Wikipedia talk:The Wikipedia Library/Citoid
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Haven't used it. Ain't gonna. AFAIK all these tools add cite templates inside body. It's a cancer
Not only have I not used them, no one else should either.
Yes, sure, there are indeed super-way-cool for (doink!) plopping references into body text. But the coolness ends right then and there, and the badness begins. Being satisfied with the coolness of plopping cite templates into body text is a very short-sighted and poorly thought-through goal. The greater goal is not plopping references into body text; the goal is leaving behind body text in a sustainable format.
If any of these tools can be tweaked to add only {{
See forex
In fact, adding {{sfn}} to body text and {{cite book}} etc to the bottom of the page shouldn't be an option or a tweak. Its should be the only allowed outcome.
Wait before you recoil and say "Wikipedia is all about letting people do things flexibly, according to preference." In this case, the burden of the outcome outweighs the wonderfulness of freedom of choice. Because 111 and 88 is just the beginning. ♦
Questions from a Swede
1. On for example dewp and svwp, the VisualEditor is made available for anonymous users, and allows citoid. Great! Why is the citoid icon not available in the edit palette for anonymous users that select "Source editing" (non-VisualEditor editing)? (On enwp, the visual editor is to my understanding not made available for anonymous users, so you people probably have not noticed this difference. For logged-in users that have activated Citoid, it is available in both modes.)
2. In the VisualEditor, after clicking Cite -> Automatic -> Generate -> Insert, I can click Edit and enter the publication date, author, publishing organization, etc. fields. Great! Why does this "Edit" option not appear in citoid - at least not for me - if I edit the source wikicode instead of using VisualEditor? As a result, a lot of people forget to enter the publication date, etc.
3. When automatically generating a citation from a URL, I suggest that the tool inserts some empty template fields to encourage future editing. I am primarily thinking about publication date, author and publishing organization. Many people forget them. I discussed this on svwp, and people supported this suggestion. Is that possible?
4. Citoid is not available by default for logged in users in many Wikipedia language versions, for example dewp, but requires the user to change the settings. Can the active users of a certain Wikipedia version agree on making Citoid available by default, also for logged-in users?
5. Sorry if slightly off-topic idea: Tools like the
and this may also be indicated by this tool, for example using various shades of green. Where can I suggest such a Wikimedia project?- ^ Top publications, Google Scholar
- ^ High impact journals, Science Gateway
Tomastvivlaren (talk) 17:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Questions from a newbie
I'm not new to WP but I'm new to Citoid. The instructions say: add the User:Salix alba/Citoid.js script to your Special:MyPage/skin.js page. Neither I nor Wikipedia can find my Special:MyPage/skin.js page. Clicking on the link sends me to a new page to be created, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kosboot/monobook.js. Could we have a clearer explanation of where we can find Special:MyPage/skin.js page? Thanks. - kosboot (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
RfC announce: Citation tools
There is an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#RfC: Citation tools regarding whetyer citation tools should allowed. Your input on this question is welcome. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)