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.
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 • Talk∕Contribs19:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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}}talk19:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support * Pppery * it has begun 18:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)