It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines; rather, its purpose is to explain certain aspects of Wikipedia's norms, customs, technicalities, or practices. It may reflect differing 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 link rot. 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 fixing dead links.
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 are some examples of bare URLs:
Examples of bare URLs
Wikitext
What the reader sees
Some text http://support.nikontech.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/14083 more text
Some text http://support.nikontech.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/14083 more text
Some text<ref>http://support.nikontech.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/14083</ref> more text
Some text [http://support.nikontech.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/14083] more text
Some text [1] more text
Some text [http://support.nikontech.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/14083 Nikon] more text
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.
Examples of citations with accompanying information
Type
Wikitext
What the reader sees
Citation 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
^"Answer ID 14083: D2X Firmware update 2.0.0 — Windows". Find Answers. Nikon USA Inc. 2008. Retrieved 2009-05-09.
Manual formatting
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
^"Answer ID 14083: D2X Firmware update 2.0.0 — Windows". Find Answers. Nikon USA Inc. 2008. Retrieved 2009-05-09.
Simple title
[http://support.nikontech.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/14083 "Answer ID 14083: D2X Firmware update 2.0.0 — Windows"] from Nikon
"Answer ID 14083: D2X Firmware update 2.0.0 — Windows" from Nikon
MLA style
"Answer ID 14083: D2X Firmware update 2.0.0 — Windows." ''Find Answers''. Nikon USA, Inc., 2008. 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. http://support.nikontech.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/14083/.
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.
Wikipedia:Citation templates are popular but not required. Any method showing more information than is present in the URL itself is not a bare URL. Full citations are preferred, but even an incomplete citation is not necessarily 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:
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.
A bare URL provides much less information to the reader than a full citation.
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 it 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.
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, France: 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:
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:
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
Even more helpful would be to expand the bare URLs into citations manually.
reFill, RefLinks, and ReferenceExpander are tools that 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
Listen to this page (8 minutes)
This audio file was created from a revision of this page dated 16 October 2023 (2023-10-16), and does not reflect subsequent edits.
v
t
e
Wikipedia essays (?)
Essays on building, editing, and deleting content
Philosophy
Article content
Articles must be written
All Five Pillars are equally important
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
Leave it to the experienced
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
Adding images improves the encyclopedia
Advanced article editing
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
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 "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
Inaccuracy
Introduction to structurism
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
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
The problem with elegant variation
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
Try not to leave it a stub
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
Don't throw more litter onto the pile
Gender-neutral language
Myth vs fiction
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 or merge
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
Don't retaliate
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
You have a right to remain silent
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 clichés
Wikipedia is not about winning
Wikipedia should not be a monopoly
Writing for the opponent
Dos
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 concise
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 people by their real name
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 ignore community consensus
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 queerphobes
No, you can't have a pony
Passive aggression
POV railroad
Superhatting
There are no oracles
There's no need to guess someone's preferred pronouns
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
Businesses with a single location
But it's true!
Common sourcing mistakes
Clones
Coatrack
Discriminate vs indiscriminate information
Don't cite GNG
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
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
Minimum coverage
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
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
Two prongs of merit
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
Fart
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
No one cares about your garage band
No one really cares
No, really
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!
What Wikipedia is not/Outtakes
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