it more important to list "Rovi Corporation" or "Allmusic", the name of the site they publish? Clearly, it's "Allmusic", and "Rovi Corporation" is unnecessary.
So, I'd propose something like this:
title, author, date, and web site name
Comments? — John Cardinal (talk) 13:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- That's an improvement. But author(s) (if known) should go before title, and date (if known) should go after website name.
- Unless of course you were using an author–date system, whereupon the order would most likely be author(s) (if known), year (if known), title, website name, date within the year (if known). But I think this is unsuitable for many pages as the authorship of so much that's worth citing is unclear. -- Hoary (talk) 07:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Inline [clenaup-link rot]?
Is there an inline [cleanup-link rot] that can be used per citation? Like [dead link]. URL to it please!?! Lentower (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Where is the tool?
When I click on the words "a tool," I don't go anywhere. In puzzlement, I remain your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Don't know what to tell you. It's a link outside Wikipedia. Surely somebody must know, but not me. Debresser (talk) 04:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- The tool is Reflinks - see User:Dispenser/Reflinks GoingBatty (talk) 04:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)