# Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Citations

Citations
11 proposals, 249 contributors, 427 support votes
The survey has closed. Thanks for your participation :)

## Use automatic references outside of citations

• Problem: When I use the "Source" button, I can choose an automatic mode where I enter an ISBN number and a complete reference is generated. It's very convenient. When I have to write the bibliography, I would like to have the same automation rather than manually completing all the fields of the "Book" or "Article" template (or inserting a dummy note with the Source button, copying the generated reference and delete the note).
• Proposed solution: Make the automatic tool available other than via the "Source" button.
• Who would benefit: Editors when editing a bibliography.
• Phabricator tickets:
• Proposer: AdM (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

### Discussion

• Quick summary: be able to call Citoid outside the "Cite" button. This sounds like a fantastic idea and probably not "too" hard (since Citoid already exist). Cheers, VIGNERON * discut. 19:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I changed the title, to make it clearer. (Not that the distinction between 'citation' and 'reference' is always very clear!) SWilson (WMF) (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

## Automatic duplicate citation finder

• Problem: I'm a fairly heavy editor, but I mainly do smaller copy edits (capitalization, metric units, ndashes) and fairly often I hoist content into a lead that fails to summarize. It's only a small percentage of my edits where I add new material with citation, so I haven't gone hardcore on citation tools. But what surprises me in the raw out-of-the-box edit window is that you can add a citation with a known URL, and when you press "submit" for your partially completed citation, it never says, "hey, someone else on this or another page entered a citation with the same title or URL, would you like to crib some of those fields?" Citation is supposed to be a default activity on Wikipedia, like breathing. So it strikes me that I shouldn't have to install something or activate a special/fancy/cozy/streamlined edit mode (fie to all of them) to get basic assistance in not duplicating prior work.
• Proposed solution: URL and/or title of incomplete citation templates automatically checked for duplicate citations on same or other pages when doing a preview submission. (There could also be a dedicated button to preview citations only.)
• Who would benefit: Anyone who wants to add cited material who isn't already an expert in the citation system.
• More comments: I don't want to create another ticket for this, but it's very clearly a barrier to entry and self-evident paper cut how annoying it is to reuse an existing citation (from the same article) amending only the quotation field or page number fields on subsequent reuse. In my own editing, 90% of the time I notice resources that have been exploited by others, and that's how my bag of tricks expands over time; only in rare instances do I do a deliberate deep dive into the documentation pages. If an easy way to re-use a citation exists, amending only the page number, I sure haven't seen much evidence of other editors making use of this in the thousands of pages I visit in a typical year. Another aspect of citation that should be as painless as breathing. Also, when editing a section and some of the named citations won't resolve (because they are defined outside the section) would it be crazy to offer an button to *really* preview the edited section in the context of the whole page (as found when clicking "edit" on the current section heading? (The section edit URL would somehow need to capture the source page ID to make this work.)
• Phabricator tickets:
• Proposer: MaxEnt (talk) 04:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

### Discussion

• I also get irritated when I see that there several independent references to the same work. If the references use the same URL or ISBN or DOI, they seem easy to recognize as duplicates. Otherwise it can be hard to identify.
I think that there is a way to produce references to the same work that differ only in the page number, but they are difficult enough for me that I don't remember how to find them. --Error (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@Error See WMDE Technical Wishes/Book referencing. This has been a top items on wishlist surveys for the past 10 years, but was abandoned by the Technical Wishes team in July 2021. See also phab:T100645. -- Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 23:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• find duplicates Hack: open wikitext in a text editor, for every http, insert NEWLINE, then sort file. 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 10:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, please! I have been using refill to fix this for ages, which works pretty well. I think that AWB might do it automatically too but I'm not as familiar with that. It might be possible for visual editor to automatically fix this on publish, which can be done manually by copying and pasting the same citation. It would be nice to see a citation tool that can automate bibliography-style citations as well. Asukite (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• https://tools.wmflabs.org/refill/ "had" worked well, before the developer forced only en.wikipedia.org to use an unstable version, then stopped developing and abandoned his work on wikipedia.org, due to some interaction with users with higher privileges. .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• w:User:Kaniivel/Reference Organizer might be partly helpful. ~~~~
10:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
• Take into account that there might be nearly equal entries which only differ in page, section etc. This should be handled too.—Hfst (talk) 06:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Yep, that's something that makes this a little trickier than it might at first seem. But it's still worthwhile, I think. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• Why is this a problem that needs to be addressed? If a page has say:
Here is some text ... here is some more <ref>ReferenceA</ref> ... maybe a few paragraphs of text ... some more text <ref>That SAME ReferenceA</ref>...more text...more text.
• I'm missing why having a "duplicate" full reference is a problem. Specifically because of this use-case: I edit that page and just delete the first referenced text along with the reference attached to it. If the second instance was just some sort of pointer to the first, now the second statement that I, the editor, didn't even see has a broken reference. @Ahecht: can you explain a bit more? — xaosflux Talk 16:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
@Xaosflux Not sure why you pinged me on this, as I neither created nor supported this proposal (yet). That said, the issue is that it clogs up the references section, making it longer than necessary, and makes it difficult to "browse" the references or assess notability. In regards to your use case, at least on enwiki, en:User:AnomieBOT/source/tasks/OrphanReferenceFixer.pm will automatically search for and fix those broken references. -- Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 16:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
@Ahecht: oops, bad copy and paste from above, that was meant for @MaxEnt: - but thanks for the input, feel free to stop replying to this. I don't think it would be a good idea to implement a software feature that may lead to a situation that would be dependent on other editors (even if via bots) to clean up orphaned reference labels (where the immediate affect from that use case is that readers will have no reference provided). — xaosflux Talk 16:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
• Logic to do this would appear to be in AWB (same page), as AWB will correlate dupes. Neils51 (talk) 10:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
• Maybe this could be added inside the VisualEditor business-logic. --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

### Voting

•   Support Bristledidiot (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support One day, we'll centralize citations at Wikidata, rather than copying info for a work every time it's used. But until then, finding duplicates within the same article is at least a good start. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support completely agree with the comment above, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Miroslav Ličko (talk) 20:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Qwerfjkl (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support SamuelInzunza (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support EpicPupper (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 23:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Would love this Tr3ndyBEAR (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support 5225C (talkcontributions) 00:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support --𝑇𝑚𝑣 (𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑘) 01:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Betseg (talk) 02:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Shizhao (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support SigTif (talk) 08:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support - I can see that this would be tricky to implement, but it would be very nice to have. —Bruce1eetalk 08:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support 10:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Lion-hearted85 (talk) 10:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support THainaut (talk) 10:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Terber (talk) 11:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Hemantha (talk) 12:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support aokomoriuta (talk) 12:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support — 12:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Aca (talk) 12:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support ACortellari (talk) 14:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Mbrickn (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support User-duck (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support — Jules* Talk 18:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Wostr (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Femke (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Douglasfugazi (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Goombiis (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Tgr (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Nw520 (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Gusfriend (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Agus Damanik (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Ali Imran Awan (talk) 07:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support TheInternetGnome (talk) 07:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Lectrician1 (talk) 07:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Thingofme (talk) 13:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Geraki TL 14:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Andrewredk (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Rusalkii (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support BugWarp (talk) 02:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Lfstevens (talk) 06:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Qazwsx777 (talk) 09:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Nosebagbear (talk) 10:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support β16 - (talk) 10:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support FenyMufyd (talk) 11:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Hb2007 (talk) 14:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Havang(nl) (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Matma Rex (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Bencemac (talk) 18:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support JAn Dudík (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support IOIOI (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Dave Braunschweig (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Shooterwalker (talk) 22:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Normal Name (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support DRiveraP (talk) 00:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Horza (talk) 10:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Duplicates happen to the best of us Diriector Doc (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support It seems like this could be done relatively easily with structured data citations (i.e. hosted on Wikidata), and I support efforts to get us there. Silver hr (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support MaxBE (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support KingAntenor (talk) 06:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Max Semenik (talk) 07:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Kpjas (talk) 10:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Oppose per my note above, having a reference in the text multiple times can be a feature, some options like putting references in a shared repository seem useful - but that isn't what this is proposing as a solution. — xaosflux Talk 16:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Also the proposed solution seems incomplete. It is asking for some software to be made to "find" something, but then what? Think it is very important that we never discourage contributors from making an edit with a refernce; even a notice "Hey you, your references is a duplicate!" could lead to them just abandoning their edit. — xaosflux Talk 16:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: Cite web currently already displays a message on preview when there is some error, and I don't think that is scaring off anyone. Jochem van Hees (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Rdrozd (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Oppose I support an "Automatic duplicate citation finder", as in a tool that can be run to automatically detect and consolidate references, but this proposal just seems to be for displaying an error message when previewing an edit with duplicate citations. -- Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 18:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
AutoWikiBrowser currently does that. But a tool requires another edit to be made; a warning allows the editor to fix it while still making the edit. Jochem van Hees (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
AFAIK AWB only does it for already labeled references. ~~~~
17:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
But manually finding and consolidating years of built-up duplicate refs in an article is a major chore, so we shouldn't be warning every editor who makes a minor spelling correcting that they need to do it before saving their changes. -- Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 18:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support ~ Amory (utc) 20:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support WikiAviator (talk) 10:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Jochem van Hees (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Vega (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Ed [talk] [en] 21:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Sabjan Badio (talk) 03:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Kenraiz (talk) 16:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Yeeno (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support —— Eric LiuTalk 05:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support 公車迷阿暄 (talk) 08:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support SD hehua (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Ealdgyth (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Exilexi (talk) 17:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Oliveleaf4 (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support USI2020 (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support (he/him) 21:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Oppose --Ciao • Bestoernesto 02:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Nkon21 (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support--Vulp❯❯❯here! 03:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Ayumu Ozaki (talk) 05:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Michael Barera (talk) 06:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Toadspike (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Ryse93 (talk) 12:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Tom Ja (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support That's a great idea Bli231957 (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support DGG (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support ~Cybularny Speak? 20:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Wow, i love this idea.. for the fact that i always have to look down to the reference list to confirm whether the new reference I was adding doesnt already exist on the same page. Thumbs up Uncle Bash007 (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Throast (talk) 16:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Suonii180 (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support KnowledgeablePersona (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Asukite (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Oppose It's against some manual of styles such as The Chicago Manual of Style which require duplicating references. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Wikiusuarios (talk) 20:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Barkeep49 (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support There is many, many citations that we manage not as group. Carn (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Forrestkirby (talk) 15:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support --evrifaessa (talk) 15:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support DSparrow14 (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support overall, though I wonder how feasible it is when it comes to stealth duplicates – for example, citing two separate editions of a book with different ISBN numbers but otherwise identical text (though I imagine "say where you saw it" applies here...). -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 17:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

## Preventing VE from silently omitting co-authors

• Problem: When using the Visual Editor for adding citations (e.g. using a DOI), it only considers the first 5 (de.wikipedia) or 11 (en.wikipedia) co-authors. Hence, all other co-authors are silently omitted, i.e. no et al. draw attention to the fact that there are more co-authors.
• Proposed solution: If the number of co-authors is considered too long so that some of them is omitted, et al. needs to be added by default.
• Who would benefit: All readers of Wikipedia articles who would no longer be misled by incomplete listings of co-authors.
• Phabricator tickets:
• Proposer: Leyo (talk) 09:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

### Discussion

• As far as we can tell, this logic exists solely in the citation templates, for instance en:Template:Citation. It's not VisualEditor truncating the authors but the template, hence if you want more authors you need only to update the template (probably following some broader discussion with your community). As such I'm going to archive this proposal. Thanks for participating in the survey! MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
I think I know what the problem is here: TemplateData doesn't support arbitrary authors, which I would guess Citoid is using to support the number of authors it is adding.
There are two separate wishes here I think, which are both technical in nature:
1. Citoid to use the presence of |display-authors= in TemplateData/Citoid configuration and equivalent to add a distinct et al (which is one of its keywords for a truncated list); so far as I know no task exists on this dimension;
2. TemplateData to support enumerated parameters better (and Citoid to appreciate them), the former of which is phab:T54582.
MusikAnimal (WMF), consider un-archiving? Izno (talk) 21:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
@Izno Apologies for the late reply, and for my misjudgment of this proposal. I'm happy to un-archive this if we can iron it out into a single proposal. It sounds #2 is the better one to focus on? Pinging the proposer, @Leyo for input. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I am not sure if I understood the technical considerations correctly. However, it isn't any template truncating the number of authors. VisualEditor does not add any authors above the numbers stated above to the source text of the articles. Should you wish to test it yourself, you may consider using doi:10.1021/acs.est.1c04158 (14 authors). --Leyo (talk) 12:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't think I fully understand the technical considerations either! Hence when Izno said it sounded like two wishes, I was hoping to narrow it down to one. But either way the reasoning for archiving was wrong, so I shall unarchive now. I apologize we misunderstood and this was so late to go into voting! Kind regards, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

## More capacity for Citation bot

• Problem: Citation bot is very powerful, but needs hugely expanded capacity to meet demand and stop requests timing out.
• Proposed solution: 1/ A new front end queuing system for Citation bot, similar to that used by InternetArchiveBot, which allows much bigger jobs and gives priority to single-page requests; 2/ Many more threads than the current limit of four; 3/ enhanced capacity for the Zotero servers on which Citation bot relies for filling bare URLs
• Who would benefit: Editors trying to improve references, especially complex refs such as those to scholarly journals, whether on single articles or in batch.
• More comments: This has been repeatedly discussed at User talk:Citation bot, but the excellent maintainer faces hurdles which he cannot surmount: see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Citation_bot&oldid=1064839514#And_failure_is_the_usual_option_again
• Phabricator tickets:
• Proposer: BrownHairedGirl (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

### Discussion

• I especially like the idea of having a queuing function so (assuming we cannot find additional compute capacity) at least it won't time out all the time. --Mblumber (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• For IABot, the main non-interactive bot runs on a VPS see Cloud VPS which anyone can request to have. IABot also uses Toolforge for interactive user batch requests. Citation bot could request a VPS (or multiple VPS) running multiple instances on the same VPS and/or multiple instances on the grid (Toolforge) ie. simply increase the Toolforge slot quota. However, I think the main bottleneck for Citation bot is Citoid/Zotero. -- GreenC (talk) 05:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• I concur with this proposal. -- TheInternetGnome (talk) 10:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Resources are certainly needed in this area. For an alternative approach to getting people working on this, see also w:WP:VPT#Proposed Google Summer of Code project: expanding citations. Enterprisey (talk) 08:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• What would be good, is if the database consulting services of citoid and citationbot could be shared by both tools. Probably not that easy to do however, i suspect they are in different languages. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 11:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
This. Enterprisey (talk) 09:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Citationbot already pulls from Citoid results I believe. Izno (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• I think we should make Citation bot a global feature and we can translate the interface in many languages. Thingofme (talk) 12:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• It would certainly be nice to have more Citation bot capacity. Qwerfjkl (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

### Voting

•   Support * Pppery * it has begun 18:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Congestion with this bot is so bad that editors are not creating articles out of frustration. If Citation bot is not given extra capacity, I predict that the legitimacy of this Community Wishlist Survey itself will be damaged. Abductive (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Qwerfjkl (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
•   SupportBruce1eetalk 08:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Šedý (talk) 09:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Lion-hearted85 (talk) 11:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Terber (talk) 11:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Aca (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support ACortellari (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support BSMIsEditing (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Mbrickn (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support--Mahmud (talk) 19:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support TheInternetGnome (talk) 07:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Lectrician1 (talk) 07:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Thingofme (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support DGG (talk) 19:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support JPxG (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Lfstevens (talk) 06:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Qazwsx777 (talk) 09:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Citation bot is great when it works, but can take forever to run e.g. on pages with hundreds of papers cited as references. If it breaks, you just have to run it again and hope it works this time. Parallel requests to data sources would help. Modest Genius (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support 15 (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Stratocaster47 (talk) 12:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support. Alexcalamaro (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support WatkynBassett (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support - Darwin Ahoy! 20:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support paul2520 (talk) 02:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support I often use citation bot, and find it annoyingly slow at times and often times out for no apparent reason. I really don't know how BHG puts up with it, she's almost certainly the single largest user of it currently. Mako001 (talk) 03:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support —— Eric LiuTalk 05:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support I have often seen the edits that Citation bot makes, but I have never been successful in getting it to handle a single page. Just today I have attempted to have it process one particular page about ten times over a period of six hours, but each simply hung until it timed out. There is a huge capacity problem here, apparently. --R. S. Shaw (talk) 05:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Sir Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
•   SupportDaxServer (t · c) 18:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Ayumu Ozaki (talk) 05:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Redalert2fan (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
•   SupportEric0892 02:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
•   SupportBilorv (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Worldbruce (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support KnowledgeablePersona (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Marcok (talk) 07:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Nosebagbear (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Jonathan5566(talk) 14:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support DSparrow14 (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

## New reference-filling tool

• Problem: All the existing citation-filling tools have major flaws, and are unsupported
• Proposed solution: A new tool which addresses all the issues with existing tools such as WP:Reflinks, WP:Refill, ReferenceExpander. Headline features: a) 2 modes: fill all refs, or only bare refs; b) interactive mode to allow editor to select which changes to accept; c) support for the thousands of websites which Reflinks cannot fill because it fails to complete a secure login; d) ability to fill refs with "|title=Archived copy", using the archived link e) tagging of dead links, which only Reflinks supports
• Who would benefit: Any editor who adds a reference, or tries to improve an existing reference
• More comments: This tool is crucial to upholding the en.wp core policy of verifiability. The history of existing tools is of great work being done by volunteer editors who later reduce their commitment to Wikipedia, leaving the tool to rot. This crucial functionality needs active maintenance, to cope with evolving internet protocols, developing community standards for referencing, and the bizarre ways in which so many websites mangle metadata.
• Phabricator tickets:
• Proposer: BrownHairedGirl (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

### Discussion

• For the records, the maintenance status of mw:Citoid is being discussed in phab:T294236. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
• Whilst not exactly what you want, a lot of the feature you requested are included in the advanced reference editing gadget ProveIt, which also allows you to edit code manually and supports most reference templates. — Berrely • TalkContribs 19:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
• See Web2Cit for an ongoing effort in that direction.--Strainu (talk) 12:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Please cite Phabricator tickets or other discussions for the bugs you claim exist; and please explain why you think we need a new tool, rather than to fix those bugs. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• A citation consists of two parts. One which is the same for couple of citation (static) like author, title, url and one which variable like section or page. What I need is a tool which helps me to handle it and which avoids that I have to type in the static part several times.—Hfst (talk) 06:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• I think this should be updated because often there are repeat references, but it's often hard to find the code for those references in the backend code so that means multiple windows if the section it first appears is in a different section.. So having a list and clicking from that list so it inserts that one. And then figuring out where to insert pages for the same reference, but different page numbers needs to be smoothed out. If it's yadda Yadda author, then the page difference shouldn't force the user to retype it and also create a new line below. There has to be a neater way of doing it so it indicates it's a different page number. Also, auto fill by ISBN (Which is done on some other sites) would be useful too. It definitely needs an overhaul.--KimYunmi (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I wish to The interview of the eminent person should be mentioned as a reference. Mahmud (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
• This is part of a larger set of reference services that would be helpful. Would love a broader consideration of reference management. E.g., PDF handling, consistent use of conventions such as sfn and rp, appropriate use of templates such as google books and youtube, making citations for pure text refs, etc. Lfstevens (talk) 06:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

### Voting

•   Support * Pppery * it has begun 18:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support This would be a bigger task, but an important one. References are the backbone of Wikipedia, and it's important for verifiability that they be as complete as possible. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support anything that removes the need for hand processing is to be welcomed, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support KimYunmi (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Qwerfjkl (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support per Sdkb EpicPupper (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support 5225C (talkcontributions) 00:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Betseg (talk) 02:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Lion-hearted85 (talk) 11:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Aca (talk) 12:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support--Mahmud (talk) 19:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support TheInternetGnome (talk) 07:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Thingofme (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support HynekJanac (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Lfstevens (talk) 06:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Qazwsx777 (talk) 09:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support β16 - (talk) 10:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Shooterwalker (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Normal Name (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Szymonel (talk) 13:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support MaxBE (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Kpjas (talk) 10:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support It will be a very useful tool. Alexcalamaro (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support ~ Amory (utc) 20:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support ★NealMcB★ (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support RoySmith (talk) 03:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support WatkynBassett (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Necesitamos una herramienta para las citas tipo harvnp + cita libro que facilite la edición. En la actualidad si debemos utilizar la cita más de una vez debemos rellenar los campos en su totalidad una y otra vez. Por otra parte en algunos casos donde se reitera autor y página en más de una oportunidad da error Varperalta (talk) 05:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Taku15485 (talk) 14:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Good idea! Dr Dobeaucoup (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Yeeno (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Geniac (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support —— Eric LiuTalk 05:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support - Darwin Ahoy! 15:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support SD hehua (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Exilexi (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
•   SupportDaxServer (t · c) 18:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Nkon21 (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Ayumu Ozaki (talk) 05:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Redalert2fan (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Gonnym (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support References are key to good editing. PamD (talk) 05:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support, though there is much value in the existing tools and codebases, so there's no need to start from scratch - more a case of taking the best bits of the existing tools, and having the resulting software professionally supported by WMF rather than relying on too few volunteers. The Citoid approach is a good one, but relies on zotero translators, so I think Web2Cit has merit as a project. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Marcok (talk) 07:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Quiddity (talk) 07:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

## Change wikitextEditor insert of wikitext

• Problem: encourage use of ref labels
• Proposed solution: change: <ref></ref> to <ref name="" ></ref>
• Who would benefit: wikitextEditor users
• Phabricator tickets:
• Proposer: 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 09:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

### Discussion

• This would likely be seen as wikitext ruft; names are generally just not necessary. --Izno (talk) 02:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps Izno meant "cruft". EpicPupper (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
One option would be to add the name parameter by default but remove it during pre-save transform if it is empty. Tgr (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

### Voting

•   Support That would mean easier addition of refs tags with names. Thingofme (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Oppose because it does nothing, makes it looks like the name is required, and citations are already quite long in wikitext. Jochem van Hees (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Oppose Same as above. --Vega (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
•   OpposeDaxServer (t · c) 18:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support --Ciao • Bestoernesto 02:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Oppose Ayumu Ozaki (talk) 07:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Oppose Xn00bit (talk) 09:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Oppose makes things more complicated, it seems--Berndorf1 (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Oppose KingAntenor (talk) 08:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

## Add support for the 'Cite Q' template to Citoid

• Problem: Cannot use Cite Q template in Citoid
• Proposed solution: When a user enters a QID into Citoid, then Citoid should (or should offer to) generate a reference using the 'Cite Q' template (if it exists on that wiki), with the QID as its first parameter value. When the user enters some other PID, such as a DOI, ISBN, or PubMedID, Citoid should check whether there is a corresponding QID, and if so then proceed as above.
• Who would benefit: Editors wishing to cite documents whose metadata is in Wikidata
• More comments: Template:Cite Q en:Template:Cite Q is a wrapper for Template:Citation, which it populates on-the-fly using data from Wikidata. Initiated on the English-language Wikipedia, using Lua, it has been developed to be as portable as possible to other projects and to work with minimum setup and translation on those projects. More details in the Phabricator ticket.
• Phabricator tickets: T289287
• Proposer: Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

### Discussion

The first stew would be to make Cite_Q working on all wikis. We tried to copy it to cs.wikisource, but still not working as expected - too much submodules and templates needed.

This is far from insurmountable - its already used on about 40 projects. Please ask on en:Template talk:Cite Q if you need assistance getting it working on your project. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

It would be great if this project could be accompanied by some basic fixes to Cite Q and/or Wikidata to make it so that Cite Q conforms with CITEVAR. See en:Template talk:Cite Q for many reports of CITEVAR problems that should be fixable. Jonesey95 (talk) 22:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

As is made clear in the template's documentation, you - or indeed anyone else - are welcome to make such changes, in the template's sandbox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

### Voting

•   Support as one of those that's helped with the development of Cite Q, this would be a great step to making it easier to more widely use. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support This would help improve a lot of citation workflows and more interoperability among Cite Q and Citoid seems like a great idea. Wskent (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Cite Q isn't yet developed/flexible enough for me to use it in my editing, but it's still undoubtedly the future of citations, and if its developers say they need support in this area, I support giving it to them. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@Sdkb: Would love to hear suggestions for improvement at en:Template talk:Cite Q! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Replied at your talk! {{u|Sdkb}}talk 23:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Jklamo (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Tol (talk | contribs) @ 22:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support JakobVoss (talk) 07:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Ainali talkcontributions 08:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 09:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Aca (talk) 12:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support — 12:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Dhx1 (talk) 13:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Mbrickn (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Warmglow (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Wostr (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support--Mahmud (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Tgr (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Agus Damanik (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Thingofme (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Geraki TL 14:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Hb2007 (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support JAn Dudík (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Silver hr (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Pharos (talk) 01:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support KingAntenor (talk) 06:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Kpjas (talk) 10:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support ★NealMcB★ (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Yes, plase! - Darwin Ahoy! 00:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
•   SupportDaxServer (t · c) 18:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support--Vulp❯❯❯here! 03:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Ayumu Ozaki (talk) 05:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Konyasha (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Marcok (talk) 07:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

## Cite extension enhancement

• Problem: I would need a way to control the visibility of text depending on whether the <reference group=… /> yields an empty list or some references are in the buffer.

On Wikisource the typical pages in the main space are rather very short themselves however they transclude a huge chunk of text.

title,
author etc.
<pages index=… from=… to=… />
==References==
<references/>

[[Category:…]]

==References== ⏎ <references/> (or a simillar template) is however desirable if and only if the there is some output. On the other hand a bare references list does not look neatly without a proceeding headline.
Changes in the trancluded pages can make the references section necessary or superfluous. On the other hand due to the work flow it is not always clear in advance whether the section will be required or not. The third reason is when preparing a series of pages (chapters of a book), it is desirable to make them automatically only adjusting the page numbers in the <pages ...> tag.

• Proposed solution: an additional parser hook for the cite extension. Let us call it <refEmpty>.

${\displaystyle <{\text{refEmpty group=...}}>\;\;{\begin{matrix}\nearrow &<{\text{div display:none}}>&{\text{if the references list is empty}}\\\searrow &<{\text{div}}>&{\text{if there are some references}}\end{matrix}}}$

so

<refEmpty group=ABC >==References== ⏎ <references/></refEmpty>
would hide the content when the references buffer is empty or show it if required.

• Who would benefit: All wikis. Most important for Wikisource
• Phabricator tickets:
• Proposer: Draco flavus (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

## Expose Citoid to all editors

### Discussion

• The 2017 wikitext editor does already support citoid since it uses the very same toolbar as VE. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 09:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• There's also w:Wikipedia:RefToolbar/2.0 which gives you Citoid-like functionality for the 2006 editor. @Strainu: Perhaps this proposal could be rewritten to be about bringing that as a default feature to all wikis? MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 14:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Sure, that works. Strainu (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
The same editing toolbar that WMF dropped on its face? ;)
That said, 2010 toolbar also supports this, so I guess that's what was meant. Izno (talk) 02:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, 2010 editor is what I was referring to :) I have tweaked the proposal wording per our discussion and marked this for translation. Best, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

## Enable Citoid to generate citation from a PDF link

• Problem: Citoid doesn't solve the url when the link is a PDF document, giving an error message.
• Proposed solution: Enable citoid to get the metadata from the PDF and fill the fields required.
• Who would benefit: All editors, especially the users of the VisualEditor.
• More comments: As user Mvolz commented, maybe it is tricky to automatically assign which kind of cite corresponds to the file (journal, book, etc). If the metadata doesn't provide this information, a solution could be to let the user select the appropriate one.
• Phabricator tickets: phab:T214038 (also related phab:T136722)
• Proposer: Alexcalamaro (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

### Discussion

• The problem with PDFs is that there is indeed basically no standard for metadata. I don't think this goal is realistic. --Izno (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

### Voting

•   Support * Pppery * it has begun 18:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support EpicPupper (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Neocorelight (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support --NGC 54 (talkcontribs) 22:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Agus Damanik (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Neutral the problem with PDF, not files and websites is they can have no metadata, and it's hard to create citation (missing info) Thingofme (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support if possible. Qwerfjkl (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Qazwsx777 (talk) 10:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Kpjas (talk) 10:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support WikiAviator (talk) 09:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Rather than argued there MAY be a metadata section in any PDF which might be disclosed and which might contain one of known formats like RDF or DublinCore or other (usually XML). Just try and enjoy if retrieved. --PerfektesChaos (talk) 11:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Geert Van Pamel (WMBE) (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support If it's possible, it would be very useful - Darwin Ahoy! 00:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Per PerfektesChaos, this isn't supposed to get the title for every PDF out there. Just get some of the more common title metadata formats sorted and leave the others alone. Even if it's only gets 20-30% or so, it's still better than the current situation.Mako001 (talk) 03:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support —— Eric LiuTalk 05:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Tomastvivlaren (talk) 09:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
•   SupportDaxServer (t · c) 18:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support --Ciao • Bestoernesto 02:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Ayumu Ozaki (talk) 05:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support --Luan (discussão) 14:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Krzysiek 123456789 (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Tom Ja (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support`DGG (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support ~Cybularny Speak? 20:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support per Mako001. ~~~~
17:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support I doubt the feasibility, but would support it if the developers feel it is worth attempting. KnowledgeablePersona (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support KingAntenor (talk) 08:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

## Improve VisualEditor toolbar

• Problem: VE toolbar auto-fill-ins are often CAPITALIZED from source
• Proposed solution: set most fields to Title Case after Preview
• Who would benefit: lazy, frequent citers
• Phabricator tickets:
• Proposer: 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 10:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

### Discussion

• Automated conversions are generally just as buggy as anything else. This will indiscrimently cause iPhone to be turned into Iphone for instance, and COVID-19 into Covid-19. It's also very much language dependent. However, maybe there could be some sort of "if amount of capital letters is more than 8 sequential characters, then Title Case the contents". —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 11:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I think languages are different from each other. In some languages, there are not any capitalized characters; but however, bands and popular names must to be stated as exception to the capitalization rule. Thingofme (talk) 12:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Another approach to the detection rule could be “only fix case if all characters in the field are upper-case”. (It would still fall over trying to distinguish between author-last=NATO versus author-last=SMITH. But it would leave alone title=“The BIG BLUE GROUP to perform in New York” and title=“UNICEF–UNHCR collaboration in 20th-century Farnorthistan”.) How a sequential-characters rule treats those titles would depend on what it does with intervening whitespace and punctuation.) Pelagic (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• Also I suggest you retitle this proposal as at first glance its like this is about the UI of the toolbar itself, rather than the functionality of Citoid which happens to be part of the Citation function of the toolbar. Better titles have better responses in the next phase generally. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 11:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
AFAIK this problem affects RefToolbar as well as the VE citation edit-card. Perhaps a better title could be “Provide ability to correct ALL CAPS citation data”? Pelagic (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• Rather than have Citoid always do this in the background, how about button(s) in the insert-ref UIs (VE and RefToolbar)? There will be exceptions in titles (iPhone) and in personal names (van der Ergens), but it's easier to correct a couple of characters than to retype the whole dang field because the publisher decided to style METADATA ALL IN UPPER CASE (not shouting, just an example). Some fields should be in sentence case instead of title case, and if you toggle to sentence case you do have to go back and re-capitalise the proper nouns and acronyms. It's an open question how best to locate the buttons. One per field may be messy. A single “fix all-caps” button that applies to all relevant fields in the form? Pelagic (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• But again, please be cautious in different languages: In Dutch: when the character combination "ij" appears in a capitalizable position both should be capitalized, eg "IJzer" ("Iron").T.vanschaik (talk) 10:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Hello, maybe this current project "Web2Cit: Visual Editor for Citoid Web Translators" (photo) would solve this request? --Jurbop (talk) 07:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

### Voting

•   Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 23:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support --𝑇𝑚𝑣 (𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑘) 01:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Lion-hearted85 (talk) 11:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support--Mahmud (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Thingofme (talk) 13:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Yeeno (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support SD hehua (talk) 15:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
•   OpposeDaxServer (t · c) 18:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support --Ciao • Bestoernesto 02:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Nkon21 (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
•   --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Ayumu Ozaki (talk) 07:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support Ryse93 (talk) 12:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Oppose I just don't think this is a big problem. We always had wikignoming work, and ppl sometimes pretend that is a bad thing that should be 'optimized away', which is just not true. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 18:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Oppose I don't think doing this reliably is feasible. ~~~~
17:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Oppose KingAntenor (talk) 08:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
•   Support It would be useful to simply switch to text mode and have a case-changing tool for the selected text here, as in text editors. At least it would be possible to correct after insertion. Sunpriat (talk) 23:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)