Wikipedia talk:Bare URLs/Archive 1

Proposed merge
I propose that this article should be merged with WP:Lazy references because they are informing about the exact same subject. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. It seems it would be best to merge WP:Lazy references into WP:Bare URLs instead of vise versa because (if for no other reason) WP:Bare URLs is longer. ~ Anastasia (talk) 03:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's been done.-- Elvey (t•c) 18:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Any other option?
Is there any other option other than reflink to solve bare URL problem (preferably script or anything online) -- Tito Dutta  ✉  01:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That would be great. Could some work on a bot that would do this? Putting refs in full proper format is the most tedious and one of the least enjoyable parts of contributing to Wikipedia. I want to write and provide a link to a reference, not fill out some form. I imagine I'm not alone in this sentiment. Ufwuct (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There was a tool that auto-expanded URLs, available on any edit page, but it's disappeared. You'd put the URL in a field and press a button and a bunch of other fields would be filled in for you. I'd love to know how to get it back.-- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 16:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It should be available via "Enable wizards for inserting links, tables as well as the search and replace function" under Preferences...Editing, but for me it doesn't work, and it's less powerful that it once was, IIRC. Relevant code:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvey (talk • contribs) 17:02, 9 September 2014

See WP:VPT (permalink). Johnuniq (talk) 23:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Visiblity
Very useful advice on this page, I think it should be more visible in the documentation. Χρυσάνθη Λυκούση (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Minimal upgrades
I have taken to upgrading naked urls minimally by linking to the web site that's embedded in the url, for instance here where became. It's not as much as I'd like but it looks better on the finished page and maybe will (a) prompt naked-url editors to rethink or (b) encourage other editors to go the next steps to full citations. For what it's worth, I learned a bit on the overall subject and got endorsement for my current "minimal upgrade" program here. (May switch to "bare" terminology and link to this article in future to further the education goal of my effort.) I'm of course still open to opinion on whether my effort is counter-productive in any way. Swliv (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've used this a fair amount in 'first round' cleanups. I am considering Bare URLs Minimal upgrades and WP:minupg to simplify citation of this proto- (at least) policy in the Edit summary. Of course I'm still always open to comment and/or suggestion. Swliv (talk) 12:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Minupg or WP:minupg, either/or, are up and running, working nicely as for example here. There's probably use for more of a 'presentation' but it's not likely for now. The main functional links remain here and as outlined above. Swliv (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The two linked pages I was "considering" 25 March above have now both been created. From now forward I expect I'll consider the posts on this page simply archival. From current view, the still-'proto-policy' will proceed and evolve strictly on those two pages and not on this one. Any comments should be posted there. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 16:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

"New" Reflinks
A new program to semi-automatically fill out references, possibly "beta", is available at "Fengtools reflinks". (It is different from the program created by User:Dispenser). --Zfish118 (talk) 01:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * See User:Zhaofeng Li/Reflinks. Johnuniq (talk) 01:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

More than 60,000 bare URLs still need to be fixed
Using a simple search query, I found more than 60,000 pages with bare URLs. Should we submit a bot request to help us fix this problem? Jarble (talk) 06:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Generating references in one click
I would love to completely avoid adding bare URLs but, unfortunately, time is limited and can't always do that. I've made a script that generates complete references in one click (RefScript), but the problem is that, because of a missing standard, the script must "learn" how to handle every single website - and that is also asking for a lot of unavailable time. Unfortunately, the WMF board doesn't care about creating and promoting such a standard, even though it would require minimum effort - Village pump (proposals)/Archive 133. So, yeah, then, as they wish, bare URLs it is.. —  Ark25  (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

moderate stance on bare urls
This essay leaves a sour taste in my mouth. It is no good to tell editors what to do, when we can ask them nicely, and thank them for doing it.

I would like this essay to consider two fundamental facts:
 * 1) bare URLs are not evil and they are still very much allowed
 * 2) bare URLs are much better than no reference at all

That is, I would suggest the policing language towards the reader to be toned down a notch or five. This reads as if written by a frustrated URL-hunter, rather than a friendly enouragement to help out. Remember, we get here from the "bareurl" template, so this is entirely an inappropriately strongarming poisition to take.

Instead of "Most importantly, do not add bare URLs to articles" say "Most importantly, please consider supplementing your bare URLs..."

Adding bare URLs is very helpful in itself, compared to not adding a reference at all. Doing more is going "above and beyond" what policy dictates, and we should express gratitude for editors going there, rather than berating editors who don't. A wikipedia where every editor adds a full citation is a pipe dream - the only result would be way fewer references at all. CapnZapp (talk) 11:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Bare URLs often provide quite a lot of information; at a minimum, they provide the domain, and sometimes they give the article name, the article date, the section of the blog or newspaper, etc. as well. They're actually more informative than some of the auto-generated links. E.g., compare https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/russia-condemns-us-missile-strike-on-syria/2017/04/07/c81ea12a-1b4e-11e7-8003-f55b4c1cfae2_story.html to Russia condemns U.S. missile strike on Syria, suspends key air agreement. Even in the event the page moves, there's probably enough information in the bare URL to find where it went.


 * The vast majority of barelinks should be fixed by gadgets, not by human editors. That's not a good use of editor time and effort. And the gadgets should add every field (author, date, etc.) to the citation template, not just the page title. (I say "gadget" rather than "bot" because it's better to fix the barelinks in the original edit, rather than requiring a subsequent edit.) N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

See also section
The link to the list of Wikipedia articles with bare URLs leads nowhere. Lotje (talk) 07:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * It works for me, maybe it timed out when you tried it. -kyykaarme (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Unbalanced
We really need to address the elephant in the room here. Adding bare URLs is good, in the sense that it is infinitely preferable to not adding any sources at all.

As long as readers are sent to this essay, we need to make it clear that there's nothing wrong with bare URLs. Yes, full references are better, but that's a luxury, not the essentials.


 * Also see above.
 * Also see the various "why aren't bare URLs fixed by bots?" talk sections in the archives.

As long as I have your attention, I would like to ask for an user talk box like but for those of who proudly believe we are making Wikipedia better by adding content, and referencing our claims, even as we "only" add bare URLs. Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 10:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Indeed, nothing wrong with bare URL's, but imo they just do not look nice at the bottom of the pages. That is why I prefer to use the refill tool. :-) Lotje (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

✅ Slight copy-edit per this and earlier talk sections. CapnZapp (talk) 20:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

the link
This revolves around the following passage:


 * Note how much more information is available. Even though if the link no longer works, you can see that it used to link to a web page containing some technical discussion [...]

(my edit shown as bold and strikethrough)

User Primefac opposes this change. Possibly because of a misunderstanding. I am not trying to make this an example of why bare URLs are bad. His earlier edit summary also appears to misinterpret my intentions ("the link *could* work. The statement is saying that *if* it doesn't work, you still have enough info to potentially find it"). I am not disagreeing with any of this. I am not trying to change it at all.

I am simply changing the language to reflect the situation. There's no need for conjecture (="if" the link is bad). The link IS bad.

I don't intend any change in what the essay is trying to tell the user. Just removing the uncertainty. When the page was written, the future was still not known, but now it is.

I invite to reconsider his opposition to this change, and to discuss how to proceed if not. CapnZapp (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In it gives examples of bare URLs, followed by examples of "better" URLs given inside of citation templates. The paragraph with the "if" statement is essentially "look how little information there is in these bare URLs. If the link is dead, you don't know anything! If you cite it in a template, you have more information". It is not saying "here is one specific link. See how little information there is. Because we chose this link to intentionally be dead, you can see how citing it with a template is better to give more information." In other words, the URL is not being used as an example of a dead bare URL, but simply an example of a bare URL, which may or may not be dead when you encounter one in situ. Primefac (talk) 20:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with everything you say. I aim to change nothing. Yet you make no argument against the change: everything you want and I want remains true even with "though". The only difference is that while the link's future was uncertain "if" made sense. Now it does not. CapnZapp (talk) 10:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm. Silence. Does it mean you have withdrawn your objections or does it mean you have been busy and unable to respond? I'll assume I have successfully explained how my edit does not change, and indeed was not intended to change, the meaning of the example if I don't hear from you. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It means that I have been waiting for others to comment on your proposal, and incidentally that I have been busy with other matters. You have not successfully changed my mind, and thus I will continue waiting on other opinions to manifest. Primefac (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The issue is this change to text that was added in September. I support "Even if the link no longer works" because a link may not work today but could be ok tomorrow: the issue is that the link may become dead, not that it is dead. A detailed reference is better than a bare URL even if the link currently works. Johnuniq (talk) 02:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth¹ I concur.
 * ¹something, as I am a paid proofreader, though mainly in another language; wonder what my linguistic exchange rate is?
 * Ponken (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

"we don't need this"
I added a note. It was reverted. But not just that, it was reverted with an edit summary arguing "if a regular editor is adding bare URLs they should still be told off for it".

I considered your reason invalid in the sense it is not supported by consensus, and so I undid the reversion, but was immediately reverted again, now with the edit summary: "sure, but we also don't need this note. As per usual, you have made a change, it has been reverted, and now it's time to discuss".

So far you haven't given a reason for why "we don't need this", unless you're willing to argue your earlier stance, which I assume you aren't since you started off your second edit with "sure". The BRD cycle presupposes the reverter justifies his reversions beyond "I don't like it", or in this case, "we don't need this". Who are "we" and why isn't it needed? You misunderstand BRD if you sincerely believe "you have made a change, it has been reverted, and now it's time to discuss" is sufficient to keep others from improving the project. You actually need to explain why you oppose edits, especially when you oppose them to such an extent you revert them. CapnZapp (talk) 08:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Please just make a proposal for a change and give a reason for why it should be implemented. Johnuniq (talk) 09:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Asking for what this is all about is certainly reasonable, and here you go: Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 10:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I enthusiastically support 's assertion that if a regular editor is adding bare URLs they should still be told off for it. Editors who do that are undermining WP:V by creating refs which a) offer low usability for readers, and b) will degrade over time.

Such additions require a lot of work by other editors to fill the refs, and editors should not edit in ways which require a cleanup squad to follow behind them. Obviously, we do not want to WP:BITE newbies, but regular editors should be reminded of the need to do better.

And @CapnZapp: your statement that Primfac that "you haven't given a reason for why "we don't need this" is demonstrably false. In this revert, Primefac's edit summary says if a "regular" editor is adding bare URLs they should still be told off for it. CapnZapp quoted that above, so it is rather nasty for CapnZapp to then write a diatribe alleging that Primefac failed to give a reason.
 * No - Primefact started his next revert with "sure". I interpreted that as agreement, meaning his number of arguments dropped from one to zero. Please do not ascribe me any nastiness simply because you do not agree with another editor. CapnZapp (talk) 09:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me that we have a long-standing problem with CapnZapp's approach to the problem of bare URLs. Back in 2019, CapnZapp in tis edit added to the info page the assertion There is nothing wrong with adding bare URL references to Wikipedia. That statement was the inverse of the reality that adding bare URL refs causes well-documented problems. I am glad that CapnZapp has not contested my removal of that text on 17 March ... but the comments above seem to indicate that CapnZapp still wants to discourage any effort to guide editors to use full citations. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 03:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The answer to Zapp's question is rather moot now that BHG has reworded the paragraph to be less bitey and more indicative of best practices anyway, but as she says I did give a rationale, and I'll expand on that. "Most regular editors know how to write proper citations - fine, but we're talking about editors who are adding bare URLs. Even if the user is adding bare URLs by choice, we do not know that until we message them (with "a polite note" I might quote, not with a templated response as indicated by the DTR link). It's geared towards an action, not a type of editor (new v old), thus the advice is applicable in all situations, and therefore the explanatory note is unnecessary. Primefac (talk) 08:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The whole DTR thing was silly, because AFAIK there is no templated warning for editors about bare URLs. And in any case WP:DTR is neither a policy nor a guideline.  It's just an essay, with an opposing view at WP:TTR ... and a contested essay should not be asserted in an info page as if it was policy.   Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 08:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * we have a long-standing problem with CapnZapp Oh cut out the power plays. If you have a problem then at least say that. Giving off the impression I'm the outsider is childish argumentation techniques. Attack the argument not the person, meaning if you (or Primefac) wants to argue our policies and guidelines prohibit or discourage bare URLs, go for it. Until then, kindly assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. And more importantly: discuss from the standpoint bare URLs are welcome, much more useful than no references at all, and that we thank editors for them. CapnZapp (talk) 09:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @CapnZapp: try to be civil, please. My comment is not a "power play".
 * What is a "power play" is your demand that I adopt your view that bare URLs are welcome, which they clearly are not. Bare URLs are much better than no URL, but much less good than a filled citation, and you seem determined to deny that subtlety.
 * And I stand by my comment about your actions being a long-term problem. You assertion that There is nothing wrong with adding bare URL references to Wikipedia was simply false.   Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 18:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

As long as the template redirects here, the "this is just an essay" defense falls flat. CapnZapp (talk) 09:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * As for the current state of the article, ie this:

"If you notice an editor habitually adding bare URLs, then please consider leaving a polite note on their talk page thanking them for adding URLs, but referring them to Inline citations for clear examples of good practices."

I don't disagree with the general gist of it, except we need to discuss the simple unavoidable fact that adding full citations is hard work, relatively speaking. If editors are discouraged from helping out the project (by supplying bare URL refs) the real alternative is that we lose out on their help full stop.

What I'm getting at is there's a difference between encouraging best practices and discouraging helping out at all.

As long as this page makes it very clear that adding bare URLs is allowed (as opposed to something we only let newbies get away with) and accomplishes the by far most important aspect, namely sourcing facts, you can phrase it however you want. The "inline bare URL" tag is meant to draw the attention to future editors that there's an opportunity for improvement here. Not a "tag of shame" that is connected to the original editor. The original editor did a fine job taking the article claim from unsupported to verified, and that is more important than future-proofing the verification.

But, there are editors that appear to have gotten blinded by their frustration at having to do clean-up work. To them I say: Take a step back. Relax. Take some wikivacation. Bare URLs are not bad. They're not perfect but their upside outweighs the downside. You are likely overestimating the downside because of your personal cleanup involvement.

I staunchly oppose any harassment-creep here, meaning that editors change one little thing at a time until this page (and others) encourage readers to hassle editors for adding bare URLs. No. We are supposed to thank them, and then be grateful for the editors that take the extra time to go the full distance with the citation templates.

As for my own personal stance, I proudly state it prominently on my user talk page. I fully expect not to be hassled when I add bare URLs. In fact, I expect to be thanked for my contributions.

As my final words: remember, no editor has so far attempted to argue bare URLs are banned or discouraged the project. They want this page to make it look that way, but before this happens they must accomplish a change in consensus (at a venue with a much wider audience than here), is my take on it.

CapnZapp (talk) 09:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @CapnZapp: you are trying to create a false binary in which bare URLs must be either welcomed or banned. Neither stance reflects the simple reality that a bare URL is better than no URL, but nowhere near as helpful as a filled URL.
 * So bare URLs are clearly discouraged.
 * The fact that you choose to repeatedly add bare URLs despite knowing the problems with them simply means that you are one of those selfish editors who intentionally edits in a way which requires others to clean up after them. Please stop being selfish.   Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 18:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * PS CapnZapp wrote You are likely overestimating the downside because of your personal cleanup involvement.
 * As I have sadly come to expect from CapnZapp, that assertion inverts the truth.
 * The reality is that the downsides drove me to do the cleanup work.
 * I started working on cleaning up bare URLs because I was fed up with the number of dead link bare URL refs in the articles I was working on. In many articles from ten or fifteen years, a significant proportion of the refs no longer verified anything, because they were dead and there was no way to rescue them.
 * I found that working on them one-by-one was appallingly slow. So I set out to find systematic solutions, and I have spent the last nine months working full-time on cleaning up bare URLs where possible, and tagging others.  By full-time I mean full-time: over 70 hours per week.
 * Wikipedia is now old enough that we know very clearly how bare links degrade, and how unhelpful they are to readers. I find it very sad that even though we now know the problem, new bare URL refs are being added at a rate of about 200 to 300 per day.  This flood of new bare URLs guarantees that articles will continue to rot, and even tho I feed all new  bare URL refs through , that fills only about 40&endash;70% of them.  We re piling up problems for the future.
 * In my nine months of work on this, I refrained from making any comment at all to editors who add bare URLs. But I have broken that silence with Capn Zapp, because of Zapp's repeated ABF and persistent efforts to derail any attempt to note the problem or to point editors to a better way.  That has happened both on this page and on User talk:BrownHairedGirl/No-reflinks websites (permalink), where Zapp's nonsense included a concern was whether this Bare URL inline tag was some kind of clean-up or problem tag (yes of course it is both a cleanup and a problem tag) and thoroughly bad faith suggestion that tagging the problem was a prelude to harassment.
 * I am sure that most editors who add bare URL refs do so because they are unaware of the problem, or unsure of how to fill a cit template without too much work. One of the reasons I have refrained from contacting any of them is that I don't have the time to talk them through the steps, and I don't want to just annoy them with a drive-by grunt which leaves them aware of the problem but not confident in how to avoid it.
 * But in the case of Zapp, we have an editor who is well aware of the problem, but who defiantly refuses to take any effort to ensure that they add refs in a reader-friendly, durable manner. And to top that, Zapp has harassed the most prolific editor cleaning up bare URLs, and on this page Zapp is wikilawyering and edit-warring to pollute the guidance on how to do a better job, and repeatedly ABFing that there is some plot to hrasss editors.  This sort of nonsense is time-wasting and demoralising.   Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 01:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Has it been suggested that we update the cite dialogue to allow the editor the option to convert bare text to full citations such as these extensions?

Thought about it and decided it was easier if we just asked content providers. Crossposting Ideas - Content Provider Share Cite Options  Wakelamp d&#91;@-@&#93;b (talk) 01:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Again, the top header template is deeply unproportional to the problem at hand


I happened upon this page, trying to learn more about this "Zonta" organization: Zonta International.

The very first thing that blows up on my screen is this:

To me, this tells a reader one thing only: this article is problematic and likely not worthwhile to read. Try finding your information elsewhere, because Wikipedia provides "uninformative and vulnerable" content, that somehow is "rotting" too.

There is precisely ONE editor responsible for this: User:BrownHairedGirl. This is not the result of long discussions between hundreds of editors, and plenty of community input. This is one active editor, and a lot of passive ones.

Yes, Bare URLs are not ideal, but they do not represent a problem nearly severe enough to warrant telling editors there is a huge problem. Top banners tell users there are huge problems, and that an URL is bare just ain't one of them.

Bare URLs are not ideal, but they are much better than no references at all. They are VERY MUCH informative.

Tirelessly striving to fix and convert bare URLs is a work I wholeheartedly endorse, but the people involved should not let their frustration get the better of themselves. In this case, it clearly has. The work to improve URLs do not need these top-side banners. Their only purpose is to scare editors into providing full citations, but the real fallout is editors providing no references at all, and articles looking compromised and problematic even though their only "sin" is having some bare URLs.

Wikipedia deserves better than scary top banners for what, after all, represents a minor administrative issue.

Now, can someone PLEASE PRETTY PLEASE either talk some sense into her, because I sure can't. In fact, I am pretty confident her only response to this is to once more play the "I'm personally attacked" card, diverting the attention from the misplaced and unconstructive approach to what would otherwise be a very valued service? Or can someone at the very least tell her to put her banners in a less conspicuous place, commensurate with the severity of the problem?

Thanks, CapnZapp (talk) 06:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You personally attack her, and then "[are] confident" that she will then claim she has been personally attacked? No shit, Sherlock.
 * Regarding the substance of your concerns - first off, a bare URL might be informative. On the other hand, what does http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0008/000827/082711eo.pdf contain? What page did I take it from? What useful information might that page hold? Did I just grab it randomly off the internet? There is zero usable information from that link alone, so if the link dies there is zero way to look for or retrieve that information (even if it is still available on UNESCO's website under a different URL structure). Maintenance templates are there for one reason - to indicate that maintenance is necessary. Sure, we could simply categorise things silently, but then passing editors just looking to maybe do their first edit a) won't know it needs fixing, and b) won't necessarily know how to fix it. Could the language of the template be changed, or the bolding/layout altered? Sure, but coming at it from a veiled attempt at pissing off another editor is not the way to start the conversation. Honestly, I would suggest removing this entire thread (my reply included) and starting over with a better-worded request. Primefac (talk) 08:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @CapnZapp: You are close to being blocked for personal attacks. Do not repeat anything like the ill-judged pontification above. Johnuniq (talk) 09:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I urge Zapp to WP:DROPTHESTICK before action is taken about to restrain their WP:IDHT conduct. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 18:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * By my count this is the fourth or fifth time that CapnZapp has chosen some venue to post a similar rant. On every previous occasion, Zapp's rants have been clearly rejected by other editors.