Wikipedia talk:Bare URLs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Essays
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.
 ???  This page has not yet received a rating on the project's impact scale.
 

moderate stance on bare urls[edit]

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[edit]

The link to the list of Wikipedia articles with bare URLs leads nowhere. Face-sad.svg Lotje (talk) 07:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)