Wikipedia talk:Bare URLs
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:
- bare URLs are not evil and they are still very much allowed
- 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)