Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Citations/New reference-filling tool

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)
  • @BrownHairedGirl: 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)