Wikipedia talk:Database reports/Broken section anchors

Copied discussions from User talk:Bamyers99 archives[edit]

Hope nobody minds, but I am copying some discussions from the archives of User talk:Bamyers99 that seemed relevant to this page just for posterity. (Title links go to the archived source.) -2pou (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question about edit summary on WP:DBR/Broken section anhors[edit]

You left the summary "Record count: 43105", is this a record high or low, and to what does this number pertain? Thanks Banak (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Banak: That is the current number of broken section anchors. Only the first 10000 are displayed. I started including it to track progress. --Bamyers99 (talk) 00:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks. Is that a record high or a record low? Banak (talk) 00:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Banak: The only other count I have is from September 2014 of about 65000. Dexbot (talk · contribs) fixes probably account for a good portion of the reduction. --Bamyers99 (talk) 00:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sorry, misunderstood the word "Record" as being a high or low score, rather than the number of entries. Appologies. Banak (talk) 00:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DBR/Broken Section Anchors and the most broken targets[edit]

Thanks for your recent change to the way broken links are shown, making it easier to target the more recently broken section links, as well as spot where we have lots of new broken sections coming from. Seriously, sorting by section gives a lot of information in this regard. I was wondering how easy it would be to make a list of the articles that are the target of the most broken section links, so we can actually start lowering the record count. Banak (talk) 01:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Banak: I have added a section grouped by target page. --Bamyers99 (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's really helped a lot, as did the splitting into old and new broken section anchors. Banak (talk) 03:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Database reports/Broken section anchors[edit]

Hey, you update this report and I run a bot to fix them (some of them are here) It would be great if I can somehow have the whole list of broken ones so I run the bot on all of them instead of this partial list. Thank you. Ladsgroup^overleg 18:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ladsgroup: Here is a file with the complete list (1.8 MB). --Bamyers99 (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's awesome but is it possible to have all parts (source, target, section)? If not. I find a way to get it to work. Ladsgroup^overleg 20:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ladsgroup: That is a file that was already being generated to determine new broken links. The redirect table contains the other information. --Bamyers99 (talk) 20:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

oh yeah. Thanks Ladsgroup^overleg 21:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I started the bot based on your list now. Thanks! Ladsgroup^overleg 00:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Special characters in anchors[edit]

@Bamyers99: on this page, there are some redirects that are listed as having a broken section anchor, but the redirect actually works fine. For example, the 4th entry in the #Grouped by target page (partial list) section has numerous anchors that work fine. Clicking Super Mann (Lois & Clark) goes to the proper season section, but the anchor uses an en-dash instead of a hyphen. It seems that special characters in the anchor still get flagged as not working. Is this something the report can account for? It would probably eliminate a lot of entries. Some other examples:

I figured posting here instead of your talk page might help other users that might use this page if they had a similar question. -2pou (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@2pou: I have improved the Unicode character handling for the broken anchor checking. The August run should remove the ones that aren't really broken. --Bamyers99 (talk) 22:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. Between that and User:Dexbot likely to see a decent reduction in the number of entries. Banak (talk) 00:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This list is getting too long[edit]

This list on this page takes a long time to load: it almost crashed my browser when I loaded the page. Could it be split into several smaller lists? Jarble (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Views over what time period?[edit]

@Bamyers99: Thanks for this very helpful report! I wanted to start fixing these broken links after I hit one, and I'm going to try to publicize it to others of a similar mindset. 8) Out of curiosity, does the "views" column mean views per month or since last report or some other time period? -- Beland (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Beland: The views are from several years ago. It is a time consuming process to compute the views so I haven't run it. --Bamyers99 (talk) 00:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, good to know! Maybe I'll do a run based on incoming link count instead, then. -- Beland (talk) 00:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More, tagged 10 years ago[edit]

The report does not include these, which have not been fixed since being tagged by WildBot:

These were formerly in a category, but that is now being deleted per consensus at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_December_26#Category:Pages_containing_links_with_bad_anchors. – Fayenatic London 10:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic london: Not included because this report is only for broken section anchors on redirect pages. --Bamyers99 (talk) 14:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! So it is not intended to pick up missing anchors from internal links within articles. Thank you for the explanation, which apparently eluded user:Pppery as well as me. I have made that clearer on the report header, and hope that this may be retained after future updates. – Fayenatic London 15:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chess players 47.153.148.51 (talk) 19:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chess players Mike.116.hornet (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]