Template talk:Dead link header/Proposal

This is NOT the Village Pump or Dead Link's Talk Page. I created this as a centralized discussion (like AFD) in the hopes of placing the same conversation on multiple pages for the most feedback

Use {{tl|Dead link header}} in sectoins that have [[WP:LINKROT|dead external links]]

See previous Village Pump, and BRFA discussions regarding this same template (or similar templates)

So I am bringing this back again, because I think it has a reasonable amount of support. I want to get consensus to use the template : {{tl|Dead link header}} on the top of sections that contain the template {{tl|Dead link}}. Here is what it would look like

;Section Name

{{citations broken}}

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicin [example.com] {{dead link}} elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

;References

{{reflist}}

The template is small, discrete, and provides a link to Dispenser's external link tool: check-links.

Tim1357 (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

:O yea, and this would be automatically added by Skybot , or another bot, if he isn't still up to it. Tim1357 (talk) 02:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

: Wouldn't it be better just reworking {{tl|linkrot}} to cover both bare URLs and dead ones? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Why would we do this? We use in-article banners to notify readers of potential issues with article content. Unreferenced, COI, or NPOV tags are there to benefit the readers understanding of what is in an article and disclose what problems there may be. Dead links do not cause any problem for the reader that would need to be disclosed in the middle of the article. If we are going to continue to tolerate dead-link tagging (which I find ridiculous since they are as easy to fix as they are to tag) then the only place a banner like this might be useful is in the references section. Since the dead-link tag is already sitting next to the footnote, the template is redundant and seems excessive. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 14:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said at the BRFA, this seems redundant to the inline templates. Why is it really needed? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

:So what about putting at the beginning of the references section? Tim1357 (talk) 04:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

:Most maintenance banners have an equivalent inline version. Equazcion (talk) 06:06, 21 Nov 2009 (UTC)