Welcome to the Q&A Forum

I'm asking this question with the full recognition that the issue may be a little contentious and possibly unresolved, but I would like the opinions of those here anyway.

When I quote another article in mine I always use either blockquote or q. (q is an inline version of blockquote). But I recently learned you can add a cite attribution to those tags. Like so:

I have a dream...

or
<q cite="www.example.com">He who doesn't ask himself...</q>

But these links don't show up anywhere, only in the code. To be as ethical as possible, I also put in an anchor link. That also is my first concern. Can putting the same link twice essentially right next to one another cause issues?

To add to the complexity, I've also been researching the <cite>tag. And it's history is a little... well... rocky. It seems as though the current standard is to use either blockquote or q and then add in cite as a footer to it. Like this:</cite>

They seemed to think that the greatness of their masters was transferable to themselves. It was considered as being bad enough to be a slave; but to be a poor man's slave was deemed a disgrace indeed!

<footer>Douglass, F. (1999). <cite>[The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass]([link to book (or article where appropriate)])</cite>. Oxford: Oxford University Press,</footer>

Notice the cite tag is only around the link to the item in question. Not the entire footer. Also note that the footer is inside the blockquote, thus it is not meant to be at the bottom of the page.

So IF this is the standard way to do things, it answers my first question. But is it? And can the use of the footer tag confuse search engines?

Ugh, crazy all over the place question, I know. But I'm struggling to find the right way to handle quotations in a way that is both academic, and SEO friendly. Start from the beginning if you must.

There's no easy way to deal with a ton of broken links. The best thing you can do is to just work through them one at a time. In fact, use it as an opportunity to link to the new products and write up a new post on that update.

If you have a lot of broken links, it'll take awhile of course so just take it in chunks and make sure to do consistent audits in the future.

You don't have to agree. Music production companies (for artists like Adele, Bieber, Drake, etc.) don't make mp3's so easily available. The site has almost no unique content and the music is illegal. I don't like intellectual property, I don't think it should exist, but it does, and this site is lucky it indexes at all.

I've found a quick fix for now: http://ethanglover.biz/using-robots-txt-with-addon-domains/

This is still an issue, and it may be exclusive to WordPress.

Took me awhile to find out what you were talking about with the Wikipedia page. As always it looks like Schema provides the flexibility and fine details to allow marking up everything. While I'm sure Wikipedia simple style works, I do like to be thorough. The whole point of building a static website is to play with every little detail.

Thanks a lot.

Disallow sounds like a fair solution. Has this not worked?

The not found errors in Webmasters can be a bit wonky in my experience. For a long time after a domain change, I was getting "not found" errors that weren't linked from anywhere. Anything that was linked was properly redirected. I don't know if they have cached sitemaps or what was going on with that. I'd like to know more about how that works myself, but the point is, it may take some time of that stuff reappearing before it finally goes through.