Wikipedia talk:Bare URLs

Mother of all run on sentences
Second sentence in into paragraph 148.88.247.10 (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

"Template:Cleanup bare URLs/why" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cleanup_bare_URLs/why&redirect=no Template:Cleanup bare URLs/why] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Q𝟤𝟪 02:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

"Template:Cleanup-bare URLs/why" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cleanup-bare_URLs/why&redirect=no Template:Cleanup-bare URLs/why] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Q𝟤𝟪 02:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Out of date and useless
This information is completely out of date. Having a single url with one other piece of information is insufficient to identify documenst in archives and other deep locations on the web. Is not representative of the type of complexity you get in a modern website. There seems to be continual stream of folk who are gaming this guidelines to put in just the url and there is always pushback, refereing back to document as a reason for it. That is not sufficient in the modern age and its getting worse. Its needs to be updated so the minumum amount of sufficient to identify the document. A url + website name which is often used by folk and drives the refill script is insufficient in the modern age.  scope_creep Talk  06:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I am confused by your statement. You say that people are putting in just the URL but are getting pushback for it because of this page. That sounds like it is doing what it should be. Primefac (talk) 07:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi scope creep. First off, please note this is not a guideline or policy. As the banner across the top of the article explains this is "information" which, I guess, makes it sort of an essay without any one author? Anyway, there is therefore no "gaming" to be had, simply because nothing on this page is a hard rule. Second, let me remind you what the page does say about bare URLs: Adding a bare URL reference to Wikipedia is much more helpful than no reference. If you only have time and inclination to copy the reference URL you found, that is a helpful first step, and we thank you for your contribution! It's important to remember (especially if you're very experienced formatting cites) that providing a full reference is a bit of a hassle, especially if you aren't familiar with the various templates and related tools. Meaning that if you were to tell off an editor for contributing a bare url, chances are, that editor will choose simply to not contribute at all.  I find the page's current phrasing acceptable since it lets users contribute by adding references - an essential and most valuable part of our articles - either by simply cut-and-pasting urls, or by more involved handling. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 12:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Full disclaimer - I have put a banner relevant to this issue on my talk page to make my stance clear. CapnZapp (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)