Template talk:Bare URL inline

A suggestion

Hello all. I'd like to ask you on behalf of all of us who work on fixing bare urls to please not use this "bare-url-inline" template. Using this edit as an example there are several frustrating things about them for us. First, they are difficult to find on a small article let alone one that size. Next, when an article has numerous bare urls placing the {{Bare URLs}} template at the top of the article saves both you and us time. You only have to use it once and that keeps us from having to remove the inline ones manually, one by one, when we are finished adding the cite templates. Almost inevitably we miss one or more of the inline ones and then we have to go back and find them. Perhaps, most importantly, they do not allow access to refill the way the regular template does. We only have to click on the word refill in the normal template while copy/pasting has to be done with the inline ones. Now, not many editors use this template but it always slows fixing bare urls to a crawl when they do. I don't know if a TFD is necessary or , perhaps, a redirect might be of benefit. I'm leaving message so people have an idea of the drawbacks to this template. MarnetteD|Talk 15:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

It also breaks VisualEditor's ability to identify and offer to convert bare URLs in references. I don't know if there's a way to fix that. the wub "?!" 10:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Would that also go for Template:Bare URL PDF? It's a new (well, 13 January 2022) template, created by Rlink2, BrownHairedGirl, but there's already >35,000 articles in it. Just curious, as I do flesh out sources, though very manually sofar. Ponken (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ponken: PDF bare URLs cannot be reliably filled using tools such as WP:REFILL, so the {{Bare URL PDF}} tag doesn't impede the tools.

PDF files do have provision for metadata, but the metadata fields are rarely filled. Where they are filled, the data is often wildly inaccurate, which is unsurprising because the data is rarely displayed. So while WP:REFILL does occasionally fill a PDF bare URL, the results are unreliable. That is why I went ahead and tagged all the existing refs to PDF bare URLs with {{Bare URL PDF}}.

Note that I apply {{Bare URL inline}} to many articles, but since 1 July 2021 I apply it only on URLs where WP:REFILL fails. After using WP:REFILL, I then use my script BareURLinline.js to tag any remaining bare URLs.

Note that WP:REFILL does support {{Bare URL inline}}, i.e. if a ref is tagged that way then WP:REFILL will try to fill the ref, and it will remove the tag if it succeeds. Since August 2021, Citation bot also supports {{Bare URL inline}}. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

How to respond to this tag

Please could somebody who understands such things, add a "How to respond to this tag" section. See {{Citation needed}} — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 07:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 17:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@GhostInTheMachine: sorry, I haven't the energy to write the guidance. But briefly, the answer is WP:Bare URLs for the why, and WP:HOWCITE for the fix. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

request archive url / archive url missing

I found this template, but I couldn't find any template saying "there is a link, it works, but there is no archive link, so if the link dies, there is no backup". Does one exist? CapnZapp (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

{{|u|CapnZapp}}. I'm not sure how many editors have this page on their watchlist. If you don't get a reply you could try the WP:VPT. MarnetteD|Talk 17:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Well I messed up that ping CapnZapp. MarnetteD|Talk 17:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@CapnZapp: if we want to warn and/or track the lack of an archive link for a ref, that would better done by coding in the cite template, rather than by applying another template.

The place to propose that would be WT:CS1. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Tagging templates

Not sure if this is intended or not, but tagging a template with this does not place it in the tracking category. Gonnym (talk) 08:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Do you mean this cat Category:All articles with bare URLs for citations Gonnym? I realize you are talking about templates. Do you have an example? I know you know how these things work much better than I do but specifics might help others looking into this. MarnetteD|Talk 15:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, regarding the category. Here is an example - Template:US table total fertility rates which I've added the template to. Gonnym (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks Gonnym. I think that the problem is that the items you tagged aren't in <ref></ref> tags. I just added them but I don't know how long it will take to see if they appear in the cat - and, of course, there might be some other problem that I am unaware of. MarnetteD|Talk 15:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Also since it is a template I'm not sure how the alphabetizing will work. MarnetteD|Talk 15:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

The category should appear automatically on a page (try it on any random non-template page), but does not do so for templates (just create a new template and put the template in preview). I have a feeling it has to do with Template:Fix and its sub-categories, but as I'm not working in this field, I have no idea how far the rabbit hole it goes, so I brought it up here in case those that are fixing these issues didn't know. Gonnym (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Gonnym. You might try asking at the WP:VPT because I don't think this page is on many watchlists. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 16:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)