Wikipedia talk:The Wikipedia Library/Citoid

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 sfn into body text and then add the into a References or Sources or whatever section on the bottom of the page, then those tools would be laudable. But putting cite templates in between words in body text that editors are trying to edit is precisely analogous to littering. Ever seen photos of poor doe-eyed baby seals killed by plastic detritus? Yep, that's the effect these tools have on articles when used by different editors over a long period of time. I'm not making this up; read the Avoiding clutter section of MOS:CITEFORMAT. But the wording there is too mild. Much too mild.

See forex 1989 Tiananmen Square protests with 88 cite templates clogging up body text. I recently took a stab at cleaning up Aristotle, which before I touched it had 111 (!) cite templates crapping up body text. More examples would be easy to find.

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. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

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 mywot.com browser extension can indicate reliability of citations and other url links, based on 3rd party classifications and warning lists, and also based on user votes. A red or green icon shows up next to the url in the Wikipedia article list of references and external links - very simple! But mywot.com historically has suffered from reliability problems them selves, it does not clearly differ scientific sources from pseudo-science, users may vote up politically non-neutral sites, and it is poor on non-English sources. Wikimedia is a much more reliable organization, and should develop a similar tool, that may warn if I try to enter a well-known pseudo-science source. Perhaps integrated with Citoid. Also, there are lists of scientific journal rankings/h5-index/impact factor, and this may also be indicated by this tool, for example using various shades of green. Where can I suggest such a Wikimedia project? 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 regarding whetyer citation tools should allowed. Your input on this question is welcome. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)