Template talk:Citations broken


"This article or section uses citations that link to broken or outdated sources, and are deemed unreliable" Is this accurate? My understanding was that broken links are still considered reliable. See [1] "do not remove the inactive reference, but rather record the date that the original link was found to be inactive — even inactive, it still records the sources that were used, and it is possible hard copies of such references may exist, or alternatively that the page will turn up in the near future in the Internet Archive, which deliberately lags by six months or more. When printed sources become outdated, scholars still routinely cite those works when referenced." AndrewRT(Talk) 23:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Inline pendant[edit]

I feel that there should also be an inline version which could be appended to each item which includes a broken link. __meco (talk) 08:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

There is, see {{dead link}}. —AlanBarrett (talk) 11:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Bot Available[edit]

The citation bot is available to assist you if needed: http://toolserver.org/~verisimilus/Bot/DOI_bot/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by R12056 (talkcontribs) 20:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2014[edit]

The link on this template to the Checklinks tool doesn't work. (talk) 10:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Partly done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. I've commented out the sentence with the link to the missing tool. That was one of Dispenser's tools and I'm not certain where, or even if, there is a replacement for it. If anyone finds one, please open a new request to add the link to the new tool. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 16:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@Technical 13: Thanks for responding. Your solution works for me. (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)