Hi @ Jay8g: Why did you remove bare url maintenance tag for the Buchanan article when all the refs are bareurls? scope_creep ^Talk 05:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi @ Scope creep, please read the documentation for the bare URL template, or WP:Bare URLs. Specifically, "If a URL is accompanied by any other information, it is not considered bare.", and "Any method showing more information than is present in the URL itself is not a bare URL." If you don't think there is enough information, you can consider {{ citation style}}. :Jay8g [ V• T• E 06:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC) reply

That is the second time in three days that folk have asked me to look at the documentation. The docs are 20 years out of date and are shit. A bareurl is anything that doesn't include a website name, publisher and author and location, at the minimum to find it. More and more complexity is being added in to the web and modern site are chok full of different folk working on it, so a simple url and another data item is not enough by a long way to find the information. That url [1] on the Cathy Marie Buchanan in 20 years time will be in archive and will be invisible and will be impossible to find. I know that from experience; already it very hard to impossible to find certain references in modern articles to update to the references in place. You can't find them. So they are still bare urls. scope_creep ^Talk 06:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC) reply

If you use templates in ways that go against their documentation, it doesn't make sense to get mad at people for removing them. As I mentioned, there are other, more correct templates you could use, or if you have a specific outcome in mind (as it appears you do), you could always just edit the references yourself to make them the way you want rather than trying to rely on other editors to read your mind. :Jay8g [ V• T• E 06:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC) reply