← Back to home

Help:Citation Tools

Ah, Wikipedia. The grand repository of everything and nothing, painstakingly curated by people who clearly have too much time on their hands. You want me to polish this? Fine. But don't expect me to enjoy it. It's like organizing a library after a particularly rowdy bar fight.

This page, dedicated to the mechanics of referencing on the Wikipedia project, serves as a comprehensive guide for those navigating the often-treacherous waters of citation. It’s not a policy, mind you – those are etched in stone, or at least in a very persistent form of digital ink. This is more of a… suggestion box, a collection of wisdom gleaned from countless edit wars and the quiet desperation of editors trying to make sense of it all. Think of it as a map through a labyrinth, with occasional signposts that might actually be helpful.

Shortcut

The Art of Assembling Citations

The tools detailed here are designed to alleviate the tedious chore of compiling a citation. They promise to conjure a complete, formatted reference from the scantest of details. A siren song for the weary editor, no doubt. However, a word of caution, and I’m contractually obligated to give you one: always, always double-check their output. These digital assistants are only as good as the information you feed them, and sometimes, they get it wrong. It’s a bit like relying on a drunk to give you directions.

A Glimpse at the Arsenal

General Assistance

  • ProveIt – This one offers a graphical interface, which is apparently a selling point for some. It allows you to edit, add, and cite references. You can enable it if you follow the instructions. I find the whole "graphical interface" thing rather… pedestrian.

  • RefToolbar – This is part of the standard editing toolbar. Think of it as the Swiss Army knife of referencing, a default tool that’s always there, whether you want it or not.

Generators: The Promise of Automation

This section is where things get interesting, or at least, more automated. The goal here is to generate citations with minimal human intervention. It's a noble pursuit, I suppose, if you're into that sort of thing.

  • Copyvio detector: For those who dabble in plagiarism, this might be useful. Or perhaps it’s for preventing it. Details are… sparse.
  • Alt text: For images. Because apparently, even digital pictures need a description.
  • Peer review: A process where others critique your work. Sounds delightful.
  • Dab solver: Helps resolve disambiguation links. A noble, if Sisyphean, task.
  • Disambig links: More of the same.
  • Redirect check: Ensures things point where they're supposed to. Essential for maintaining order in the chaos.

Citation Tools: The Actual Mechanics

  • Citer: This one takes a URL, DOI, ISBN, PMID, PMCID, OCLC, or Google Books URL and spits out a formatted reference. It can also handle some major news sites and the Wayback Machine. It’s efficient, I'll give it that.
  • Citoid: Integrated into both the Visual Editor and the source editor. It attempts to construct a full citation from a URL. The user guide is available if you're inclined to delve deeper.
  • Diberri Template builder: Converts various identifiers (DrugBank, HGNC, PubMed, etc.) into citations. For the technically minded.
  • MakeRef: A form for creating those ubiquitous {{cite xxx}} templates. Utterly straightforward.
  • OABOT: Finds open-access links. A small mercy in the often paywalled world of academic publishing.
  • Web2Cit: A generator for web sources, designed to fill in the gaps where Citoid might falter. Its translators are community-driven, which means… well, you can imagine.
  • Wikipedia AutoReferencer: A Microsoft Word tool. For those who still cling to the desktop.
  • Wikipedia-References-Creator: A Firefox add-on. Because browser extensions are the new black.
  • SnipManager: Adds a ribbon interface to the editing experience. If you like ribbons.
  • wikEd: A comprehensive editor. Apparently, it's quite popular.
  • The visual editor: Simplifies the process by accepting DOI, URL, ISBN, etc. It’s designed for ease of use, which some find… liberating. Even when editing source code, if you've enabled the right settings.

Tools for Improving Existing Citations

  • Citation expander: Automatically fills in missing citation data and corrects formatting. A digital samaritan, if you will.
  • reFill: Specifically targets bare URLs and fleshes them out. It's the digital equivalent of putting clothes on a nudist.

Duplicate Reference Finders

  • AutoWikiBrowser (AWB): Identifies and corrects exact duplicate references. It’s a blunt instrument, but effective for the obvious offenders.
  • User:Polygnotus/DuplicateReferences: A script that detects duplicate URLs and even calculates the similarity of the visible text. It’s thorough, perhaps to a fault.
  • URL Extractor For Web Pages and Text: This tool aims to find duplicate URLs, though it has a peculiar way of handling archive links and tracking parameters. The instructions are… detailed. You paste a URL, load it, tick boxes, and extract. Simple, if you can decipher the nuances. It’s a manual process, this one, requiring you to merge duplicates yourself. And watch out for false positives – the archive links can be a nuisance.

Libraries for Developers

  • [User:Richiez]'s tools: These were once used for automating citation handling. They converted formats like {{pmid|XXXXXXXX}} or {{isbn|XXXXXXXXXX}} into footnote or Harvard-style references. Marked as obsolete in 2016. A relic of a bygone era, perhaps.
  • pubmed2wikipedia.xsl: An XSL stylesheet that transforms PubMed XML output into Wikipedia references. For those who speak the language of stylesheets.

Templates and Documentation

This section is a labyrinth of shortcuts and meta-templates, designed to guide the creation and understanding of citation styles.

  • Typing aids: Shortcuts like {{cite *}}, {{cite xxx}}, {{cite.php}}, {{cs1}}, {{cs2}}, {{fnote}}, {{ldr}}, {{paren}}, and {{sfnote}} all point to more fundamental templates or documentation pages. They streamline the process, reducing the need to remember complex syntax.
  • Navboxes: {{Citation Style 1}} and {{Wikipedia referencing}} provide navigational boxes, offering quick access to related templates and help pages.
  • Debug: {{Cite compare}} aids in comparing different versions of citation templates. Essential for quality control.
  • Documentation: Templates like {{Citation Style documentation}}, {{Harvard citation documentation}}, {{Markup}}, and {{Refname rules}} offer detailed explanations for various referencing aspects.
  • Replication: Templates such as {{Dummy backlink}}, {{Dummy ref}}, {{Fake heading}}, and {{Fake notes and references}} are used to replicate structural elements for testing or demonstration purposes.

Navigational Boxes

Citation Tools (External Links)

This section lists external tools that can assist with citations. It's a mixed bag, some useful, some… less so.

  • Citer
  • Biomedical cite
  • Citation bot
  • MakeRef
  • Refill
  • WayBack
  • OABot

Wikipedia Technical Help

This section is a lifeline for those struggling with the technical aspects of Wikipedia. It directs users to various support channels, ensuring no one is left to languish in technical despair.

Getting Personal Technical Help

General Technical Help

Special Page-Related Help

Wikitext

Links and Diffs

Media Files

Templates and Lua Modules

Data Structure

HTML and CSS

Customisation and Tools

This entire section is a testament to the complexity of Wikipedia's inner workings. It’s a vast, interconnected system, and understanding it requires a certain… dedication. Or perhaps a profound lack of anything better to do. Either way, the tools are there. Use them wisely. Or don't. It's your monument to tedium.