949:
information in my edit. It took a lot of searching for me to find it, and this is an appropriate place to note its existence to add value to this page. To SF: a page name change would be good. As for "Knowledge's an encyclopedia, not a how-to guide.", you might want to tell
Knowledge to get rid of the home page's "In The News"/Wikinews/Current Events sections for consistency with your stmt. ;-) See? Everything has some "give", some rationale that can be claimed as an exception.
31:
413:. The only possible use I can see for them is for a personal stylesheet (either monobook.css, or within one browser's settings). If that's the only use, the benefit is marginal at best, and the span tags serve to clutter up the wikitext. If there were other reasons for the span tags, feel free to explain and reinstate them. --
619:
But now you've deleted the information from
Knowledge, and it no longer exists. You gave no rationale for proclaiming why this page *has* to be sterilized of this information, as opposed to getting enough of this information to truly say it needs to be moved elsewhere. I'm sure you can come up with a
557:
Anyway, I was looking to make edits to my web sites to be able to return everything in the HTTP header, including the status code. I googled around, and it just wasn't coming up. My sites are at an ISP, meaning I can't edit the server config, and it wasn't letting me simply emit the HTTP Status Line.
149:
Not only have you added an inline citation to every code, but to every sentence of every code, when there are only 3 or 4 sources in total for this article, which were explained in the lede, or where necessary in the article. Other list articles don't feel the need to add 66 separate footnotes for 15
835:
I can't see what information needs to be added here anyway. Specific server implementations should be left to their respective documentations. There's no point reproducing that material here. This page should only give an overview of the codes and give useful information on each code as appropriate.
609:
According to
Knowledge, "As of June 2008 Apache served 49.12% of all websites." It seems reasonable to me to put an "if" stmt pointing to external links of the Apache mechanism. You yourself just said pointing to an external link was appropriate, and if anyone else want to add links for other lesser
590:
The text you added is specific to the Apache web server. ".htaccess" is Apache specific and does not apply to any other web server. I don't think the article should explain how to return a status header, it's completely different depending on the server. If anything you could maybe add a guide for
278:
Much better, but as before, RFC 2518 references are incorrect and should be replaced with RFC 4918. Also, please no not accuse me of bad faith editing. Every edit to this article and talk page have been in the best interests of the encyclopaedia. Do not be surprised when a massive edit such as you
206:
be using direct inline citations and not just general links to the various RFCs. While adding references for this article I found a huge number of incoming links and even open source software programs that are taking the text of this article as the gospel truth for HTTP status codes. The fact that
189:
While I appreciate the trouble, I don't think merely linking to the RFC document related to a particular section is adequate. The reason is I found many small errors and deficiencies in this article while checking each section. A direct inline citation for the section of the RFC that is supposedly
651:
Sorry, I didn't mean to undermine your contribution. It's appreciated, but I just don't think it suits the article. This is of course up for debate, I'm by no means an expert at the topic or
Knowledge in general. I also would never want to delete your work permanently. Knowledge keeps a backup of
661:
I think an external link at the bottom of the page would be appropriate. I understand Apache is extremely popular and I myself use it exclusively, but I think the article needs to stay true to the official standards, and not how each individual server implements them. That's my opinion anyway :)
724:
Anyone googling for a list of HTTP status codes hasn't the slightest need for this page. It's adding nothing to the web in its current sterile format. On that basis, I recommend opening the page up to edits directly related to status codes, even if there are web server specific ones. There's no
948:
To Mr. Z: I stated why I came here and I never said
Knowledge is stupid. I said the page was so antiseptic as to be generically equivalent to tons of other google results for the same search. The information I had added is hyperlinked to external "how-to" information, I did not state how-to
236:(ec) I added proper inline citations, something this article has needed for a long time. As it is now you cannot tell which part belongs to which RFC document. Not only did you again remove valid citations; you also removed corrections to some of the sections. Your arguments amount to
906:
Face it, there's not the slightest reason for this page to exist, except as a some sort of
Knowledge Vanity page. Oh look, everybody, because Knowledge has a high search engine ranking, people looking for HTTP status codes are causing even more Knowledge traffic, Knowledge is sooooo
706:
Face it, there's not the slightest reason for this page to exist, except as a some sort of
Knowledge Vanity page. Oh look, everybody, because Knowledge has a high search engine ranking, people looking for HTTP status codes are causing even more Knowledge traffic, Knowledge is sooooo
565:
There are three hyperlinks, the first is to an RFC, the others give the exact phrase to search for on the referenced pages. It's a shame there isn't a URI syntax for skipping down to text on someone's page without the aid of a 'name' anchor in the source. (I vote for that too. ;-)
569:
HTTP Status Codes do not exist in a vacuum, and I believe my brief little blurb gives some context to the codes. Until there is a better (or any) Knowledge page on how the web server and userspace-admin can return the status codes being discussed, I recommend this edit stay.
348:
Been looking through the article again and some of the citations are still inappropriate/misleading/wrong. This is why one should actually check citations before one adds them, asking the original authors (of which I am not one) if necessary.
688:
Your straight-jacket is "the article needs to stay true to the official standards." If the "List of" is dropped, that reason of yours goes away. The top of the article can say 'This is a list of HTTP status codes, with some directly related
174:
References are a good thing, and MediaWiki knows how to consolidate them. Sections and pages are overkill when the status code is almost always a section title. I've taken
Tothwolf's work, tweaked it accordingly, and updated the article.
868:
Actually I just had a look at some of the stuff in your edit, it was actually quite useful. I apologise for jumping on it straight away, although I do still think it needs a little rewording. Mainly to do with it being specific to
398:
is for. I can see how it might have very limited, personal use in some cases, but it's probably not generally useful enough to keep, since it somewhat gets in the way of other editors improving the article. Anybody else concur?
190:
the source for the material in this article makes it much harder for such issues to creep in and allows them to be fact checked and corrected in a much more efficient manner. I don't mind putting the short citations into the main
561:
The explanation I found could be expanded into a large "how-to" article, but I find the brief paragraph that I added will go a long way to helping anyone else searching for the basic information of how to return the darn things.
983:
Haha, never heard that before! "you can find it with google so lets just delete it". what kind of logic is that? Knowledge does not and should never take availability as a reason to change articles, it is an entity for itself.
1109:
I believe you'll find this is an internal error number for whatever software you're using and unrelated to HTTP Status codes - If the hostname isn't resolving, there's no way to send a request, let alone get a response code
909:- Then why are you even here? If you think Knowledge is so stupid, why waste your time trying to add this little tidbit of information to the article? Does adding that little bit of information somehow redeem the article?
789:
Before reading this you should note my reply in the "table" section. I can understand if your annoyed I deleted your work, but seeing as nothing is ever deleted in
Knowledge, this shouldn't be a problem.
374:
I have removed the 421 code as I cannot find any reference, official or not, for this status code in HTTP. It is used in FTP for too many connections so I am assuming it is just incorrectly placed here.
573:
As for merging more text on the status codes into this page (as asked about on the top of the live page), I vote to go ahead and do so, obviously with appropriate redirects from the original pages.
211:
inline citations previously makes this even more disturbing as the errors and omissions are very likely to be propagated by those who trusted this article without doing additional fact checking. --
810:
First of all: Knowledge's an encyclopedia, not a how-to guide. Even if it gets ranked highly, that doesn't mean its function should change based on what people are looking for. This page
303:, I stated a fact and you've previously been warned about it. Do we need to link to diffs? Your revert of my corrections and additions of citations was out of line, period. --
1146:"ground-breaking"? How? I have no strong objection to the link but don't really see the benefit to linking how a particular server responds by default with these codes.
620:
rationalization for wiping out this tidbit of useful information, but you are being overly anal-retentive in having deleted this information entirely out of
Knowledge.
759:
Regarding "consensus", how many people does that take over what amount of time? In other words, what are you talking about, or expecting to see that would qualify?
471:
I'm seeing these in my server logs when my XP box attempts to PROPFIND a DAV folder (unsuccessfully). I'm tracing this error message to a Google Code proposal for
1042:, implying that literally millions of people might find the information on this page useful. Secondly, computing is an underrepresented topic among our
150:
sources. RFC 2068 should not even be included at all, as all the information to those codes was taken from RFC 2616, making the citations incorrect.
81:
76:
71:
59:
1147:
1111:
998:
As most of the Google links are copies of this article (mirroring historical errors and typos), your argument becomes somewhat invalid.
94:
This article has been in need of proper citations for quite some time and I've finally added them. I've even gone to the trouble to use
1095:
507:
120:
on every sentence linking to the same RFCs that are already given at the top of the page, or next to the status code, be my guest."
1068:
1008:
532:
359:
329:
289:
160:
47:
17:
447:
I've just reinstated these in a different way, using the {{anchor}} tag. Now it's possible to link to individual codes.
256:
issues with this article for quite some time and if this persists I will open an RFC and take this to a noticeboard. --
237:
38:
1131:
452:
380:
1151:
1115:
1099:
511:
180:
125:
448:
954:
877:
841:
780:
667:
642:
596:
580:
376:
872:
I'm about to go ahead and move this page to "HTTP Status Codes" so there might be a place for it there.
480:
950:
776:
638:
576:
476:
1065:
503:
202:
section but for an article referenced as much as this one is by other sites, this article absolutely
610:
web servers, well, that's how Knowledge works - people add information, and sometimes reorganize it.
1155:
1138:
1119:
1103:
1072:
1013:
1004:
993:
958:
923:
881:
845:
784:
671:
646:
600:
584:
537:
528:
515:
484:
456:
434:
417:
403:
384:
364:
355:
334:
325:
312:
294:
285:
279:
made is reverted in its entirety. In future, consider making different changes in different edits.
265:
220:
184:
165:
156:
143:
95:
914:
551:
I came to this page on a Knowledge search for "HTTP Status Codes", it was an immediate redirect.
308:
261:
216:
176:
139:
985:
472:
110:
430:. Although reinstating them now would be useful since we've created all the redirect pages. —
873:
837:
663:
592:
1062:
989:
999:
523:
431:
350:
320:
280:
195:
151:
99:
119:"As for inline citations, if you want to go through the article and put a <ref: -->
1058:
1054:
911:
414:
400:
304:
300:
257:
253:
212:
135:
1135:
1050:
1043:
427:
124:
As best I can tell this article is not exempt from meeting the requirements of the
244:
list articles are either made up of wikilinks to other articles (which themselves
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
1034:
Due to a combination of things, I have been drawn to this list. First of all,
1046:. Finally, this page is in pretty good shape from a referencing standpoint.
1035:
836:
It should not have anything to do with how servers implement the standards.
591:
Apache as an external link (as an example of how a web server does it).
1049:
I was therefore wondering how regulars would feel about taking this to
1090:
Error 105 (net::ERR_NAME_NOT_RESOLVED): The server could not be found.
496:
Error 105 (net::ERR_NAME_NOT_RESOLVED): The server could not be found.
252:
are very poorly referenced and in need of improvement. You've had
1134:
this is a ground-breaking article and couldn't be more relevant.
1086:
URL wasn't available. This was the response the sever game back:
548:
Oops, I went and made the edit for this, as I was on a mission.
1039:
25:
554:
I would vote for that to be this page's name, not "List Of."
742:
Or just delete this page, that'll clean it up to perfection.
629:
Adjust the way it is presented perhaps, but don't delete it.
522:
Just a proprietary error message, not an HTTP status code.
500:
Is it informational? Or is it not a status code at all?
653:
410:
395:
317:
122:
103:
1057:, with a view to eventually giving it exposure on the
113:
also voiced concerns about the lack of citations in
319:looks like an accusatuion to me. I'll drop it now.
1132:All 57 Status Codes recognized by Apache servers
904:I think you're taking this far too personally.
725:reason not to. I've explained the pro reasons.
1040:most viewed article-related page on Knowledge
8:
198:happens to dislike having them in their own
98:to cut down on size but after I added them
656:and in the history section of the page.
114:
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
814:useful anyway, that's how I found it.
7:
494:I once received the error message:
24:
102:reverted the citations wholesale
473:Resumable POST/PUT HTTP requests
117:above. OrangeDog replied above:
29:
1082:There is an error I got when a
485:19:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
18:Talk:List of HTTP status codes
1:
994:04:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
959:22:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
924:15:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
882:08:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
846:07:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
785:06:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
672:04:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
544:How to return the status code
426:They can actually be used as
365:13:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
1104:20:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
1014:11:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
652:everything, you can find it
538:23:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
516:20:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
335:13:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
313:20:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
295:20:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
266:19:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
221:00:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
185:19:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
166:14:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
144:18:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
647:21:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
601:06:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
585:02:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
90:Citations and verifiability
1174:
467:Code 308 Resume Incomplete
404:18:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
107:"massive over-referencing"
1156:16:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
1130:I've readded the link to
1120:15:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
1073:19:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
457:20:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
435:03:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
299:I made no accusations re
1139:13:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
1055:featured list candidates
385:11:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
207:this article had almost
418:15:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
1126:Re-added external link
132:have proper citations.
128:so it most certainly
42:of past discussions.
1038:is far and away the
126:Verifiability policy
238:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
96:shortened footnotes
394:I'm not sure what
115:#Original Research
1053:and subsequently
1012:
536:
506:comment added by
363:
333:
293:
164:
87:
86:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
1165:
1091:
1002:
922:
526:
518:
497:
490:Errors or codes?
449:Randall M Hansen
353:
323:
283:
240:and the fact is
154:
68:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
1173:
1172:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1128:
1089:
1080:
1032:
910:
546:
501:
495:
492:
469:
392:
372:
248:be referenced)
92:
64:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1171:
1169:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1127:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1079:
1076:
1044:featured lists
1031:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1016:
972:
971:
970:
969:
968:
967:
966:
965:
964:
963:
962:
961:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
930:
929:
928:
927:
926:
893:
892:
891:
890:
889:
888:
887:
886:
885:
884:
870:
857:
856:
855:
854:
853:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
824:
823:
822:
821:
820:
819:
818:
817:
816:
815:
799:
798:
797:
796:
795:
794:
793:
792:
791:
790:
767:
766:
765:
764:
763:
762:
761:
760:
750:
749:
748:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
733:
732:
731:
730:
729:
728:
727:
726:
715:
714:
713:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
697:
696:
695:
694:
693:
692:
691:
690:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
659:
658:
657:
633:
632:
631:
630:
624:
623:
622:
621:
614:
613:
612:
611:
604:
603:
545:
542:
541:
540:
491:
488:
468:
465:
464:
463:
462:
461:
460:
459:
440:
439:
438:
437:
421:
420:
391:
388:
377:Robert.maclean
371:
368:
346:
345:
344:
343:
342:
341:
340:
339:
338:
337:
271:
270:
269:
268:
230:
228:
227:
226:
225:
224:
223:
196:User:OrangeDog
169:
168:
133:
100:User:OrangeDog
91:
88:
85:
84:
79:
74:
69:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1170:
1157:
1153:
1149:
1148:94.193.107.67
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1137:
1133:
1125:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1112:94.193.107.67
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1092:
1087:
1085:
1077:
1075:
1074:
1070:
1067:
1064:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1047:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1029:
1015:
1010:
1006:
1001:
997:
996:
995:
991:
987:
982:
981:
980:
979:
978:
977:
976:
975:
974:
973:
960:
956:
952:
947:
946:
945:
944:
943:
942:
941:
940:
939:
938:
937:
936:
925:
921:
920:
918:
913:
908:
903:
902:
901:
900:
899:
898:
897:
896:
895:
894:
883:
879:
875:
871:
867:
866:
865:
864:
863:
862:
861:
860:
859:
858:
847:
843:
839:
834:
833:
832:
831:
830:
829:
828:
827:
826:
825:
813:
809:
808:
807:
806:
805:
804:
803:
802:
801:
800:
788:
787:
786:
782:
778:
775:
774:
773:
772:
771:
770:
769:
768:
758:
757:
756:
755:
754:
753:
752:
751:
741:
740:
739:
738:
737:
736:
735:
734:
723:
722:
721:
720:
719:
718:
717:
716:
705:
704:
703:
702:
701:
700:
699:
698:
689:information.'
687:
686:
685:
684:
683:
682:
681:
680:
673:
669:
665:
660:
655:
650:
649:
648:
644:
640:
637:
636:
635:
634:
628:
627:
626:
625:
618:
617:
616:
615:
608:
607:
606:
605:
602:
598:
594:
589:
588:
587:
586:
582:
578:
574:
571:
567:
563:
559:
555:
552:
549:
543:
539:
534:
530:
525:
521:
520:
519:
517:
513:
509:
505:
498:
489:
487:
486:
482:
478:
474:
466:
458:
454:
450:
446:
445:
444:
443:
442:
441:
436:
433:
429:
425:
424:
423:
422:
419:
416:
412:
408:
407:
406:
405:
402:
397:
389:
387:
386:
382:
378:
369:
367:
366:
361:
357:
352:
336:
331:
327:
322:
318:
316:
315:
314:
310:
306:
302:
298:
297:
296:
291:
287:
282:
277:
276:
275:
274:
273:
272:
267:
263:
259:
255:
251:
247:
243:
239:
235:
234:
233:
232:
231:
222:
218:
214:
210:
205:
201:
197:
193:
188:
187:
186:
182:
178:
177:RossPatterson
173:
172:
171:
170:
167:
162:
158:
153:
148:
147:
146:
145:
141:
137:
131:
127:
123:
121:
116:
112:
108:
104:
101:
97:
89:
83:
80:
78:
75:
73:
70:
67:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
1129:
1096:70.62.142.66
1093:
1088:
1083:
1081:
1048:
1033:
1030:Peer review?
951:Double Think
916:
915:
905:
874:ShadowFusion
838:ShadowFusion
811:
777:Double Think
664:ShadowFusion
639:Double Think
593:ShadowFusion
577:Double Think
575:
572:
568:
564:
560:
556:
553:
550:
547:
508:70.62.142.66
499:
493:
470:
428:HTML anchors
411:removed them
393:
373:
347:
249:
245:
241:
229:
208:
203:
199:
191:
129:
118:
106:
93:
65:
43:
37:
1051:peer review
502:—Preceding
477:SpareSimian
194:section if
36:This is an
907:important.
707:important.
192:References
111:User:Nezek
1078:Error 105
1059:main page
1036:404 error
1000:OrangeDog
524:OrangeDog
432:Dispenser
396:this edit
351:OrangeDog
321:OrangeDog
281:OrangeDog
152:OrangeDog
105:claiming
82:Archive 5
77:Archive 4
72:Archive 3
66:Archive 2
60:Archive 1
504:unsigned
415:Interiot
401:Interiot
370:Code 421
305:Tothwolf
258:Tothwolf
213:Tothwolf
136:Tothwolf
1136:Produke
1084:picture
869:Apache.
39:archive
301:WP:OWN
254:WP:OWN
246:should
204:should
130:should
986:Nezek
475:. --
390:span?
200:Notes
16:<
1152:talk
1116:talk
1100:talk
990:talk
955:talk
878:talk
842:talk
781:talk
668:talk
654:here
643:talk
597:talk
581:talk
512:talk
481:talk
453:talk
381:talk
309:talk
262:talk
242:many
217:talk
181:talk
140:talk
1061:? —
919:man
912:Mr.
1154:)
1118:)
1102:)
1094:--
1071:—
1007:•
992:)
984:--
957:)
917:Z-
880:)
844:)
812:is
783:)
670:)
645:)
599:)
583:)
531:•
514:)
483:)
455:)
409:I
399:--
383:)
358:•
328:•
311:)
288:•
264:)
250:or
219:)
209:no
183:)
159:•
142:)
134:--
109:.
1150:(
1114:(
1098:(
1069:C
1066:F
1063:W
1011:)
1009:ε
1005:τ
1003:(
988:(
953:(
876:(
840:(
779:(
666:(
641:(
595:(
579:(
535:)
533:ε
529:τ
527:(
510:(
479:(
451:(
379:(
362:)
360:ε
356:τ
354:(
332:)
330:ε
326:τ
324:(
307:(
292:)
290:ε
286:τ
284:(
260:(
215:(
179:(
163:)
161:ε
157:τ
155:(
138:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.