Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Bare URLs

Project page Talk
Wikimedia essay
Wikipedia information page
This is an information page.
It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, but rather intends to describe some aspect(s) of Wikipedia's norms, customs, technicalities, or practices. It may reflect varying levels of consensus and vetting.
Shortcuts
  • WP:BAREURLS
  • WP:BURL
This page in a nutshell: Simply copying and pasting the URL of an online reference is not ideal, exposing the reference to linkrot. It is preferable to use proper citation templates when citing sources.

A bare URL is a URL cited as a reference for some information in an article without any accompanying information about the linked page. In other words, it is just the text out of the URL bar of a web browser copied and pasted into the Wiki text, inserted between <ref></ref> tags or simply provided as an external link, without title, author, date, or any of the usual information necessary for a bibliographic citation or helping to fix external links that no longer work because the linked web pages or complete websites disappear, change their content, or move without HTML redirection—so-called link rot.

Contents

  • 1 What is a bare URL?
  • 2 What is right with bare URLs?
  • 3 What is wrong with bare URLs?
    • 3.1 Examples
  • 4 Helping to prevent future link rot
  • 5 See also
  • 6 References

What is a bare URL?Edit

A bare URL is the URL with no other information about the source. If a URL is accompanied by any other information, it is not considered bare.

In this context, information refers to data that are useful to build a bibliographic citation and/or help fix link rot. Examples include the title of the destination page, the date it was published, its author and so on. Even if the link goes dead, one might be able to use this additional information to find the article elsewhere.


Here is an example of a bare URL:

Some text http://support.nikontech.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/14083 more text, which displays inline as:

Some text http://support.nikontech.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/14083 more text


Common variations of this include:

Some text<ref>http://support.nikontech.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/14083</ref> more text, which displays inline as:

Some text[1] more text

Some text [http://support.nikontech.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/14083] more text, which displays inline as:

Some text [1] more text

Some text [http://support.nikontech.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/14083 Nikon] more text, which displays inline as:

Some text Nikon more text


All of the above examples use the same bare URL – it is just a URL with no accompanying information. The word "Nikon" as displayed text adds no info beyond what is displayed in the URL; displaying only "Nikon" or a number actually gives the reader less info than the raw URL.


Contrast this with a full citation using the {{cite web}} template:

Some text<ref>{{cite web |title=Answer ID 14083: D2X Firmware update 2.0.0 — Windows |publisher=Nikon USA Inc |work=Find Answers |date=2008 |url=http://support.nikontech.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/14083 |access-date=2009-05-09}}</ref> more text, which displays inline as:

Some text[2] more text, and displays under References as:
2. "Answer ID 14083: D2X Firmware update 2.0.0 — Windows". Find Answers. Nikon USA Inc. 2008. Retrieved 2009-05-09.

It shows much more information about the article. Even if the link no longer works, one can see that it previously linked to a web page containing some technical discussion revolving around a specific Nikon firmware update that might be obtainable through other means.


Here is a variation of this citation, typed in "manually" as:

Some text<ref>[http://support.nikontech.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/14083 "Answer ID 14083: D2X Firmware update 2.0.0 — Windows"]. ''Find Answers''. Nikon USA Inc. 2008. Retrieved 2009-05-09.</ref> more text, which displays identically inline as:

Some text[3] more text, and displays identically under References as:
3. "Answer ID 14083: D2X Firmware update 2.0.0 — Windows". Find Answers. Nikon USA Inc. 2008. Retrieved 2009-05-09.

Even though it did not use a {cite ...} template, this version shows full information, and thus is not a bare URL.


Some citation styles, such as the MLA style, use full bibliographic citation that happen to display the text of the URL in addition to proper identifying information, like the author, date, and title of the publication. These are not considered bare URLs.

What is right with bare URLs?Edit

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!

However, please note that a bare URL reference is also much less helpful than a fully-formatted citation. Please help readers and editors by using full citations instead.

What is wrong with bare URLs?Edit

A bare URL is much less helpful than a full citation:

  1. Bare URLs are subject to link rot. The usability of a bare URL depends entirely on the target web site both continuing to host the page, and retaining its chosen site structure. It is under no obligation to do either.
  2. A Bare URL provides much less information to the reader than a full citation.
  3. Bare URLs are not very digitally accessible. Screenreaders can navigate directly to hyperlinked text, so digital accessibility guidelines advise hyperlinking descriptive text that explains where the link leads to.

Bare URLs are most easily filled by the editor who adds the URL as a reference. That editor has read the webpage, and therefore has all the details in front of them. An editor citing any source should assess it to check that is a reliable source, so they should have checked issue such as article title, date, author(s), publisher, page number, etc.

By contrast, another editor coming later to fill the reference has to start from the beginning and replicate all that work ... and by the time they read the webpage, its contents may have been changed or even been replaced with something completely different.

ExamplesEdit

All of the following bare URL citations of the International Herald Tribune have "rotted" (stopped working), since The New York Times restructured the IHT's web site:

  • http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/01/europe/EU-GEN-Denmark-Obit-Wegner.php
  • http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/10/africa/eu.php
  • http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/07/13/europe/EU-Britain-Zimbabwe.php

A full citation, in contrast, gives the author, title, publisher, publication, and date of the work. So, if the web site address changes, the additional information may assist in finding the new location. If the source is no longer available on the internet, then the additional information may assist in tracking down the source if it is in printed form, microfiche archives, article/paper collections, published as books, and the like.

This is a full citation of the first International Herald Tribune article, using the {{cite news}} template:

  • Colman, David (February 1, 2007). "Hans Wegner, 92, Broke Ground with Danish Modern chair Designs". International Herald Tribune. La Défense, FR: The New York Times Company. Archived from the original on February 23, 2007. Retrieved February 25, 2020.

Notice that with the full information that appeared in the citation before the URL died, it was possible to retrieve the IHT article via Web.Archive.org (which we did here, to add the archived URL), but also via LexisNexis, HighBeam Research, and others (even though the IHT's own webpage is no longer active).

Secondary problems with bare URLs are that—unless a readable text is used—they are ugly, and can affect the display of a page. For example, this bare URL with no readable text causes page widening:

  • http://support.nikontech.com/cgi-bin/nikonusa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=14083&p_created=1159553141&p_sid=PMjnxbji&p_accessibility=0&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPSZwX3NvcnRfYnk9JnBfZ3JpZHNvcnQ9JnBfcm93X2NudD03JnBfcHJvZHM9MTksMTQ3JnBfY2F0cz0xODYmcF9wdj0yLjE0NyZwX2N2PTEuMTg2JnBfc2VhcmNoX3R5cGU9YW5zd2Vycy5zZWFyY2hfbmwmcF9wYWdlPTE*&p_li=&p_topview=1

The length problem can be fixed cosmetically using the form:

  • [very_very_long_URL_is_presented_first Useful readable text comes next]

Note that the very first space is what is separating URL from link label, here between "first" and "Useful" (and inversely the URL cannot contain spaces, but the label text can). Here is an example using the very long link above:

  • D2X Firmware update 2.0.0—Windows

... but this cosmetic fix is crude. It is much less helpful to readers than a full citation. And future editors are again left with the challenge of repairing the citation, when the URL in this form of presentation dies. The separate fields of a full citation using citation templates also allow the use of bots and other tools to help with some tasks.

Helping to prevent future link rotEdit

Please consider supplementing your bare URLs—creating full citations with title, author, date, publisher, etc.

If you encounter an article with many bare URLs, you can help in one of three ways:

  1. Tag the article. This can be done in two ways:
    • at the top of the page with {{Cleanup bare URLs}}. This displays a header requesting that the citations be expanded, and categorizes the article as needing cleanup, bringing it to the attention of other Wikipedians. The script User:BrownHairedGirl/linkrot.js can be used to apply the tag and to remove it from articles which no longer have any bare URLs.
    • Better still, use {{Bare URL inline}}. This can be done using the script User:BrownHairedGirl/BareURLinline.js
  2. Even more helpful would be to expand the bare URLs into citations manually.
  3. reFill, RefLinks, and ReferenceExpander are tools can be used to resolve some bare references semi-automatically. Citation bot can also fill some bare references. The output of the tools must be checked by the editor, who is responsible for the edit.

Before linkrot became a widespread and well-understood issue, many Wikipedia articles were created with bare URLs. Even today editors frequently cite sources by inserting bare URLs. While this is much better than leaving articles unsourced, it does expose the references to link rot.

We can all help to fix this problem. You can help by volunteering to expand bare URLs into proper citations, in articles which interest you, articles which are linked to them, or articles selected as random articles. If you notice an editor habitually adding bare URLs, then please consider leaving a polite note on their talk page thanking them for adding URLs, but referring them to Wikipedia:Inline citations for clear examples of good practices.

See alsoEdit

  • A list of Wikipedia articles with bare URLs
  • Wikipedia:Citing sources, for information about how to construct a full bibliographic citation.
  • Category:Articles with bare URLs for citations
  • Special:RandomInCategory/All articles with bare URLs for citations
  • Userbox:
{{User:UBX/reFill}}
 This user uses reFill to expand bare references.
linked pages

ReferencesEdit

  1. ^ http://support.nikontech.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/14083
  2. ^ "Answer ID 14083: D2X Firmware update 2.0.0 — Windows". Find Answers. Nikon USA Inc. 2008. Retrieved 2009-05-09.
  3. ^ "Answer ID 14083: D2X Firmware update 2.0.0 — Windows". Find Answers. Nikon USA Inc. 2008. Retrieved 2009-05-09.
  • v
  • t
  • e
Wikipedia essays
Essays on building, editing, and deleting content
Philosophy
  • Articles must be written
  • All Five Pillars are the same height
  • Avoid vague introductions
  • Be a reliable source
  • Civil POV pushing
  • Cohesion
  • Competence is required
  • Concede lost arguments
  • Dissent is not disloyalty
  • Don't lie
  • Don't search for objections
  • Editing Wikipedia is like visiting a foreign country
  • Editors will sometimes be wrong
  • Eight simple rules for editing our encyclopedia
  • Explanationism
  • External criticism of Wikipedia
  • Here to build an encyclopedia
  • Levels of competence
  • Most ideas are bad
  • Need
  • Neutrality of sources
  • Not editing because of Wikipedia restriction
  • The one question
  • Oversimplification
  • Paradoxes
  • Paraphrasing
  • POV and OR from editors, sources, and fields
  • Process is important
  • Product, process, policy
  • Purpose
  • Reasonability rule
  • Systemic bias
  • There is no seniority
  • Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia
  • Tendentious editing
  • The role of policies in collaborative anarchy
  • The rules are principles
  • Trifecta
  • Wikipedia in brief
  • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
  • Wikipedia is a community
  • Wikipedia is not RationalWiki
Article construction
  • 100K featured articles
  • Abandoned stubs
  • Acronym overkill
  • Advanced source searching
  • Adding images improves the encyclopedia
  • Advanced article editing
  • Advanced table formatting
  • Advanced template coding
  • Advanced text formatting
  • Akin's Laws of Article Writing
  • Alternatives to the "Expand" template
  • Amnesia test
  • A navbox on every page
  • An unfinished house is a real problem
  • Articles have a half-life
  • Autosizing images
  • Avoid mission statements
  • Bare URLs
  • Be neutral in form
  • Beef up that first revision
  • Blind men and an elephant
  • BOLD, revert, discuss cycle
  • Build content to endure
  • Cherrypicking
  • Chesterton's fence
  • Children's lit, adult new readers, & large-print books
  • Citation overkill
  • Citation underkill
  • Common-style fallacy
  • Concept cloud
  • Creating controversial content
  • Criticisms of society may be consistent with NPOV and reliability
  • Deprecated sources
  • Dictionaries as sources
  • Don't demolish the house while it's still being built
  • Don't get hung up on minor details
  • Don't hope the house will build itself
  • Don't panic
  • Don't revert due solely to "no consensus"
  • Don't "teach the controversy"
  • Editing on mobile devices
  • Editors are not mindreaders
  • Encourage the newcomers
  • Endorsements (commercial)
  • Featured articles may have problems
  • Formatting bilateral relations articles
  • Formatting bilateral relations templates
  • Fruit of the poisonous tree
  • Give an article a chance
  • How to write a featured article
  • Identifying and using independent sources
    • History sources
    • Law sources
    • Primary sources
    • Science sources
    • Style guides
    • Tertiary sources
  • Ignore STRONGNAT for date formats
  • Inaccuracies in Wikipedia namespace
  • Inaccuracy
  • Introduction to structurism
  • Link rot
  • Mine a source
  • Merge Test
  • Minors and persons judged incompetent
  • "Murder of" articles
  • Not every story/event/disaster needs a biography
  • Not everything needs a navbox
  • Not everything needs a template
  • Not everything needs a WikiProject
  • Nothing is in stone
  • Obtain peer review comments
  • Organizing disambiguation pages by subject area
  • Permastub
  • Potential, not just current state
  • Presentism
  • Principle of Some Astonishment
  • Pro and con lists
  • Printability
  • Pruning article revisions
  • Publicists
  • Put a little effort into it
  • Restoring part of a reverted edit
  • Robotic editing
  • Sham consensus
  • Source your plot summaries
  • Specialized-style fallacy
  • Stub Makers
  • Run an edit-a-thon
  • Temporary versions of articles
  • Tertiary-source fallacy
  • There are no shortcuts to neutrality
  • There is no deadline
  • There is a deadline
  • The deadline is now
  • Understanding Wikipedia's content standards
  • Walled garden
  • What an article should not include
  • Wikipedia is a work in progress
  • Wikipedia is not a reliable source
  • Wikipedia is not being written in an organized fashion
  • The world will not end tomorrow
  • Write the article first
  • Writing better articles
Writing article content
  • Avoid thread mode
  • Copyediting reception sections
  • Coup
  • Gender-neutral language
  • Proseline
  • Use our own words
  • We shouldn't be able to figure out your opinions
  • Write the article first
  • Writing about women
  • Writing better articles
Removing or
deleting content
  • Adjectives in your recommendations
  • AfD is not a war zone
  • Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
  • Arguments to avoid in deletion reviews
  • Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions
  • Arguments to make in deletion discussions
  • Avoid repeated arguments
  • Before commenting in a deletion discussion
  • But there must be sources!
  • Confusing arguments mean nothing
  • Content removal
  • Counting and sorting are not original research
  • Delete the junk
  • Deletion is not cleanup
  • Does deletion help?
  • Don't attack the nominator
  • Don't confuse stub status with non-notability
  • Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument
  • Follow the leader
  • How to save an article proposed for deletion
  • I just don't like it
  • Identifying blatant advertising
  • Identifying test edits
  • Immunity
  • Keep it concise
  • Liar liar pants on fire
  • Nothing
  • Nothing is clear
  • Overzealous deletion
  • Relisting can be abusive
  • Relist bias
  • The Heymann Standard
  • Unopposed AFD discussion
  • Wikipedia is not Whack-A-Mole
  • Why was the page I created deleted?
  • What to do if your article gets tagged for speedy deletion
  • When in doubt, hide it in the woodwork
  • No Encyclopedic Use
Essays on civility
The basics
  • Accepting other users
  • Apology
  • Contributing to complicated discussions
  • Divisiveness
  • Edit at your own pace
  • Encouraging the newcomers
  • Enjoy yourself
  • Expect no thanks
  • High-functioning autism and Asperger's editors
  • How to be civil
  • Maintaining a friendly space
  • Negotiation
  • Obsessive–compulsive disorder editors
  • Please say please
  • Relationships with academic editors
  • Thank you
  • Too long; didn't read
  • Truce
  • Unblock perspectives
  • We are all Wikipedians here
Philosophy
  • A weak personal attack is still wrong
  • Advice for hotheads
  • An uncivil environment is a poor environment
  • Be the glue
  • Beware of the tigers!
  • Civility warnings
  • Deletion as revenge
  • Failure
  • Forgive and forget
  • It's not the end of the world
  • Nobody cares
  • Most people who disagree with you on content are not vandals
  • Old-fashioned Wikipedian values
  • Profanity, civility, and discussions
  • Revert notification opt-out
  • Shadowless Fists of Death!
  • Staying cool when the editing gets hot
  • The grey zone
  • The last word
  • There is no Divine Right Of Editors
  • Most ideas are bad
  • Nothing is clear
  • Reader
  • The rules of polite discourse
  • There is no common sense
  • Two wrongs don't make a right
  • Wikipedia is not about winning
  • Wikipedia should not be a monopoly
  • Writing for the opponent
Dos
  • Argue better
  • Assume good faith
  • Assume the assumption of good faith
  • Assume no clue
  • Avoid personal remarks
  • Avoid the word "vandal"
  • Be excellent to one another
  • Beyond civility
  • Call a spade a spade
  • Candor
  • Deny recognition
  • Desist
  • Discussing cruft
  • Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass
  • Encourage full discussions
  • Get over it
  • How to lose
  • Imagine others complexly
  • Just drop it
  • Keep it down to earth
  • Mind your own business
  • Say "MOBY"
  • Mutual withdrawal
  • Read before commenting
  • Settle the process first
Don'ts
  • ALPHABETTISPAGHETTI
  • Civil POV pushing
  • Cyberbullying
  • Don't accuse someone of a personal attack for accusing of a personal attack
  • Don't be a fanatic
  • Don't be a jerk
  • Don't be an ostrich
  • Don't be ashamed
  • Don't be a WikiBigot
  • Don't be high-maintenance
  • Don't be inconsiderate
  • Don't be obnoxious
  • Don't be prejudiced
  • Don't be rude
  • Don't be the Fun Police
  • Don't bludgeon the process
  • Don't call a spade a spade
  • Don't call the kettle black
  • Don't call things cruft
  • Don't come down like a ton of bricks
  • Don't cry COI
  • Don't demand that editors solve the problems they identify
  • Don't drink the consensus Kool-Aid
  • Don't eat the troll's food
  • Don't fight fire with fire
  • Don't give a fuck
  • Don't help too much
  • Don't knit beside the guillotine
  • Don't make a smarmy valediction part of your signature
  • Don't remind others of past misdeeds
  • Don't shout
  • Don't spite your face
  • Don't take the bait
  • Don't template the regulars
  • Don't throw your toys out of the pram
  • Do not insult the vandals
  • Griefing
  • Nationalist editing
  • No angry mastodons
    • just madmen
  • No Nazis
  • No racists
  • No Confederates
  • No, you can't have a pony
  • Passive aggression
  • Please don't bite the newcomers
  • POV railroad
  • Superhatting
  • There are no oracles
  • You can't squeeze blood from a turnip
  • UPPERCASE
WikiRelations
  • WikiBullying
  • WikiCrime
  • WikiHarassment
  • WikiHate
  • WikiLawyering
  • WikiLove
  • WikiPeace
Essays on notability
  • Advanced source searching
  • All high schools can be notable
  • Alternative outlets
  • Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
  • Articles with a single source
  • Avoid template creep
  • Bare notability
  • Big events make key participants notable
  • Bombardment
  • Businesses with a single location
  • But it's true!
  • Citation overkill
  • Common sourcing mistakes
  • Clones
  • Coatrack
  • Discriminate vs indiscriminate information
  • Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity
  • Every snowflake is unique
  • Existence ≠ Notability
  • Existence does not prove notability
  • Extracting the meaning of significant coverage
  • Fart
  • Google searches and numbers
  • High Schools
  • Inclusion is not an indicator of notability
  • Independent sources
  • Inherent notability
  • Insignificant
  • Masking the lack of notability
  • Make stubs
  • News coverage does not decrease notability
  • No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability
  • No big loss
  • No one cares about your garage band
  • No one really cares
  • Notability/Historical/Arguments
  • Notability cannot be purchased
  • Notability comparison test
  • Notability is not a level playing field
  • Notability is not a matter of opinion
  • Notability is not relevance or reliability
  • Notability means impact
  • Notability points
  • Notability sub-pages
  • Notabilitymandering
  • Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article
  • Obscurity ≠ Lack of notability
  • Offline sources
  • One hundred words
  • One sentence does not an article make
  • Other stuff exists
  • Overreliance upon Google
  • Perennial websites
  • Pokémon test
  • Read the source
  • Reducing consensus to an algorithm
  • Run-of-the-mill
  • Significant coverage not required
  • Solutions are mixtures and nothing else
  • Subjective importance
  • Third-party sources
  • Trivial mentions
  • Video links
  • Vanispamcruftisement
  • What BLP1E is not
  • What is and is not routine coverage
  • What notability is not
  • What to include
  • Wikipedia is not Crunchbase
  • Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause
  • Wikipedia is not the place to post your résumé
Humorous essays
  • Adminitis
  • Akin's Laws of Article Writing
  • Alternatives to edit warring
  • ANI flu
  • Anti-Wikipedian
  • Anti-Wikipedianism
  • Articlecountitis
  • Asshole John rule
  • Assume bad faith
  • Assume faith
  • Assume good wraith
  • Assume stupidity
  • Assume that everyone's assuming good faith, assuming that you are assuming good faith
  • Avoid using preview button
  • Avoid using wikilinks
  • Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense
  • Barnstaritis
  • Before they were notable
  • BOLD, revert, revert, revert
  • Boston Tea Party
  • Butterfly effect
  • CaPiTaLiZaTiOn MuCh?
  • Complete bollocks
  • Counting forks
  • Counting juntas
  • Crap
  • Don't stuff beans up your nose
  • Don't-give-a-fuckism
  • Don't abbreviate "Wikipedia" as "Wiki"!
  • Don't delete the main page
  • Editcountitis
  • Edits Per Day
  • Editsummarisis
  • Editing Under the Influence
  • Embrace Stop Signs
  • Emerson
  • Five Fs of Wikipedia
  • Seven Ages of Editor, by Will E. Spear-Shake
  • Go ahead, vandalize
  • How many Wikipedians does it take to change a lightbulb?
  • How to get away with UPE
  • How to put up a straight pole by pushing it at an angle
  • How to vandalize correctly
  • How to win a citation war
  • Ignore all essays
  • Ignore every single rule
  • Is that even an essay?
  • Mess with the templates
  • My local pond
  • Newcomers are delicious, so go ahead and bite them
  • Legal vandalism
  • List of jokes about Wikipedia
  • LTTAUTMAOK
  • No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man
  • Nobody cares about your garage band
  • No one really cares
  • No sorcery threats
  • Notability is not eternal
  • Oops Defense
  • Play the game
  • Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you
  • Please bite the newbies
  • Please do not murder the newcomers
  • Pledge of Tranquility
  • R-e-s-p-e-c-t
  • Requests for medication
  • Requirements for adminship
  • Rouge admin
  • Rouge editor
  • Sarcasm is really helpful
  • Sausages for tasting
  • The Night Before Wikimas
  • The first rule of Wikipedia
  • The Five Pillars of Untruth
  • Things that should not be surprising
  • The WikiBible
  • Watchlistitis
  • Wikipedia is an MMORPG
  • WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG!
  • Why not create an account?
  • Yes legal threats
  • You don't have to be mad to work here, but
  • You should not write meaningless lists
About essays
About essays
  • Essay guide
  • Value of essays
  • Difference between policies, guidelines and essays
  • Don't cite essays as if they were policy
  • Avoid writing redundant essays
  • Finding an essay
  • Quote your own essay
Policies and guidelines
  • About policies and guidelines
    • Policies
    • Guidelines
  • How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance
  • Policy writing is hard
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bare_URLs&oldid=1138802114"