Template talk:Cleanup bare URLs

Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cleanup bare URLs template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1: 4 months

This template was nominated for deletion. Review prior discussions if considering re-nomination:

keep, 2014 August 29, see discussion.
keep, 2011 August 15, see discussion.

Edit requests

This page is the within the scope of WikiProject Edit requests, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's edit request process and reduce the number of edit requests in the edit request queue.Edit requestsWikipedia:WikiProject Edit requestsTemplate:WikiProject Edit requestsEdit requests

Books: Reference works

	Books portal This template is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. For guidelines on this template's usage, see its documentation.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook
	This template is supported by the Reference works task force.

Template-protected edit request on 9 September 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please replace the current template code with the code below for shortening the clean up template message.

{{SAFESUBST:<noinclude />#invoke:Unsubst||date=__DATE__ |$B=
<!--{{Cleanup bare URLs}} begin-->{{Ambox
| name  = Cleanup bare URLs
| type  = style
| class = ambox-cleanup-link_rot
| image = [[File:Text document with red question mark.svg|50x40px|link=|alt=]]
| issue = This {{{1|article}}} '''uses [[Wikipedia:Bare URLs|bare URLs]], which are vulnerable to [[Wikipedia:Link rot|link rot]].'''
| fix   = Please consider converting them to [[Wikipedia:Citing sources#Citation styles|full citations]] by referring to the [[Wikipedia:Template index/Sources of articles#Examples|template index]] or using tools such as [[User:Dispenser/Reflinks|Reflinks]], [[Wikipedia:ReFill|reFill]] and [[User:Citation bot|Citation bot]].
| date  = {{{date|}}}
| cat   = Articles needing cleanup
| cat2  = Articles with bare URLs for citations
| all2  = All articles with bare URLs for citations
| cat3  = Articles covered by WikiProject Wikify
| all3  = All articles covered by WikiProject Wikify
| removalnotice = yes
}}<!--{{Cleanup bare URLs}} end-->
}}<noinclude>
{{Documentation}}
</noinclude>

CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 19:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CactiStaccingCrane, could you please sandbox this? At the moment it's not clear what you're changing. Primefac (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac, here's a diff:

Qwerfjkl talk 22:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done This does not look like an improvement to me. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 23 September 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove the link to Reflinks: it doesn't load/work, is unmaintained, doesn't even have an actual domain as is basically redundant in light of the latter two tools linked. Thanks.

– Isochrone (T) 16:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done SWinxy (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

excessive usage (cont'd)

I used Wikipedia's external tool (available at "what links here") and got:

23883 transclusion(s) found

This tells me that, yes, this template (not to mention the defense of it here on talk!) was used overly aggressively. The argument "it's only temporary" has fallen. The end result is completely predictable; that bare URLs are not welcomed in the way our information page suggests:

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!

Assuming we like it when readers contribute with new references, we should not punish them by posting highly-visible templates at the top of the screen. Especially if this doesn't help and these templates remain there semi-permanently, mostly acting to shame perfectly good ("helpful first steps", remember?) additions. (Hint: stop assuming a tag will magically make others do editing work!)

Now let's get rid of these unsightly templates. The fact an URL is bare is a perfectly reasonable technical note for editors - it should not be given equal importance to templates that actually caution readers the article information might be compromised somehow. That a URL is bare is not a problem for the reader, at least not a sufficiently huge one that merits tagging the entire article. If this template ("Cleanup bare URLs") lives at the end of articles, or at talk pages, that feels like a measured approach. Remember, this was more or less a personal crusade, with no discussion about "should we actually do" this beforehand. And the rather extreme responses I got last time around (see #Excessive_usage? above or in the archive) achieved their purpose - steering away discussion from a calm friendly discussion aimed at reaching a consensus.

So let us discuss this from the start. Let me first say I completely agree some of you are utterly fed up by the thankless job of converting references and that creating "full" references definitely is a worthy job that makes the encyclopedia better.

So why not admonish users that don't do this? Why not scare/shame our readers into not contributing bare urls?

Because it does not work.

The only result you ever get by punishing people, telling them what to do and not to do is that they simply stop helping out. The presence of this tag on top of (if I understand transclusions correctly) over 20000 articles makes people go "if Wiki doesn't approve of my reference then fuck them" and they leave.

This tag is the perfect example of losing sight of what's important. Welcoming users in a friendly way is far more important than lecturing contributors they didn't do enough. This tag is a blight on Wikipedia, seeing how it has been spammed onto so very many pages. Again your aims are commendable and not something I question; let's discuss the ways we go about this.

We should - as our information page says - welcome contributors even if they can't understand or take the time to make a full citation. As I write on my user page: "I subscribe to the school of thought that considers all references welcome contributions to Wikipedia, including bare URL references. Complaining about them will only result in fewer contributions."

Full citations are maybe trivial to write for you. But you reading this is highly likely to be a very experienced Wikipedian with a year's worth of editing experience (if not a dozen). Please don't assume it is reasonable to ask new or newish people to choose between either contributing a full citation or not contribute at all. The alternative to just supply the link and edit the article to present its fact should be considered a perfectly reasonable contribution. Anything more than that just is too much work for enough potential contributors that we should not decide to live without them.

So. I ask of us to please stop telling or asking newcomers to create full citations. Even adding the most bare of urls (i.e. adding ref html tags before and after their link) is enough, and we should welcome and encourage readers that by this act turns into fledgling editors. The discussion on how to best get references in tip top shape should absolutely continue, but after we agree to get rid of the idea to place this banner at the top of every article for no other reason than some of its references might be bare.

CapnZapp (talk) 08:23, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your last paragraph seems to imply that we should not have this template at all; if that is the case, then this discussion should be had at WP:TFD and not here. If this is not the case, please clarify what consensus you are aiming to secure. Primefac (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The template itself, if used sparingly, is fine. The recent massive increase in usage is not fine, especially as it was just a personal initiative with no prior consensus building that it was all really needed, and actually would work. It ignored any voice saying "maybe bare URLs aren't the huge evil you're making them out to be". Let us stop deploying this template semi-routinely, at least without first having a proper discussion that identifies this tag as a workable solution to a severe enough problem, and then ends up asking select users to devote energy to seeing this template all over the place. You know, an action borne out of the needs of the greater community rather than "bold action" (which is what I meant by personal initiative). There was never any good faith attempt to get rid of the suspicion this was just a crusade by individual frustrated editors, that went "damn the consequences at least people now see we're doing something". Criticism was met by overwhelming defensiveness and far too many opportunities to make it personal, and thus derail discussion, was taken. Here are a couple of questions that I feel weren't discussed BEFORE this template saw increased usage by a sufficiently large group of editors, given the high visibility of the template. Are bare URLs really that severe of an issue to justify top banners like this? Does placing these tags really fix the problem, or do they just shame users and uglify Wikipedia semi-permanently? Is it really reasonable to ask regular users to either take the (not inconsiderable) time to construct a full citation or stay the frak away? What happened with the viewpoint that we welcome contributions and are thankful even if the references "only" contain a link? All of which should have been done BEFORE this banner was (allowed to be) spammed all across Wikipedia.

TL;DR: Let's agree to stop deploying this tag and undo its addition in all the semi-routinely applied cases, at least temporarily, until a community-wide drive to renew that push has been achieved. (Hopefully the energy for such a drive has now dissipated though.) CapnZapp (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Template:BARE URLS" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Template:BARE URLS 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/2025 October 19 § Template:BARE URLS until a consensus is reached. Thepharoah17 (talk) 00:52, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]