This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
This article starts with "This article does not list email archive software products.".
This is meta information. Does it belong there? And doesn't it contradict with the title, "List of email archive software"? Shouldn't it at least say what it 'does' contain? -- Mortense ( talk) 12:47, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Not sure how to properly fix this: Problem: Under /info/en/?search=List_of_email_archive_software#Products_and_services, the second bullet point, CGS Unlimited Mailbox, contains an irrelevant link: /info/en/?search=Centimetre%E2%80%93gram%E2%80%93second_system_of_units
Questions: Was this link created by a bot? What is the best way to remove this link?
* Can the link be removed in a way that leaves "breadcrumbs" so that bots don't make the same mistake again? Is there a best practice or Lessons Learned way of doing this to minimize confusion for other human editors? I.e. can we straighten out the bots without messing up the humans? * Are there methods or tools to link the entire company and/or product names for future auto-linking without having to unnecessarily create an article stud?
Thanks for your time and consideration. Tree4rest ( talk) 17:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I accidentally hit [Save] instead of [Preview] and then received a response before I had even finished (what a mess). I should mention, I'm good with technology, but new to editing Wikipedia.
First here is the rest of what I was trying to say:
Problems:
* 9th bullet point, Piler (GPLv3), has what appears to be a valid link:
/info/en/?search=Piler but when followed is redirected to: /info/en/?search=Pileru
* All of the other links go to company pages, when the section header specifies product names.
Questions:
* What happened in Pileru? Obviously, something on the wikipedia servers (perhaps a link resolver or automatic error correction) or just maybe Google Chrome, (but I've never seen anything like that before. I'm just clicking on a link, not doing or typing anything in the address/awsome bar.) * How are "Red Text Links" created? I've seen them in several articles, but instead of going to either another article or stud, they show failed search results and suggest creating a page or stud. Is this behavior that we can direct Wikipedia to do on purpose, rather than redirection to an ambiguous link (or even a entirely different work that just happens to have a similar spelling)?
Second, my reply to the first response:
Huon thank you for helping me with this article. I have some follow-up questions that I think are still relevant to this article, so I'll try adding them here.
I don't completely understand your first explanation. I get the nature of the original "CGS" link and perhaps redirect explains what's happening with the "Piler/u" link as well. If these links weren't created by bot, then are we left to presume that the original author or another editor created these links, perhaps in error or haste?
If so, is there any guidance or policy criteria regarding when bad links should just be removed, rather than presumed to need correction, expansion, or new-stubs? If not, do you have best practices have you could pass along, such as rules-of-thumb, etc.
Then, I don't mean to quip, and normally wouldn't give a second thought to such house cleaning. Nevertheless, in this case, I'm observing what appears to be a glaring hole in topic coverage and possibly overall subject linkage and organization.
As someone that spends a lot of time trying to find useful alternatives to not only current software, but software development strategies as well, your second action baffles me a bit. I agree that this article may be very rough in its current form. However, after researching related technology and solutions for the past two weeks and coming across this page today, I could not fail to notice that most of what is listed here seems like relevant, but unique technologies that have opened up new avenues for further inquiry at a categorical level.
Specifically, as I can best recall, none of the following (small sample) of articles that I've been researching seemed to not only list any of the products mentioned in this article, but don't even hint at the existence of another line of related technology and products:
/info/en/?search=Comparison_of_email_clients /info/en/?search=Comparison_of_webmail_providers /info/en/?search=List_of_email_archive_software /info/en/?search=Mail_retrieval_agent /info/en/?search=Mail_delivery_agent /info/en/?search=Document-oriented_database
I get that we need everything in its place, but if others have gone to the trouble of putting forth new avenues of exploration, I wonder if there isn't some better place to at least park this information. I mean, given the size of the other lists and long history of the underlying base technology, this may easily just be scratching the surface. There is certainly a need for more and better organized information for these topics.
While the current requirements of my work don't allow me to travel down this particular fork in the road, I imagine that several other students and professionals who come across it may hopefully find that investing their time and effort into further full expansion of this material, equivalent to the above examples (including historical sections), would be a useful endeavor.
That being the case, and given that I'm new to editing, I'm struggling to understand where to bring this up in the larger scheme of things. For further discussion on that, please see my talk page.
(PS: It may be a few days before I can check back on this.)
Tree4rest ( talk) 20:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)