"... pages listed in this category should be checked to ensure that the unfit
and usurped
keywords are correctly applied." – An then what? Is there a method to remove this category from articles when the parameter has been correctly applied? --
Michael Bednarek (
talk)
11:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
unfit
. The other two (both to the same url –
https://www.deepisolation.com/team/) are not dead
nor are they unfit
. What they are is deviated
– the source has changed over time and may no longer support the text in Sam Brinton.@
Trappist the monk: the original question is not answered. What is the point of this category? Who is it meant to help? What editing action does it prompt? What would the project lose if the category were deleted? My concern is that every conscientious editor who pays attention to maintenance messages will see that "ref 15" on Sam Brinton is marked as unfit, click the help and check what they are supposed to do, check that the link is indeed unfit, and then — do nothing. And so on and on for all subsequent editors. Is there an additional |url-check-complete=y
parameter that the first editor can add to the template to suppress the maintenance message? Otherwise editors 2, 3, 4, 5, ... are wasting their time unnecessarily duplicating editor 1's check.
jnestorius(
talk)
14:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
|url-status=
is omitted, empty, or set to dead
. Compare:
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: unfit URL (
link) – has |url-status=unfit
|url-status=
(empty)<!--checked to be unfit 2024-01-06-->
or some such.editor questions about why the reference has the 'Archived from the original' static text where 'the original' isn't linked. The
|url-status=usurped
already answers this question. Adding a green maintenance message is less than useless.
jnestorius(
talk)
19:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I work as a computer security professional. There are times when the original ownership of a website has expired & a bad actor has acquired the website. In these cases, I absolutely want to suppress the original website in favor of the archived link. We need to protect our users from malicious websites. Peaceray ( talk) 00:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Notes
"... pages listed in this category should be checked to ensure that the unfit
and usurped
keywords are correctly applied." – An then what? Is there a method to remove this category from articles when the parameter has been correctly applied? --
Michael Bednarek (
talk)
11:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
unfit
. The other two (both to the same url –
https://www.deepisolation.com/team/) are not dead
nor are they unfit
. What they are is deviated
– the source has changed over time and may no longer support the text in Sam Brinton.@
Trappist the monk: the original question is not answered. What is the point of this category? Who is it meant to help? What editing action does it prompt? What would the project lose if the category were deleted? My concern is that every conscientious editor who pays attention to maintenance messages will see that "ref 15" on Sam Brinton is marked as unfit, click the help and check what they are supposed to do, check that the link is indeed unfit, and then — do nothing. And so on and on for all subsequent editors. Is there an additional |url-check-complete=y
parameter that the first editor can add to the template to suppress the maintenance message? Otherwise editors 2, 3, 4, 5, ... are wasting their time unnecessarily duplicating editor 1's check.
jnestorius(
talk)
14:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
|url-status=
is omitted, empty, or set to dead
. Compare:
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: unfit URL (
link) – has |url-status=unfit
|url-status=
(empty)<!--checked to be unfit 2024-01-06-->
or some such.editor questions about why the reference has the 'Archived from the original' static text where 'the original' isn't linked. The
|url-status=usurped
already answers this question. Adding a green maintenance message is less than useless.
jnestorius(
talk)
19:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I work as a computer security professional. There are times when the original ownership of a website has expired & a bad actor has acquired the website. In these cases, I absolutely want to suppress the original website in favor of the archived link. We need to protect our users from malicious websites. Peaceray ( talk) 00:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Notes