Wikipedia talk:Bare URLs

The redirect 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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 30 § Template:Cleanup-bare URLs/why until a consensus is reached. Q𝟤𝟪 02:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

This information is completely out of date.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)

@Primefac and Easternsahara: regarding the revert of the introduction of this new shortcut with the edit summary good faith edit, but the shortcut was created *today* and is used all of three times. Plus, it's not immediately obvious why a burl is bad so it might not catch on as a shortcut, a number of comments:

1. I don't see the harm in adding shortcuts. Redirects are notably cheap in terms of computer resource usage.
2. At least one editor (Easternsahara) clearly thought WP:BURLBAD would be useful
3. The argument "it was created today and is used all of three times" makes no sense. If we denies new shortcuts because they're newly created, we would never accept new shortcuts... because they're new. Also, brand new shortcuts are used a total of zero times, so how about us not expecting a shortcut to be widely used before it has been created? I can't see how we are supposed to introduced new shortcuts in any other way that a) creating them b) starting to use them?
4. Please explain "it's not immediately obvious why a burl is bad" and how that's relevant. I don't understand.
5. "it might not catch on as a shortcut" If we deny its use, it certainly won't. How can we allow shortcuts if they need to be proven to be useful before they're even used?

If you actually oppose this particular shortcut, I can understand that, but I would ask for more compelling arguments. If you oppose the general sentiment "bare urls are bad" I can definitely understand that, but again, that wasn't part of your revert summary.

So let's discuss. CapnZapp (talk) 11:00, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I used it when reviewing Draft:2025–26 AS Giana Erminio season to quickly tell the draft creator that bare URLs are not as good as full reference tags, and then referred them to the guidelines for citing (wp:cite). This essay I think has a lot of unnecessary material and in an age where attention spans are that big, it would be useful to get to the most important part of the essay. As, what a bare URL is should be quite obvious to an English speaker who is familiar with technology. As for the removal of the shortcut box, I am against it but I will not spend too much time arguing for its inclusion, its not really that important. 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 11:32, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I suggest that the shortcut be reinstated. I don’t see what the problem is. Schwede66 14:39, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Just to be clear, User:Schwede66, as of this posting the shortcut remains and is functional: WP:BURLBAD. What is discussed here is more whether to allow it on this page and less about deleting the shortcut/redirect. (I do lean towards re-adding it as well, but thought we should give Primefac an opportunity to explain his revert first) CapnZapp (talk) 08:38, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I'll comment primarily on point four, in that it's not obvious what the link means. BURLBAD to me reads as "BURL BAD" and that makes no sense to me because a burl doesn't really have anything to do with Wikipedia editing. If people want it, then by all means, that's what the talk pages are for. Primefac (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Is it okay to have a bare URL in an article? ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 16:31, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Simply copying and pasting the URL of an online reference is not ideal, exposing the reference to link rot. It is preferable to use proper citation templates when citing sources. Schwede66 19:07, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Rafaelthegreat: Note that this is an information page, not a (binding) Wikipedia policy page - it is intended to provide guidelines, not lay down the rules. Do also note how neither WP:RS nor WP:CITE, the cornerstone policy pages relevant here, has much to say on Bare URLs. My personal reflection would be this is because the "bareness" of an URL - whether a URL is bare or not - does not say much about what we really care about: that the source is reliable, independent and published and that the citation uniquely identifies the source. In other words: your reference can meet our basic requirements even if bare. With this in mind, I encourage you to read (or re-read) the sections What is right with bare URLs? and What is wrong with bare URLs? of the information page next. If you then have any further questions I encourage you to ask over at the friendly Teahouse. This talk page is not for general guidance, it is for discussions related to improving the Wikipedia:Bare URLs information page itself. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2025 (UTC)