Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Link rot

Project page Talk
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Dead external links)
How to prevent or repair broken links
This page is about (primarily) link rot in external links. For broken section links within Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Database reports/Broken section anchors. For internal links which point to deleted or non-existent articles, see WP:REDLINKS. For other uses, see Wikipedia:Citing sources § Preventing and repairing dead links.
"WP:LR" redirects here. For Lua requests, see Wikipedia:Lua requests.
To request URL changes, see WP:Link rot/URL change requests.

Twemoji 1f527.svg
This help page is a how-to guide.
It details processes or procedures of some aspect(s) of Wikipedia's norms and practices. It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, and may reflect varying levels of consensus and vetting.
Shortcuts
  • WP:LR
  • WP:404
  • WP:ROT
  • WP:BADLINK
  • WP:LINKROT
This page in a nutshell: Steps may be taken to reduce or repair dead external links.

Like most large websites, Wikipedia suffers from the phenomenon known as link rot, where external links become dead, as the linked web pages or complete websites disappear, change their content, or move without HTML redirection. This presents a significant threat to Wikipedia's reliability policy and its source citation guideline.

In general, do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. Tools, procedures, and processes are available as outlined in this document.

Contents

  • 1 Preventing link rot
    • 1.1 Automatic archiving
    • 1.2 Manual archiving
    • 1.3 Alternative methods
  • 2 Repairing a dead link
    • 2.1 Searching
    • 2.2 Internet archives
  • 3 Mitigating a dead link
  • 4 Keeping dead links
  • 5 Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites
  • 6 See also
    • 6.1 Essays
    • 6.2 Tools and how-to guides
    • 6.3 Bots
  • 7 External links
    • 7.1 Notes

Preventing link rot

Shortcut
  • WP:PLRT

Automatic archiving

Links added by editors to the English Wikipedia mainspace are automatically saved to Wayback Machine within about 24 hours (nb. in practice not every link is getting saved for various reasons). This is done with a program called "NoMore404" which Internet Archive runs and maintains; other language wiki sites are included. It monitors EventStreams API, extracts new external URLs and adds a snapshot to the Wayback. This system became active sometime after 2015, though previous efforts were also made. Also, sometime after 2012, archive.today (aka archive.is) attempted to archive all external links then existing on Wikipedia at that time. This was incomplete but a significant number of links were added to archive.today during this period making it a major archival source filling in gaps of coverage. Archive.today is still making some automated archives as of 2020, though the extent of coverage and frequency is unknown.

As of 2015, there is a Wikipedia bot and tool called WP:IABOT that automates fixing link rot. It runs continuously, checking all articles on Wikipedia if a link is dead, adding archives to Wayback Machine (if not yet there), and replacing dead links in the wikitext with an archived version. This bot runs automatically but it can also be directed by end users through its web interface. It is available when viewing any page's history, located near the top of the page on the line of "External Tools", with the "Fix dead links" option.

As of 2015, the periodic bot WP:WAYBACKMEDIC checks for link rot in the archive links themselves. Archive databases are dynamic: archives move or go missing, new ones are added, etc. This bot maintains existing archive links on English Wikipedia. It also archives resources on request at WP:URLREQ. It is a flexible tool that can carry out many custom jobs such as URL migration/move, usurped domains, soft-404 discovery and repair.

Manual archiving

Suggestions for ways to manually improve archiving:

  • Avoid bare URLs. Use citation templates such as {{cite web}} for citations, and {{webarchive}} for external links sections.
  • Use a web archiving service such as Internet Archive or Archive.today. A complete list is available at WP:List of web archives on Wikipedia. Within citation templates, put the archive URL in |archive-url= and add an |archive-date=. If the link is still valid, include |url-status=live, otherwise set |url-status=dead.
  • To add more than one archive URL, as extra insurance against provider outage, {{webarchive}} accepts up to 10 archive provider URLs. The |format=addlarchives option produces output appropriate for trailing a CS1|2 template. eg. {{cite web|archive-url=..}}{{webarchive|format=addlarchive|url1=..|url2=..|url3..}} will show 4 archive URLs (one from the cite web and three from the webarchive).
  • If the link is still live but not yet archived, visit the web site of the archive service of your choice and request that the page be archived.
  • Run WP:IABOT on pages via its user interface.

Alternative methods

Most citation templates have a |quote= parameter that can be used to store text quotes of the source material. This can be used to store a limited amount of text from the source within the citation template. This is especially useful for sources that cannot be archived with web archiving services. It can also provide insurance against failure of the chosen web archiving service. Storing the entire text of the source is not appropriate under fair use policies, so choose only the most important portions of the text that most support the assertions in the Wikipedia article. Where applicable, public domain materials can be copied to Wikisource.

Repairing a dead link

Shortcut
  • WP:DEADLINK
"WP:DEADLINK" redirects here. For the guideline on what to do when a link is dead (including potential removal of the cited material), see WP:DEADREF.

There are several ways to try to repair a dead link, detailed below:

Searching

If the dead link includes enough information (article title, names, etc.) it is often possible to use it to find the Web page at a different location, either on the same site or elsewhere.

Often web pages simply move within the same site. A site index or site-specific search feature is a useful place to locate the moved page. If these tools are not available, many Internet search engines allow a search on a specified site.

Failing this, searching the Internet for the page can find alternatives.

If you find a suitable new URL, then you can edit the parameters within the citation. If the citation uses one of the common templates (e.g. {{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, {{Citation}}), then you can edit as follows:

  • Change the |url= to point to the new URL;
  • Change or add |access-date= to refer to the current date.

Internet archives

Check for archived versions at one of the many web archive services. The "Big 3" archive services are web.archive.org, webcitation.org and archive.is. These account for over 90% of all archives on Wikipedia, with web.archive.org being over 80% of all archive links. Other archive services are listed at WP:WEBARCHIVES.

The Mementos interface allows one to search multiple archiving services with a single search. The Memento database is cached, meaning results are returned quickly, but the cache also becomes out of date. Therefore, it should not be relied on as the final word – very often it may report no archives are available, when they actually are. You may still need to do the work of checking individual archive sites, but Mementos can be a quick first check.

Bookmarklets to check common archive sites for archives of the current page
(all open in a new tab or window)
Archive site Bookmarklet
Archive.org
javascript:void(window.open('https://web.archive.org/web/*/'+location.href))
UKGWA
javascript:void(window.open('https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/*/'+location.href))

If multiple archive dates are available, use the one that is most likely to be the contents of the page seen by the editor who entered the reference on the |access-date=. If that parameter is not specified, a search of the article's revision history can be performed to determine when the link was added to the article.

View the archive to verify that it contains valid page information. Usually dates closer to the time the link was placed in the Wikipedia page, or earlier, are more likely to show valid information.

If you find a suitable archive URL, then you can add it to the citation. If the citation uses one of the common templates (e.g. {{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, {{Citation}}), then you can edit as follows:

  • Leave the |url= unchanged, pointing to the source URL.
  • Add |archive-url=, pointing to the archive URL.
  • Add |archive-date=, specifying the date when the archived copy was saved. YYYY-MM-DD format is usually easiest but any format can be used.
  • Add or change |url-status=. Use |url-status=dead if the old URL does not work. Use |url-status=unfit or |url-status=usurped if the old URL has been usurped for the purposes of spam, advertising, or is otherwise unsuitable (see WP:USURPURL). Use |url-status=live if |url= still works and still gives the correct information, but you want to preemptively add an |archive-url=.
  • Leave the |access-date= unchanged, referring to the date when a previous editor last accessed the |url=. Some editors believe |access-date= should be removed once a working |archive-url= is established since the |url= is no longer available, maintaining an |access-date= is redundant clutter.

Mitigating a dead link

Shortcut
  • WP:MDLI

At times, all attempts to repair the link will be unsuccessful. In that event, consider finding an alternative source so that the loss of the original does not harm the verifiability of the article. Alternative sources about broad topics are usually easily located. A simple search engine query might locate an appropriate alternative, but be extremely careful to avoid citing mirrors and forks of Wikipedia itself, which would violate Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Sometimes, finding an appropriate source is not possible, or would require more extensive research techniques, such as a visit to a library or the use of a subscription-based database. If that is the case, consider consulting with Wikipedia editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange, the Wikipedia:Village pump, or Wikipedia:Help desk. Also, consider contacting experts or other interested editors at a relevant WikiProject.

Sometimes a link is dead because the website moved the URL (e.g. http://example.com moved to http://example.co.uk). If you discover an URL change like this, please submit a request at WP:URLREQ for a url move. A bot will make the change.

Keeping dead links

Shortcut
  • WP:KDL

A dead, unarchived source URL may still be useful. Such a link indicates that information was (probably) verifiable in the past, and the link might provide another user with greater resources or expertise with enough information to find the reference. It could also return from the dead. With a dead link, it is possible to determine if it has been cited elsewhere, or to contact the person originally responsible for the source. For example, one could contact the Yale Computer Science department if http://www.cs.yale.edu/~EliYale/Defense-in-Depth-PhD-thesis.pdf[dead link] were dead.

Place {{dead link|date=May 2022}} after the dead citation, immediately before the </ref> tag if applicable, leaving the original link intact. Marking dead links signals to editors and to link rot bots that this link needs to be replaced with an archive link. Placing {{dead link}} also auto-categorizes the article into Articles with dead external links project category, and into specific monthly date range category based on |date= parameter. Do not delete a citation just because it has been tagged with {{dead link}} for a long time.

Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites

Shortcut
  • WP:EXTERNALROT

Non-Wikimedia sites are also susceptible to link rot. Following a page move or page deletion, links to Wikipedia pages from other websites may break. In most page moves, a redirect will remain at the old page—this won't cause a problem. But if a page is completely deleted or usurped (i.e. replaced with other content) then link rot will have been caused on any external websites that link to it.

Replacement of page content with a disambiguation page may still cause link rot, but is less harmful because a disambiguation page is essentially a type of soft redirect that will lead the reader to the required content. If a page is usurped with content for another subject that shares its name, a hatnote may be placed at the top that directs readers to the original content on its new page—this again is a type of soft redirect, but less obvious. In these cases, readers arriving from an external rotten link should be able to find what they're looking for, but the situation is best avoided as they would have to get there via an additional page, potentially giving a poor impression of both Wikipedia and the linking website.

Because the Wikipedia software does not store Referer information, it will be impossible to tell how many external web pages will be affected by a move or deletion, but the risk of link rot will probably be greatest on older and higher profile pages. In truth, there is not a lot that can be done; maintenance of non-Wikimedia websites is not within the scope of being a Wikimedian, nor in most cases within our capability (although if they can be fixed, it would be helpful to do so). However, it may be good practice to think about the potential impact on other sites when deleting or moving Wikipedia pages, especially if no redirect or hatnote will remain. If a move or deletion is expected to cause significant damage, then this might be a factor to consider in WP:RM, WP:AFD and WP:RFD discussions, although other factors may carry more weight.

See also

Essays

  • Wikipedia:Build content to endure
  • Wikipedia:Offline sources

Tools and how-to guides

  • Wikipedia:Link rot/URL change requests – request help to change many URLs, or mark them dead
  • Help:Using the Wayback Machine – how-to guide
  • Wikipedia:Using WebCite – how-to guide (note: as of June 2019 WebCite no longer accepts new archive requests)
  • Wikipedia:Using Archive.is – how-to guide
  • Special:LinkSearch – to find all the pages that contain a particular URL
  • Wikipedia:Citing sources/Further considerations#Pre-emptive archiving – brief guide on how to use various archiving services
  • Wikipedia:Citing sources#Preventing and repairing dead links
  • Wikipedia:External links#Longevity of links – prescribes removal of dead URLs from the "External links" section
  • Category:Articles with bare URLs for citations – the backlog of articles containing bare URLs at risk of link rot, sub-categorised by month
  • Category:Articles with dead external links – the backlog of articles containing dead links, sub-categorised by month

Bots

  • InternetArchiveBot (IABot) – automatically fixes dead links whenever possible, and tags them when it isn't
  • WaybackMedic-automatically fixes dead links that are difficult to determine, other general fixes
  • User:Legobot – can mass tag links with {{dead link}}. Requests can be made at User talk:Legoktm.

External links

  • Official Wayback add-on for Firefox and Chrome[note 1]
  • Resurrect Pages, a third-party add-on tool provides links to seven cache/archive websites upon coming across a dead link. (Firefox)
  • Webcache, add-on for Opera. (discontinued; newer similar add-ons available)
  • weblinkchecker.py—script from the Python Wikipedia Bot collection which finds broken external links.

Notes

  1. ^ "Save Pages in the Wayback Machine". Internet Archive Help Center. 2018-08-24.
  • v
  • t
  • e
Wikipedia essays
Essays on building, editing, and deleting content
Philosophy
  • Articles must be written
  • All Five Pillars are the same height
  • Avoid vague introductions
  • Be a reliable source
  • Civil POV pushing
  • Cohesion
  • Competence is required
  • Concede lost arguments
  • Dissent is not disloyalty
  • Don't lie
  • Don't search for objections
  • Editing Wikipedia is like visiting a foreign country
  • Editors will sometimes be wrong
  • Eight simple rules for editing our encyclopedia
  • Explanationism
  • External criticism of Wikipedia
  • Here to build an encyclopedia
  • Levels of competence
  • Most ideas are bad
  • Need
  • Neutrality of sources
  • Not editing because of Wikipedia restriction
  • The one question
  • Oversimplification
  • Paradoxes
  • Paraphrasing
  • POV and OR from editors, sources, and fields
  • Process is important
  • Product, process, policy
  • Purpose
  • Reasonability rule
  • Systemic bias
  • There is no seniority
  • Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia
  • Tendentious editing
  • The role of policies in collaborative anarchy
  • The rules are principles
  • Trifecta
  • Wikipedia in brief
  • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
  • Wikipedia is a community
Article construction
  • 100K featured articles
  • Acronym overkill
  • Advanced source searching
  • Adding images improves the encyclopedia
  • Advanced article editing
  • Advanced table formatting
  • Advanced template coding
  • Advanced text formatting
  • Alternatives to the "Expand" template
  • Amnesia test
  • A navbox on every page
  • An unfinished house is a real problem
  • Articles have a half-life
  • Autosizing images
  • Avoid mission statements
  • Bare URLs
  • Be neutral in form
  • Beef up that first revision
  • Blind men and an elephant
  • BOLD, revert, discuss cycle
  • Build content to endure
  • Cherrypicking
  • Chesterton's fence
  • Children's lit, adult new readers, & large-print books
  • Citation overkill
  • Citation underkill
  • Common-style fallacy
  • Concept cloud
  • Creating controversial content
  • Criticisms of society may be consistent with NPOV and reliability
  • Deprecated sources
  • Dictionaries as sources
  • Don't demolish the house while it's still being built
  • Don't get hung up on minor details
  • Don't hope the house will build itself
  • Don't panic
  • Don't revert due solely to "no consensus"
  • Don't teach the controversy
  • Editing on mobile devices
  • Editors are not mindreaders
  • Encourage the newcomers
  • Endorsements (commercial)
  • Featured articles may have problems
  • Formatting bilateral relations articles
  • Formatting bilateral relations templates
  • Fruit of the poisonous tree
  • Give an article a chance
  • How to write a featured article
  • Identifying and using independent sources
    • History sources
    • Law sources
    • Primary sources
    • Science sources
    • Style guides
    • Tertiary sources
  • Ignore STRONGNAT for date formats
  • Inaccuracies in Wikipedia namespace
  • Inaccuracy
  • Introduction to structurism
  • Link rot
  • Mine a source
  • Merge Test
  • Minors and persons judged incompetent
  • "Murder of" articles
  • Not every story/event/disaster needs a biography
  • Not everything needs a navbox
  • Not everything needs a template
  • Not everything needs a WikiProject
  • Nothing is in stone
  • Obtain peer review comments
  • Organizing disambiguation pages by subject area
  • Permastub
  • Potential, not just current state
  • Presentism
  • Principle of Some Astonishment
  • Printability
  • Pruning article revisions
  • Publicists
  • Put a little effort into it
  • Restoring part of a reverted edit
  • Robotic editing
  • Sham consensus
  • Source your plot summaries
  • Specialized-style fallacy
  • Stub Makers
  • Run an edit-a-thon
  • Temporary versions of articles
  • Tertiary-source fallacy
  • There is no deadline
  • There is a deadline
  • The deadline is now
  • Understanding Wikipedia's content standards
  • Walled garden
  • What an article should not include
  • Wikipedia is a work in progress
  • Wikipedia is not a reliable source
  • Wikipedia is not being written in an organized fashion
  • The world will not end tomorrow
  • Write the article first
  • Writing better articles
Writing article content
  • Avoid thread mode
  • Copyediting reception sections
  • Gender-neutral language
  • Proseline
  • Write the article first
  • Writing about women
  • Writing better articles
Removing or
deleting content
  • Adjectives in your recommendations
  • AfD is not a war zone
  • Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
  • Arguments to avoid in deletion reviews
  • Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions
  • Arguments to make in deletion discussions
  • Avoid repeated arguments
  • Before commenting in a deletion discussion
  • But there must be sources!
  • Confusing arguments mean nothing
  • Content removal
  • Counting and sorting are not original research
  • Delete the junk
  • Does deletion help?
  • Don't attack the nominator
  • Don't confuse stub status with non-notability
  • Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument
  • Follow the leader
  • How to save an article proposed for deletion
  • I just don't like it
  • Identifying blatant advertising
  • Identifying test edits
  • Immunity
  • Keep it concise
  • Liar liar pants on fire
  • Nothing
  • Nothing is clear
  • Overzealous deletion
  • Relisting can be abusive
  • Relist bias
  • The Heymann Standard
  • Unopposed AFD discussion
  • Wikipedia is not Whack-A-Mole
  • Why was the page I created deleted?
  • What to do if your article gets tagged for speedy deletion
  • When in doubt, hide it in the woodwork
  • No Encyclopedic Use
Essays on civility
The basics
  • Accepting other users
  • Apology
  • Contributing to complicated discussions
  • Divisiveness
  • Edit at your own pace
  • Encouraging the newcomers
  • Enjoy yourself
  • Expect no thanks
  • High-functioning autism and Asperger's editors
  • How to be civil
  • Maintaining a friendly space
  • Negotiation
  • Obsessive–compulsive disorder editors
  • Relationships with academic editors
  • Thank you
  • Too long; didn't read
  • Truce
  • Unblock perspectives
  • We are all Wikipedians here
Philosophy
  • A weak personal attack is still wrong
  • Advice for hotheads
  • An uncivil environment is a poor environment
  • Be the glue
  • Beware of the tigers!
  • Civility warnings
  • Deletion as revenge
  • Failure
  • Forgive and forget
  • It's not the end of the world
  • Nobody cares
  • Most people who disagree with you on content are not vandals
  • Old-fashioned Wikipedian values
  • Profanity, civility, and discussions
  • Revert notification opt-out
  • Shadowless Fists of Death!
  • Staying cool when the editing gets hot
  • The grey zone
  • The last word
  • There is no Divine Right Of Editors
  • Most ideas are bad
  • Nothing is clear
  • The rules of polite discourse
  • There is no common sense
  • Two wrongs don't make a right
  • Wikipedia is not about winning
  • Wikipedia should not be a monopoly
  • Writing for the opponent
  • Reader
Dos
  • Argue better
  • Assume good faith
  • Assume the assumption of good faith
  • Assume no clue
  • Avoid personal remarks
  • Avoid the word "vandal"
  • Be excellent to one another
  • Beyond civility
  • Call a spade a spade
  • Candor
  • Deny recognition
  • Desist
  • Discussing cruft
  • Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass
  • Encourage full discussions
  • Get over it
  • How to lose
  • Imagine others complexly
  • Just drop it
  • Keep it down to earth
  • Mind your own business
  • Say "MOBY"
  • Read before commenting
  • Settle the process first
Don'ts
  • ALPHABETTISPAGHETTI
  • Civil POV pushing
  • Cyberbullying
  • Don't accuse someone of a personal attack for accusing of a personal attack
  • Don't be a fanatic
  • Don't be a jerk
  • Don't be an ostrich
  • Don't be ashamed
  • Don't be a WikiBigot
  • Don't be high-maintenance
  • Don't be inconsiderate
  • Don't be obnoxious
  • Don't be prejudiced
  • Don't be rude
  • Don't be the Fun Police
  • Don't bludgeon the process
  • Don't call a spade a spade
  • Don't call the kettle black
  • Don't call things cruft
  • Don't come down like a ton of bricks
  • Don't cry COI
  • Don't demand that editors solve the problems they identify
  • Don't drink the consensus Kool-Aid
  • Don't eat the troll's food
  • Don't fight fire with fire
  • Don't give a fuck
  • Don't help too much
  • Don't make a smarmy valediction part of your signature
  • Don't remind others of past misdeeds
  • Don't shout
  • Don't spite your face
  • Don't take the bait
  • Don't template the regulars
  • Don't throw your toys out of the pram
  • Do not insult the vandals
  • Griefing
  • Nationalist editing
  • No angry mastodons
    • just madmen
  • No Nazis
  • No, you can't have a pony
  • Passive aggression
  • Please don't bite the newcomers
  • POV railroad
  • There are no oracles
  • You can't squeeze blood from a turnip
WikiRelations
  • WikiBullying
  • WikiCrime
  • WikiHarassment
  • WikiHate
  • WikiLawyering
  • WikiLove
  • WikiPeace
Essays on notability
  • Advanced source searching
  • All high schools can be notable
  • Alternative outlets
  • Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
  • Articles with a single source
  • Avoid template creep
  • Bare notability
  • Big events make key participants notable
  • Bombardment
  • Businesses with a single location
  • But it's true!
  • Citation overkill
  • Common sourcing mistakes
  • Clones
  • Coatrack
  • Discriminate vs indiscriminate information
  • Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity
  • Every snowflake is unique
  • Existence ≠ Notability
  • Existence does not prove notability
  • Extracting the meaning of significant coverage
  • Fart
  • Google searches and numbers
  • High Schools
  • Inclusion is not an indicator of notability
  • Independent sources
  • Inherent notability
  • Insignificant
  • Masking the lack of notability
  • Make stubs
  • News coverage does not decrease notability
  • No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability
  • No big loss
  • No one cares about your garage band
  • No one really cares
  • Notability/Historical/Arguments
  • Notability cannot be purchased
  • Notability comparison test
  • Notability is not a level playing field
  • Notability is not a matter of opinion
  • Notability is not relevance or reliability
  • Notability means impact
  • Notability points
  • Notability sub-pages
  • Notabilitymandering
  • Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article
  • Obscurity ≠ Lack of notability
  • Offline sources
  • One hundred words
  • One sentence does not an article make
  • Other stuff exists
  • Overreliance upon Google
  • Perennial websites
  • Pokémon test
  • Read the source
  • Reducing consensus to an algorithm
  • Run-of-the-mill
  • Significant coverage not required
  • Solutions are mixtures and nothing else
  • Subjective importance
  • Third-party sources
  • Trivial mentions
  • Video links
  • Vanispamcruftisement
  • What BLP1E is not
  • What is and is not routine coverage
  • What notability is not
  • What to include
  • Wikipedia is not Crunchbase
  • Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause
  • Wikipedia is not the place to post your résumé
Humorous essays
  • Anti-Wikipedian
  • Asshole John rule
  • Assume bad faith
  • Assume faith
  • Assume good wraith
  • Assume stupidity
  • Assume that everyone's assuming good faith, assuming that you are assuming good faith
  • Avoid using preview button
  • Avoid using wikilinks
  • Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense
  • BOLD, revert, revert, revert
  • Boston Tea Party
  • Barnstaritis
  • CaPiTaLiZaTiOn MuCh?
  • Don't stuff beans up your nose
  • Don't tempt the wrath of the Whatever, from high atop the Thing
  • Don't-give-a-fuckism
  • Editcountitis
  • Edits Per Day
  • Editsummarisis
  • Editing Under the Influence
  • Embrace Stop Signs
  • Emerson
  • Seven Ages of Editor, by Will E. Spear-Shake
  • Go ahead, vandalize
  • How many Wikipedians does it take to change a lightbulb?
  • How to put up a straight pole by pushing it at an angle
  • How to vandalize correctly
  • Is that even an essay?
  • Newcomers are delicious, so go ahead and bite them
  • Legal vandalism
  • LTTAUTMAOK
  • No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man
  • Oops Defense
  • Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you
  • Please bite the newbies
  • R-e-s-p-e-c-t
  • Requests for medication
  • Requirements for adminship
  • Rouge admin
  • Rouge editor
  • Sarcasm is really helpful
  • Sausages for tasting
  • The Night Before Wikimas
  • The first rule of Wikipedia
  • The Five Pillars of Untruth
  • Things that should not be surprising
  • The WikiBible
  • Watchlistitis
  • Why not create an account?
  • You don't have to be mad to work here, but
About essays
About essays
  • Essay guide
  • Value of essays
  • Difference between policies, guidelines and essays
  • Don't cite essays as if they were policy
  • Avoid writing redundant essays
  • Finding an essay
  • Quote your own essay
Policies and guidelines
  • About policies and guidelines
    • Policies
    • Guidelines
  • How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance
  • Policy writing is hard
Retrieved from "https://en.wikidark.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Link_rot&oldid=1087498643"
Wikipedia dark mode