Category talk:CS1 maint: unfit URL

How to remove

"... 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)

I'm surprised this question is unanswered. It's not clear what this category is meant to track, or how this "error" is meant to be resolved. @Trappist the monk:, you created this category. Are you able to provide any explanation? -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I have the same question, and I need to have an answer for an article I'm working on, Sam Brinton BLP. I saw the discussion below that Trappist the monk responded to and closed. How do I ensure that, for example, a usurped URL that now points to a porn site, is not displayed? When I set archive url status to "usurped" or "unfit", I get a CS1 maint error. Please provide guidance?--FeralOink (talk) 22:02, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

cs1|2 error messages are rendered in a shade of red. With very few exceptions, cs1|2 error messages are not hidden. cs1|2 maintenance messages are rendered in a shade of green. All maintenance messages are hidden unless you, as an editor, elect to turn them on using the css described at Help:CS1 errors § Controlling error message display.

The current version of Sam Brinton does not have any error messages. Three references show the unfit maintenance message (ref 15, ref 22, and ref 24). One of those (ref 15) is clearly 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 (talk) 23:45, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

@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)

There is no mechanism to mark an unfit url as 'checked'. The maintenance message helps to answer editor questions about why the reference has the 'Archived from the original' static text where 'the original' isn't linked as it is when |url-status= is omitted, empty, or set to dead. Compare:

Title. Archived from the original on 2024-01-06.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link) – has |url-status=unfit

Title. Archived from the original on 2024-01-06. – has |url-status= (empty)

You can always add a hidden comment after the cs1|2 template: <!--checked to be unfit 2024-01-06--> or some such.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: 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)

Of course ..., if you are looking at the wikitext. If you aren't then you have to search the wikitext for that particular template to see what is going on.

If, as it appears, maintenance messaging angers or offends you, turn it off. All you need to do is remove this line from your common.css.

— (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk:

• Why would an editor be unwilling or unable to look at the wikitext? If I am confused by some behaviour of the displayed page then the first thing I do is look at the wikitext.
• Since turning maintenance messaging on 5 years ago I have found the messages useful, in that they flag a potential issue and link to documentation about how to either fix the problem or flag as a false positive, either of which actions will cause the message to disappear. This is the first time I have found a case where the message flags something that is never actually an issue and/or with no way to remove the message. It is like Homer Simpson's everything's-OK alarm
• If an editor does not understand how a template is behaving they should turn to its documentation, in this case Template:Citation Style documentation/url. If you find that documentation inadequate then feel free to enhance it. Pre-emptively adding a putative explanation elsewhere, by commandeering the CS1-maint framework, is unnecessary and counterproductive, as multiple editors have now told you.

jnestorius^(talk) 20:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

If I am to believe what I've read from new editors who have never edited with anything but the visual editor, reading wikitext is incomprehensible and editing wikitext is (apparently) scary.

Enough editors have complained that I suck at documentation that I have come to believe them. Asking me to improve our documentation will likely not benefit anyone. If you know how to improve the documentation, please do.

If you have specific suggestions about how cs1|2 handles unfit urls, make them at WT:CS1. Angry complaints here in a backwater where no one else can hear you is a waste of time.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Usurped must be reinstated as a valid url-status value!

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)

The discussion above 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.

Notes