Talk:Dead link


 * In Wikipedia, dead links can be marked and replaced using the   template message (see  Using the Wayback Machine and Template:dlw).

HTTP 404 merge discussion

 * Same as 404 error. double articel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.169.248.30 (talk • contribs)

Its not the same

Broken link MAY LEAD to Error 404, but:

a) Error 404 may have another reasons i.e. user types, or a script generates non-existent URL. b) Broken link may lead you to non-existent server, so you get DNS error instead.

In other words, a broken link is one of possible reasons for Error 404, but it is not the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.47.207.249 (talk • contribs)

As above: a 404 is a specific instance of an error which is the root cause of Dead link. I do not think the articles should be merged, but I do think that this one could use some serious clean-up (I'd tag it as such but I shall wait for the merger discussion to be resolved first). -- Jon Dowland 15:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Merging these articles depends on their scope. We have:


 * HTTP 404, which covers the case of an article which is not found on the desired server, but for which the server is still responding
 * a dead link, which may be a 404 (server responds, but can't find document), or a DNS issue (name doesn't resolve, address doesn't route properly), or an alternate form of blocking (eg - nanny filters, firewall blocking etc.)

I think these two articles should be merged to dead link, and each case discussed. Of course, I'd change my opinion if a strong enough argument can be made to keep these articles separate. Mind matrix  15:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The following content present in the 404 article is not relevant to the subject of a Dead link: soft 404, trivia, IE's "friendly" error messages (which should be expanded on); customizing 404 messages; influence on popular culture (which could be expanded on). If the articles were merged, where would this material best be put? -- Jon Dowland 16:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I was thinking that each of the separate dead link types would be discussed in their own section, in depth appropriate for that section. Otherwise, we could leave this article as is, and create a comprehensive article on HTTP status codes, which would cover 200, 302, 404 etc. (we'd have to overwrite the redirect to List of HTTP status codes, but maintain a link to it). Does this seem more reasonable? Mind  matrix  14:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The latter suggestion seems reasonable. Certainly say, the IE "friendly" errors are appropriate to more error types than just 404. There is also some material for other error types (such as google 302 hijack) that could be covered in such an article. -- Jon Dowland 12:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have a comment: 404s seem to be at least more well-known than other types of errors. This doesn't necessarily mean they deserve their own article, but I think it bears mention. CameoAppearance 05:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope! Bad idea —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.248.97.191 (talk • contribs)


 * Absolutely not for the reasons above and also for good page naming. However I do think that HTTP 404 is a poor name and the article should be moved to 404 error (where there is a redirect to HTTP 404). I note that Dead link links to 404 error and not to HTTP 404. 404 error is the proper place for this info. - Drstuey 10:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There are 13 wikilinks to 404 error and 7 to HTTP 404 in the main namespace, excluding redirects. -- Jon Dowland 10:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose per 195.47.207.249. --M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 (T 04:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose You can get a 404 error without a dead link and you can have a dead link that doesn't give a 404 error. --Richmeister 06:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose concur with unsigned -- a dead link can be to a nonexistent site, a 403, or even a 200 to the wrong content. 404 error is specific and different. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 05:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed the tag - it is clear that the discussion was nearly unanimously in favour of no-merge. The person who proposed the merge can't even spell or sign their name either. - Drstuey 12:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Absence of relevant link
So how can one understand what a broken link is if there is no article on what a LINK is to begin with? I told an elder person of my family to look for "internet link" on Wikipedia since this person's new to anything computer related, but we only could find this... I think someone should probably either make an article about what a Link is - whether functioning or not - and link the article to this page, or help redirect poor souls to whatever page would explain what a link is and how it works - given someone would need an explanation while not being the USER of wikipedia of course... etc.

UserName Broken Link
Why is it that some usernames are broken links? Have the users been 'indefinitely blocked'?

Abluescarab 02:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Becuase some users haven't created a userpage. Eeekster (talk) 02:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixing dead links?
It would be nice (and useful!) if there was some information here on fixing dead links which are replicated across Wikipedia. (For instance, I see at least 20 instances of two dead link in the Jose Tamborini article,  across at least English and Spanish sites). Is there a way to fix "all at once?" KenThomas (talk) 04:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)