Talk:List of HTTP status codes: Difference between revisions

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet 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.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project’s importance scale.

413 Payload Too Large is now 413 Content Too Large. Can someone with the proper rights please change this? 2001:9E8:65E0:3400:898A:1AEF:6D73:43C2 (talk) 02:03, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The term “entity” is used in a few places in the article. But it’s not defined nor a well-known thing IMO. Needs definition or a link to a definition. Stevebroshar (talk) 11:50, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some section headers have info in parentheses, but nowhere do we say what that info mean/implies; how it relates to the code of that section. For example, “102 Processing (WebDAV; RFC 2518)” seems to have two pieces of info. But, what does webdav and rfc 2518 have to do with the code? That’s where they are first defined? Or something? We can’t just plunk info in and expect people to understand the intent. I can imagine two possible fixes. Either, at the top describe what parenthetical info means or move the info into the body of each section (rather than being terse and cleaver using parentheses). Stevebroshar (talk) 11:54, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Caching warning codes section should not be in this article. Yes, they are status codes, but not HTTP response status codes. They are status codes for the warning HTTP header field. So, they are status codes in the context of HTTP, but this article is about HTTP response status codes. Isn’t it? No, it’s not named that, but I think that’s the scope. Therefore, (maybe) they belong in list of HTTP headers Stevebroshar (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the codes have their own article. Why some? Why not all? What’s the criteria for a code getting its own article? IMO it seems silly that any code has its own article. Maybe we should fold all of these code-specific pages into this page. Stevebroshar (talk) 12:13, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]