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 articles

	Reference works NA‑class (inactive)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Reference works, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Reference worksWikipedia:WikiProject Reference worksTemplate:WikiProject Reference worksReference works articles NA This article has been rated as NA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Not sure who has this on Watchlist, so let me first make a pinging post: @MarnetteD, PamD, BrownHairedGirl, and Matthiaspaul: - I just picked four frequent names, do feel free to ping other interested parties. CapnZapp (talk) 07:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here, as summoned, but have no idea what you want to talk about. Please clarify! PamD 07:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Okay, so I have noticed there's a very aggressive drive (or project etc) to point to Bare URL's lately. Just in March alone there appears to have been added over forty thousand instances of this template at the top of articles.

This gotta stop.

If I assume good faith, the purpose is to help y'all to better help each other to find and fix Bare URL's. That's fine. If you didn't put the banner at the top of the article! Or, if (as is alluded to in a previous talk section) you clean up articles just as quickly as you tag them. However, as a tool for internal communication, an invisible category (or something) would work just as fine. That forces me to conclude your aim isn't (only) to coordinate your efforts, but also to shame Bare URL's.

Stop this at once! Please, and thank you.

If you wish Bare URLs to be seen by the project as something bad or shameful or insufficient, bring it up to a sitewide discussion. Until then, you simply must contain your frustrations. I am going to assume everybody reading this agrees fully to the following:

Bare URL's are much better than no references at all, and Wikipedia thanks the users that add them. While Bare URLs aren't perfect, they sure are better than nothing at all. In fact, the Bare URL is the most valuable part of a citation - everything else is just gravy. Moreover, adding references is somewhat timeconsuming and awkward (for new and old users alike), and in practice the alternative to a Bare URL is often no contribution at all. — CapnZapp 07:52, 5 April 2022 — continues after insertion below

I am breaking convention to interject in the middle of CapnZapp's post to note that this assumption is not only only untrue, but is known by CapnZapp to be untrue. The relevant guidance is at WP:Bare_URLs#What_is_right_with_bare_URLs?, and it notes the problems with bare URLs. CapnZapp is aware of this, since he was party to the recent discussions on the guidance, which rejected the view he asserts in the block above.
CapnZapp should not try to mislead. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to discuss, but I'm asking you to stop putting this template at the top of so many articles unless you can show you are cleaning them up at the same pace. I see no greater consensus for your project where people are aware of lousing down the entire Wikipedia with this template.

In short: don't put this template on top of every article with a Bare URL - it is counterproductive and only makes Wikipedia look bad. Cleanup tags lose their value if "every" article has them.

At the very least I urge you to consider stopping (semi-automated additions through scripts and bots) until >80% of existing instances of this tag has been resolved and removed.

CapnZapp (talk) 07:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CapnZapp writes: don't put this template on top of every article with a Bare URL

So, some data:

• There are currently about 170,000 articles with WP:Bare URLs. (numbers from my scans of the 20220401 database dump)
• {{Cleanup bare URLs}} currently has 2038 transclusions, of which 1,589 are in articles
  • 351 of those uses are from March 2022
  • 51 of those uses are from April 2022
• so the assertion that people are lousing down the entire Wikipedia with this template is utter nonsense.

The tags are being added and removed all the time. I run a regular AWB job to remove redundant {{Cleanup bare URLs}} tags. In the last few months, the total number of pages tagged with {{Cleanup bare URLs}} has fallen from over 7,000 in mainspace to under 1,600 in mainspace.

The background to this is that @CapnZapp refuses to fill any URLs he adds, and actively opposes cleanup efforts. For an example of CapnZapp's active efforts to oppose cleanup of bare URls, see WT:Bare URLs#"we_don't_need_this" (permalink]).

Many editors are working hard to fill the bare URLs which newbie editors (and some lazy editors like CapnZapp) have added and left to rot. But yet again, instead of trying to help, CapnZapp is harassing those who do this cleanup work, and makes a wholly bogus assertion that the aim of tagging is to to shame Bare URL's. As has been pointed out to CapnZapp many times before, the aim is not to "shame" anything or anyone: it is to mark a problem which should be fixed. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS CapnZapp seems unaware of — or even contemptuous of — the huge work that is being done to fill bare URLs.

MarnetteD does a lot of work on filing them. So does Derek R Bullamore, and Storchy. PamD does some too.

And for the lst nine months, I have worked full time on en.wp doing almost nothing else but tag and/or fill bare URLs, using a huge variety of tools. Rlink2 is also doing a lot of excellent work, using skilled programming to rescue dead links and archive refs.

The result of all this work is that the total number of article-space pages with bare URLs is has fallen by about 60%: from ~470,00 in May 2021 to to ~170,00 now.

I do not expect CapnZapp to say "thank you all for cleaning up after me". But I am utterly fed up with CapnZapp's harassment of the editors who clean up the mess he makes, and with his endless assumptions of bad faith, and with his absurdly hyperbolic assertions such as Cleanup tags lose their value if "every" article has them. Thanks to the ongoing cleanup effort, {{Cleanup bare URLs}} is only on about 0.025% of articles.

Zapp, how about you stop sniping and exggerating and ABFing ... and start helping? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CapnZapp, if you feel lazy to use citation templates, you could at the very least use the bracketed form (e.g: <ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org Wikipedia, the free Encylopedia]</ref>. While some would prefer the usage of citation tempates, using this way is also acceptable per WP:CITEVAR (Correct me if I am wrong). Many veteran editors to this day use this style. However, bare refs (URLS with no other contextual information) are not acceptable via consensus because it leaves no information about the URL in question. Saying "Bare URLS are better than no reference at all" is like saying "Placing the links to the references in the article text itself (not even using the ref tag) is better than no reference at all" or "placing the references before the article itself is better than no reference at all, even though the readers have to scroll all the way down."

Would you like it if your job or employer only paid half of your salary, and when you confronted them, they said "Being paid some money is better than being paid no money at all"?

BrownHairedGirl has been editing Wikipedia since 2006 - that's a long time. For perspective, In 2006, Bush was still president and Youtube/Facebook/Twitter were barely a thing. These singers were still popular as well, the iPhone didn't exist in 2006 either.

Due to her extensive experience on Wikipedia, she's seen first hand the damage bare URLs can do to the project. So when she says Bare URLS should be filled, she's basing her opinion of a a decade and a half of experience on this website. Experience very few others have.

Brownhairedgirl and others have given reasons for why bare URLs should not be placed in, but I can't see any reasons coming from you that show bare URLs are a good thing.

in practice the alternative to a Bare URL is often no contribution at all. Wikipedia has tens of thousands of contributors and the majority of them are not adding bare URLS at all. The alternative to a Bare URL is a citation with the title of the source included, at the minimum.

Per Wikipedia policy: Contributors whose actions over a period of time are detrimental to the goal of creating a high-quality encyclopedia may be asked to refrain from those actions, when other efforts to address the issue have failed, even when their actions are undertaken in good faith.. And that's exactly what Primefac and BrownHairedGirl have done in the discussion above. What sets Wikipedia apart from other wikis (Fandom, Miraheze, RationalWiki, etc...) is the way we treat sources and citations (not to say the other wikis are low quality, its just that their goals, purpose, and focus are different).

Another relevant section of policy is : While editors are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and practices to the best of their abilities, they are not expected to be perfect. However, they are expected to listen to feedback from others and, where appropriate, learn from it. Repeated and serious editing errors can be disruptive as they create unnecessary work for others. and that is also what is happening here, because editors are forced to clean up after any possible additions of Bare URLs. So while I don't think adding Bare URLS is disruptive when someone is unaware of the downsides, it can be construed that that continuing to add them while knowing about the downsides, which goes against clear consensus, and while having no clear reason for doing so, is a different story. At the very least, if you are going to add Bare URLs, you should have a good reason for doing so, like I said above.

Brownhairedgirl has spent nearly 70 hours a week on cleaning up bare URLs. The mininum wage in Ireland is 12 dollars an hour. Her work is much more valuable and skilled then 12 dollars an hour, so let's say she was hypothetically being paid 25 dollars an hour for her work. 25 dollars * 70 hours * 4 weeks * 9 months is $63,000 dollars. So that means that BrownHairedGirl has peformed about $63,000 dollars worth of work on Wikipedia in the past 9 months to clean up bare URLs. That's alot of hypothetical money, and work. Combine everyone elses work on cleaning bare URLS, we are talking about thousands of hours of man time and hundreds of thousands of dollars in hypothetical money and worth.

At the end of the day, if you still don't understand, I agree with Johnuniq's suggestion: Please just make a proposal for a change and give a reason for why it should be implemented. - the village pumps are always there.

cc @BrownHairedGirl Rlink2 (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be writing under the assumption I want to change anything - I don't. (Unless you suggest I need to go to the pumps to change how this template gets used? If so, no, the current discussion is enough for me at least) But when BHG wrote "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", my response is "so you want me to stop adding references altogether?" Thus far, we haven't been able to get to the crux of the issue. BHG makes it out to be like I'm harassing her. I am not. I have no need for big emotions or drama; I just want her to understand that if she were to successfully prohibit users from adding bare URLs the alternative would most likely be that no references at all would be added, and I have a hard time wrapping my head around that thinking. To me, that indicates someone too frustrated with their (valuable) cleanup work. To me, such a person sees only/mostly problems with bare URLs instead of mostly seeing value. If you Rlink2 want to make the sitewide case that adding bare URLs is disruptive when the editor no longer is a newbie (my words not yours), you should go ahead with that. It is as far as I can see not at all the case currently. To the best of my knowledge references are only discussed on a few pages, and bare URLs are hardly mentioned at all outside of Bare URLs - which isn't even policy or guideline. I'm basing my stance on what I can read in our documentation, and what I see is

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!

This, by the way, is the current version which BHG, Marnette and Primefac have all edited more recently than I. If you can point me to an actual policy or guideline that prohibits (does not welcome, strongly discourages, hates, finds unhelpful or disruptive, or somesuch) the contributing of references in the form of Bare URLs (and thus also the rejection of additions that thus would go unsourced) we should certainly rephrase the above. Myself I would see that as a huge blow to Wikipedia's friendliness and ease of use, and I reject BHG's view that I am somehow disruptive to the project. Now then - do you still think I don't "understand"? Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CapnZapp

so you want me to stop adding references altogether?

Using the previous examples, imagine if your employer said "Yeah, were paying you half of what we promised, but do you want us to stop paying you completely?"

Imagine if you blanked the article with the ref, and a note that says "If you want the full article go to the page history", and you tell the person who reverts your edit that "so you want me to stop adding references all together"?

Imagine if you put in the ref tag that the link to the source is on your talk page or is hidden in a comment on another article, and someone says that you should actually put in the article, would you tell them that "so you want me to stop adding references all together"?

Imagine if you just randomly placed the link in the middle of the article, in a place where it doesn't even belong, in the middle of sentnces, and when someone asks you to do it the right way, you say: "this is easier for me; do you want me to stop adding references all together?"

You get the idea.

want to make the sitewide case that adding bare URLs is disruptive when the editor no longer is a newbie (my words not yours) I never said that. I quoted Wikipedia policy that states engaging in activites that go against consensus is disruptive, especially when other people have pointed out the errors in the editing.

I have no need for big emotions or drama; Me neither. I dont like drama.

To me, that indicates someone too frustrated with their (valuable) cleanup work. You opened up with this thread demanding that the cleanup work should stop. You said Stop this at once! Please, and thank you. in your first post here.

I just want her to understand that if she were to successfully prohibit users from adding bare URLs the alternative would most likely be that no references at all would be added and Myself I would see that as a huge blow to Wikipedia's friendliness and ease of use Reminder that 99% of the URLS added to Wikipedia daily are not bare URLs, so the result of Bare URLS being banned is that the few people adding bare URLs will learn the "right" way of doing stuff.

I'm basing my stance on what I can read in our documentation The documentation is supposed to reflect consensus. If there is a difference between what the conesnsus is and what the documentation is, the consensus wins and the documentation needs to be updated. That phrase was added in only after you started complaining about Bare URLs being a good thing.

If you can point me to an actual policy or guideline that prohibits Policies reflect conesnus, and the conensus is that bare URLS should not be added if at all possible. In this case, it is possible to not use Bare URLs, but you don't want to and haven't given a reason for why.

If you think Bare URLs are good, we would like to hear your reasoning behind it. Rlink2 (talk) 19:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in arguing "Bare URLs are good", the Bare URL essay already tells me that (and the absence of even a mention of bare URLs in the overarching policy documents re: citations is also telling). If you believe "the conensus is that bare URLS should not be added if at all possible" you are (once again) welcome to change the documentation to "reflect" that consensus (and ideally you would edit a policy or guideline, not merely an essay). Myself, I think that if that indeed were the consensus somebody would have attempted to "reflect" that view in the documentation. Before the current spate of edits, say July last year (but do feel free to pick your own revision), the section called "What is wrong with bare URLs?" began with: "There is nothing wrong with adding bare URL references to Wikipedia. If you only have time and inclination to copy the reference URL you found, we thank you for your contribution!" I can only assume the document indeed does reflect consensus here - the meaning if not the phrasing remains essentially intact today! CapnZapp (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CapnZapp

you are (once again) welcome to change the documentation to "reflect" that consensus (and ideally you would edit a policy or guideline, not merely an essay). You are missing the point of what I am trying to say. This is not about the documentation (or lack thereof). You started the thread asking the editors working on Bare URLs to stop their work because This gotta stop., and that While Bare URLs aren't perfect, they sure are better than nothing at all. (both of which have been addressed) We wouldn't have even known you were adding bare URLs until you decided to bring it up.

For a moment, let's ignore the documentation. Let's focus on what editors are saying, because consensus, and not necessarily a guideline document, is what we have to follow. If a guideline said "If you don't have the time to put your reference in a ref tag, feel free to just paste it randomly in the article, we thank you for your contribution!" it doesn't mean there is consensus for that.

Similiarly, if your paycheck said We don't have the resources to pay you what we promised, but thank you for your service! you would be angry, wouldn't you?

Before the current spate of edits, say July last year (but do feel free to pick your own revision), the section called "What is wrong with bare URLs?" began with: "There is nothing wrong with adding bare URL references to Wikipedia. If you only have time and inclination to copy the reference URL you found, we thank you for your contribution!" Before you started all of this, the article had no such language. You added the language here in 2019: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bare_URLs&diff=928389198&oldid=925793258 and its been reworded and added upon since, but that was your addition. Maybe it was an acceptable addition then, but keep in mind Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for both individual editors and particularly the community as a whole to change its mind. Rlink2 (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CapnZapp, this is the third page on which you have tried in the last few months to create a drama about bare URL cleanup.

In each case, your vocal complaints are based on your false premises and your endless assumptions of bad faith.

On this page you have asserted falsely that {{Cleanup bare URLs}} is being applied on a huge scale: that people are lousing down the entire Wikipedia with this template. Utter nonsense: the template has less than 1,600 uses in mainspace, and that number has been falling for three months.

The second false assumption is CapnZapp's statement to me I just want her to understand that if she were to successfully prohibit users from adding bare URLs.

This is also utter nonsense: I have no such goal, and I have not said anything which could be interpreted as a desire for prohibition. That is a complete fabrication.

CapnZapp has also asserted that your aim isn't (only) to coordinate your efforts, but also to shame Bare URL's. This too is utterly false.

CapnZapp sys BHG makes it out to be like I'm harassing her. I am not.. That too is utter nonsense: the harassment is CapnZapp's assumptions of bad faith and repeated false claims. I am fed up with having to waste tine rebutting this barrage of nonsense. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All this time I'm spending talking here is time I could be using to work on BareRefBot and similar. So this will probably be my last response.

@CapnZapp, you have every right to hold your opinions. If you want to continue using bare URLs, I will respect your decision. No one will stop you from adding bare URLs to articles, if that's what you want to do. At the same time, respect should be given to the people that fill in the bare refs, because while you say a bare ref is better than no ref, I think we are all in agreement that a non bare ref is better than a bare ref. We did not approach you to stop using Bare URLs, you approached us to stop filling Bare URLs. Rlink2 (talk) 02:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am certainly not stopping anyone from filling bare URLs, or trying to. I did ask the question whether it was necessary to involve highly public banners in that work, since it doesn't make sense to me to first welcome the contributions only to then slap a big banner on them. I still think nothing good will come out of the present attempt to making bare URLs out to be some kind of bogeyman, and I don't see where BHG has demonstrated the need to go about it this way. Maybe the (worthy) work could be done in a less conspicuous manner, that is more in the spirit of what I can read over at Bare URLs? CapnZapp (talk) 07:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The banners are fine: there is no harm in reminding editors that bare URL refs are below the expected standard and should be improved for the benefit of current and future readers of the article, and acknowledging to readers that this article is sub-optimal in that regard. PamD 07:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CapnZapp writes I still think nothing good will come out of the present attempt to making bare URLs out to be some kind of bogeyman.

Yet more hyperbolic nonsense.

1. See WP:Cleanup tags: the tags are used "to inform readers and editors of specific problems with articles or sections".
   The notion that there is some attempt to portray bare URLs as a bogeyman is yet another assumption of bad faith by CapnZapp
2. The process of tagging bare URLs to assist cleanup has been ongoing since late May 2021. In that time, the number of articles with bare URLs has fallen from ~470,000 to ~170,000, a fall of over 60%. At the end of June 2021, the May 2021 and June 2021 categories of tagged articles had a combined total of over 30K pages, but as of now the combined total is only 2,063 pages.
   Note that the fall in the total number of bare URLs is way higher than 60%, because many pages which had multiple bare URLs have been partially cleaned up by filling some of those bare URLs.
   So the success of this approach is proven. And CapnZapp knows that, because I explained that 60% fall to him yesterday in my second reply to him on this page.

Note that in the last 20 days, CapnZapp has made a total of 56 edits. 17 of those 56 (i.e 30%) are to non-article pages in pursuit of CapnZapp's efforts campaign against cleaning up bare URLs.

CapnZapp's ABF rampage across 3 talk pages is unfounded in fact, and it amounts to harassment of those who are working hard to clean up the mess which CapnZapp intentionally creates. Enough! BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Bare URLs are inadequate references. They are better than nothing for most readers when they are created, but they may become useless in weeks, months or years when the source goes offline or is moved to a different URL. And they do not clearly show the reader what the source is, giving an indication of its usefulness. This is all well known, and BHG is doing amazing work to increase the usefulness of these bare url refs, which may have been added by inexperienced editors who don't know how to format a reference properly, or by those who do, or should, know but choose not to do things properly for reasons of laziness or otherwise. When BHG's work shows up on my (enormous) watchlist, I support her by fixing the identified refs ( recently a couple of Jerusalem post refs she had flagged as not fixable by Refill, if I remember rightly). I fully support BHG's work. If anyone finds the link rot template on a page unsightly, the remedy is in their hands: improve the encyclopedia by mending the refs. PamD 15:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The comment accusing editors who don't format citations of "laziness" is not helping your cause here. Some editors might do 90% content and 10% maintenance stuff, other editors might do 90% gnomish edits and 10% content, yet others might do 90% vandalism fighting and 10% other stuff. It's a volunteer project. We accept all contributions. Let people contribute how they like rather than accuse people who don't contribute in some favored style of being lazy, rather than having different priorities or deciding that they're more productive doing other things and letting others fix citations. SnowFire (talk) 19:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Mass spamming of Cleanup bare URLsMoxy- 17:14, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_71#Mass_addition_of_Cleanup_bare_URLs_template. CapnZapp (talk) 11:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Qwerfjkltalk 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]

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]

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]