User talk:This, that and the other/broken interwiki links/2022-06-01/wikipedia

Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word User talk:This, that and the other/broken interwiki links/2022-06-01/wikipedia. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word User talk:This, that and the other/broken interwiki links/2022-06-01/wikipedia, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say User talk:This, that and the other/broken interwiki links/2022-06-01/wikipedia in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word User talk:This, that and the other/broken interwiki links/2022-06-01/wikipedia you have here. The definition of the word User talk:This, that and the other/broken interwiki links/2022-06-01/wikipedia will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofUser talk:This, that and the other/broken interwiki links/2022-06-01/wikipedia, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.

Revisit this in 3, 6, or 12 months

This kind of thing will recur. Put it in a tickler file for future action. DCDuring (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'd say monthly to start. WP is deleting tons of redirects, and we've quite a few editors who mechanically add {{wp}} to every page they create without bothering to check. It's also a good way to detect vandalism, or bogus entries. – Jberkel 17:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Happy to generate it monthly for the time being. @DCDuring, Jberkel is the edit summary ping when I create the page still necessary or useful? This, that and the other (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Yes, it is. – Jberkel 08:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Not essential, but not annoying; potentially helpful. DCDuring (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Inline links?

It looks like inline {{w}} links aren't checked at the moment. See for example Special:Permalink/67323972. – Jberkel 07:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes, those are explicitly omitted from this list - possibly because there were too many of them? I don't recall exactly. Nonetheless, I can easily generate a list of them if you like. This, that and the other (talk) 10:19, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Yes, let's have a go. – Jberkel 10:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
It's worth commenting that I don't believe this particular list should necessarily reach zero entries. Just as redlinks are acceptable both here and on Wikipedia, there will be many links for which a WP article should exist but doesn't yet. In those cases, I think we should just leave the {{w}} template alone. This, that and the other (talk) 10:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
The first few links I checked were all mistakes (including one I made!). Agreed regarding missing items on Wikipedia. If there's a Wikidata item, we could specify it as a parameter, which would automatically resolve the link once an entry is created. If there's no Wikidata item, perhaps a special parameter to indicate that the entry is missing. –Jberkel 11:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Some false positives: "sal volatile links to Vanity_Fair_(novel" etc. – Jberkel 12:48, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Jberkel sal volatile does indeed have a broken link to w:Vanity_Fair_(novel without the closing parenthesis. This, that and the other (talk) 01:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Ah, sorry, I assumed it was from a parsing error, but it's all from the same copy/paste error. Templates to the rescue. – Jberkel 07:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply