Wikipedia talk:Link rot

Ambiguous meaning of 'usurp'

The section Repairing a usurped link states that:

  1. "Some organizations [...] 'usurp' them to create spam and scam sites"
  2. "There is an automated system for usurping entire domains"

The second seems an incorrect application of the term. The linked page on Usurpations uses "usurpify" for the repair process, which still seems somewhat backwards but at least it is not the literal verb for the scam itself. IvanovKirilG (talk) 13:36, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Minor grammatical error?

A section is titled "Repairing a usurped link", but "a" should always be switched to "an" when preceding a word that starts with a vowel. For obvious reasons I can't edit this page, but I still want to be a pedant. Nova 37 (talk) 22:47, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done @Nova 37: The dictionary definition of usurp at Wiktionary indicates that the General American English pronunciation is //juˈsɝp// & the Received Pronunciation is //juːˈzɜːp//. As the J article states, When used in the International Phonetic Alphabet for the voiced palatal approximant (the sound of "y" in "yes") it may be called yod or jod (pronounced /ˈjɒd/ or /ˈjoʊd/).
Would you put an a or an an before the sound of "y" in "yes"? I think most would answer the former. Therefore a is the more appropriate article to place before usurped. Peaceray (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2025

"Change https://books.google.co.in/books?id=ISBN8170173892&redir_esc=y to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Yoga_Tradition_of_the_Mysore_Palace" Viveksingh1028 (talk) 11:26, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: wikilinks are not sources. M.Bitton (talk) 11:55, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote 29

CAn somebody check the reality of footnote number 29? ZoBlood (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@ZoBlood: On which article? You're asking on the talk page for the guidance at Wikipedia:Link rot, not the Talk page of the article you came from. – Scyrme (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
you may look into the footnote number 29, where the accusations or allegations is really proven right by the Zomi groups? ~2026-75638-1 (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Different articles have different footnotes. Wikipedia:Link rot does not have a footnote 29.
Every article has its own Talk page. You are not asking on the correct Talk page. You should ask for help about footnote 29 on the Talk page for the article you are talking about. This is the talk page for Wikipedia:Link rot. – Scyrme (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Deprecating and blacklisting archive.today

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Deprecating and blacklisting archive.today. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 01:01, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bookmarklet for archive.org

The bookmarklet works, but the archive.org page it returns was ineffective in providing a link to the page I sought to replace the broken link in reference #3, http://www.sowi.uni-mannheim.de/militias-public/data/pgag/299/, in Wikipedia's article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Defense_Patrols. Instead, the archive.org page provided a time history on when the page was crawled! Why wouldn't it archive the page and provide a link, or at least say it couldn't archive the page!!?? Robertdrury (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Robertdrury: web.archive.org often saves multiple versions over time. This one looks good, does it not?
Peaceray (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The new page looks good, yes. I'll figure out how to retrieve pages from archive.org but wish it were easier. Thanks about the reminder to sign. Robertdrury (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Link_rot