Wikipedia:Link rot/URL change requests/Archives/2020/November
 | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
EBSCOhost Connection
- Post copied here from Village Pump Technical
At
Biogeographist (talk
) 16:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- This something for WP:URLREQ. I'd like to do more research and verify there is another way to save them. Worst case are archive URLs so they wouldn't need to be removed. Example. -- GreenC17:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. In my opinion, it would only be necessary to save the URLs if they were Biogeographist (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- I can save links with archive URLs, but as for deleting all of these links that is beyond the bot's approval. There is an argument for keeping the links, they contain metadata that may not be in the citation itself allowing for easier verification of the source, they also indicate the source is available in the EBSCOhost database which is useful to know (even if the direct link no longer works at least it informs the right provider). I don't want to be in a position where links are deleted and someone complains and we have an argument and I have to restore etc.. it should be discussed first. Since they currently exist in the system and are dead I will go ahead and save them with archive URLs. But to delete them from Wikipedia is a separate idea, if there is consensus let me know I will go back and unwind the archives, except for the bare and square links. -- GreenC 18:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for adding the archive URLs. I agree that the archive URLs do somewhat usefully indicate that the source is (or, perhaps in some cases, was) available in an EBSCOhost database, but it also seems a little silly to archive an URL that is not the cited source but just another citation of the cited source (so it's a citation of an archive of a citation). But it's the easiest way to handle the situation. Biogeographist (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for adding the archive URLs. I agree that the archive URLs do somewhat usefully indicate that the source is (or, perhaps in some cases, was) available in an EBSCOhost database, but it also seems a little silly to archive an URL that is not the cited source but just another citation of the cited source (so it's a citation of an archive of a citation). But it's the easiest way to handle the situation.
- I can save links with archive URLs, but as for deleting all of these links that is beyond the bot's approval. There is an argument for keeping the links, they contain metadata that may not be in the citation itself allowing for easier verification of the source, they also indicate the source is available in the EBSCOhost database which is useful to know (even if the direct link no longer works at least it informs the right provider). I don't want to be in a position where links are deleted and someone complains and we have an argument and I have to restore etc.. it should be discussed first. Since they currently exist in the system and are dead I will go ahead and save them with archive URLs. But to delete them from Wikipedia is a separate idea, if there is consensus let me know I will go back and unwind the archives, except for the bare and square links. -- GreenC 18:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. In my opinion, it would only be necessary to save the URLs if they were
Bot results:
- Added 1,069 new archive URLs
- Added 371
{{dead link}}(list on request)
Thank you,
03:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)