Wikipedia talk:The Wikipedia Library/Citoid

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,[https://scholar.google.se/citations?view_op=top_venues Top publications], Google Scholar[http://www.sciencegateway.org/rank/index.html High impact journals], Science Gateway 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)

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)

There is an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#RfC: Citation tools regarding whetyer citation tools should allowed. Your input on this question is welcome. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

When you insert a citation automatically from newspapers.com, it adds it as a "cite web" and puts the date, the page number, the newspaper and the website in the title field (and doesn't insert the title at all), meaning that either you have to insert the citation manually or switch to source editing to fix the citation.

Example 1: https://www.newspapers.com/image/960939224/ ("Apr 15, 2011, page 21 - News and Record at Newspapers.com". Newspapers.com. Retrieved 2025-06-15.)

Example 2: https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/18240005/ ("Blue Island Sun-Standard from Blue Island, Illinois". Newspapers.com. 1977-05-12. Retrieved 2025-06-15.) where the date ends up in the date field but this is the only example I've seen like this.

I tried zbib.org for the first example and it produces this result: ‘15 Apr 2011, Page 21 - News and Record at Newspapers.Com’. Newspapers.Com, https://www.newspapers.com/image/960939224. Accessed 16 June 2025.

Best case scenario, I'd like to see the entire citation picked up correctly, including the "title" and, if possible, "access level" and "location of publication".

If I could ask for just one change, however, it would be that the citation be labelled "cite news" instead of "cite web", which would at least allow it to be edited without switching to source editing.

Thanks MmeMaigret (talk) 14:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)