Wikipedia talk:Protocol-relative URL

Essay or Policy?

The page is currently tagged with Template:Essay. However, there has already been consensus to use Protocol-relative URLs when websites support both HTTP and HTTPS. I have changed the template to Template:Policy per WP:BOLD but the change was soon reverted by Green Cardamom, citing the fact that "the discussion doesn't concern the implementation of this proposal." I don't really understand how that works; if the community has already decided to "use HTTPS links for HTTPS only sites, protocol relative links for sites that support both HTTP and HTTPS, and HTTP links for sites that don't support HTTPS at all", why is a page saying that PRURLs should be used still just an "essay" of opinions?

(Pinging all users who have been involved in the past three proposals: @Armbrust:, @DESiegel:, @Bender235:, @Mogism:, @Redrose64:, @Johnuniq:, @Ryan lane:, @Auric:, @Werdna:, @Ypnypn:, @Killiondude:, @Jeremyb:, @Nil Einne:, @SarekOfVulcan:, @Novusuna:, @GoingBatty:, @It Is Me Here:, @Green Cardamom:, @Killiondude:, @Gadget850:, @BJorsch (WMF):, @Makyen:, @Psychonaut:)

Thanks, Tony Tan · talk 14:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

See the banner at the top of the page which says "Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints." (emphasis added). That's all a norm with consensus. Policies are serious we can't just decide to make something an official policy (I don't believe). Suggest posting on Wikipedia:Village pump to see how something is declared policy. -- GreenC 15:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Tony Tan: Your multiple {{ping}} appears to have failed - I didn't get a notification, so I suspect that the 22 others didn't either (I believe that there is an upper limit for the number of users that you can notify). I spotted this because I already had the page watchlisted. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Hmm, that's strange. Thanks for letting me know. How should I notify all of them? Tony Tan · talk 16:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Found it, mw:Manual:Echo#Technical details - maximum 20, and you tried to notify 23. We could do it in two lots; {{ping}} accepts up to 7 handles, so here are 14 to go on with (Pinging 14 users who have been involved in the past three proposals: @Armbrust, DESiegel, Bender235, Mogism, Johnuniq, Ryan lane, and Auric:, @Werdna, Ypnypn, Killiondude, Jeremyb, Nil Einne, SarekOfVulcan, and Novusuna:). --Redrose64 (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC) (Pinging 7 users who have been involved in the past three proposals: @GoingBatty, It Is Me Here, Killiondude, Gadget850, BJorsch (WMF), Makyen, and Psychonaut:) --Redrose64 (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Tony Tan · talk 16:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Green Cardamom:The original consensus did come from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), which is exactly the place to make/change policies, right? Tony Tan · talk 16:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Understood. I believe "policy" is being used in a broader sense there. I may be wrong. I made this essay on my own. No one asked for it to be made. There was no discussion about wording. The word "policy" doesn't appear anywhere in the other consensus discussions. It just seems odd that my little essay is suddenly promoted to an official policy. Suggest if it is policy it should say so in an existing policy document somewhere(?), with a link to this essay. -- GreenC 17:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• This is not at WP:List of policies and never will be. There are lots of good guidelines that really really really should be followed (for example, WP:MOS) but they just don't cut it as "policy". Johnuniq (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

You are right. Guidelines are different from policy; I mixed them up. Sorry about that. Would this essay qualify for being a "guideline"? Thanks, Tony Tan · talk 00:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

After performance issues of TLS sites have been widely addressed and sites including Wikipedia have switched over to HTTPS-only, protocol-relative URLs are considered an anti-pattern for some time now. I'd recommend stating this clearly at the beginning of the article and also put using HTTPS when possible as the main guideline. --Volker E. (WMF) (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Finally?

So what's finally the conclusion? on top of the article it says explicitly "this is not... policy or guideline", but from the above it seems it should definitely be considered as a guideline!? — MFH:Talk 17:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Yup it should be. But no idea how to get consensus for new guideline creation or where it fits in the guideline network of pages. -- GreenC 17:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

file://

Add another section: Not only does it not work 'in print', but also when saved to disk... [1] Jidanni (talk)

It's not supposed to. The absence of a protocol implies http: or https: and nothing else. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)