Talk:Xenu's Link Sleuth

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Xenu's Link Sleuth article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion on January 28, 2005. The result of the discussion was No consensus, default to "keep"..

Software: Computing

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Scientology Low‑importance

	This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics. See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.ScientologyWikipedia:WikiProject ScientologyTemplate:WikiProject ScientologyScientology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

XenuGraph

I notice that the link to XenuGraph (from Kevin Niehage) is still there as external link, but the mention was deleted in the main article. Anyway, the current version of Xenu integrated the export to GraphViz by using the source code made by Kevin Niehage as inspiration (He is credited).

Another interesting export since version 1.3 is to Google Sitemaps. --Tilman (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Report

Source discusses the article subject and devotes multiple pages to it. Cirt (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't your bachelor report, is it? I really don't see how it's notable or worth including here. No, the report doesn't devote multiple pages to the discussion or review of this particular link checker tool. I'm not trying to claim that this tool isn't notable, I'm just saying that this particular bachelor report (and the Grand Valley State University one with practically all the archived links broken) don't support the article at all. This link checker just happened to be the tool that was used in the report, but it's only mentioned in passing. The entire quote is this: "Link checking was performed with the freeware link testing software, Xenu’s Link Sleuth." So what? If I write a web page and mention that I've used "Xenu's Link Sleuth" to check my website, does that mean I get to add a link to my website from wikipedia too? It just smells like a vanity link when it doesn't add any value to the page. Book reviews, yes. Magazine reviews, yes. They discuss the tool and its merits. But student reports that barely mention the tool in passing? And reports from 2003 with broken links? No, they don't belong in this page, in my opinion. Thrapper (talk) 12:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually check the source, you will see several pages are devoted to it. Cirt (talk) 12:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have "actually" checked the source, and the entire quote is above. I assume you're referring to two appendices which give the output of the link checker for the project. That isn't "devoted" to the tool, it's "devoted" to the checking of the links. I don't expect the wiki page for the word processing tool he used to link to this report either, because several pages of that report aren't "devoted" to the tool, despite being output by it.

So is it your bachelor report? And if any person's homepage includes the output from Xenu's Link Sleuth in an appendix, does it also get a link here? Thrapper (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All that is said in this article is that a BSc honors study used the report. That is factually accurate and confirmed by the source, and relevant. Cirt (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it is factually accurate, and yes the source confirms that it is true. However it doesn't matter to this article whether that person used this program or not. It is not relevant to wikipedia whether one guy wrote a report at school once and mentioned this program in passing. You did read the entire quote above, didn't you? 13 words long? That doesn't justify a link from this wikipedia page to his report. Reviews belong here, or quotes of usage by notable sources, but not that report. You didn't respond to either of my questions above though....? Thrapper (talk) 13:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

I checked the BSc thesis that is in question, and its use of Xenu's Link Checker seems to be minor and unremarkable. Like Thrapper, all I could find in the main text of the thesis about this tool is the following: "Link checking was performed with the freeware link testing software, Xenu’s Link Sleuth. The initial report generated for the visitor pages found only one missing link to a filler GIF that had been incorrectly referenced (see APPENDIX G)." Then further on, in Appendix G, we see a report showing the six broken links. This usage of Xenu's Link Checker can hardly be seen as a review or a commentary on the tool itself. I am puzzled that Cirt found multiple pages in the thesis devoted to this tool, since this is all I came up with by doing a 'Find' on Xenu. EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Removed, per EdJohnston (talk · contribs). Cheers, Cirt (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both. Sorry if my tone became argumentative :) Thrapper (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, thanks. Cirt (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reducing the usefulness of this article

Speaking as someone who uses Xenu I can`t agree with the recent deletion of some of the external links. The definitely reduce the usefulness of the article. I think we`re forgetting why we`re here. It`s not to conform to a set of esoteric Wikipedia rules. it`s to provide information and interest. I can`t be bothered to revert the deletions, I just don`t agree with it. Get your priorities right !--JustinSmith (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Xenu's Link Sleuth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070927033200/http://www.en.eun.org/etb/survey/d3.2.pdf to http://www.en.eun.org/etb/survey/d3.2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Xenu's Link Sleuth/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

*9 citations, nice image screenshot... Smee 07:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Last edited at 18:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 02:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)