Template talk:Wikipedia referencing

Pages to consider for inclusion[edit]

• Wikipedia:Verification methods
• Wikipedia:Overlink crisis
• Wikipedia:Citation overkill
• Wikipedia:Bombardment
• Wikipedia:Citation needed
• Help:Citations quick reference
• Wikipedia:Improving referencing efforts
• Wikipedia:Advanced footnote formatting
• Wikipedia:Citing sources/Example edits for different methods
• Wikipedia:Citing sources/Example style
• Wikipedia:Citing sources/Further considerations
• Wikipedia:List-defined reference how-to guide
• Wikipedia:How to mine a source

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

More

I use these 2 regularly, and would have liked to have known about them earlier in my wiki-journey. Possibly they should be listed here?

• http://toolserver.org/~holek/cite-gen/
• http://ottobib.com/ (also http://zeteo.info/references.php )

There's also the bots which fill in fields, based on what info is avail. They don't seem to be listed in any navboxes currently? Maybe add here?

• http://toolserver.org/~verisimilus/Bot/DOI_bot/ (via WP:UCB)
• http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/view/Reflinks

And today whilst trying to find an ottobib-equivalent for DOIs – (I found http://www.crossref.org/guestquery/ (doi-based-lookup near the bottom) but it doesn't return wikicode information, just xml) – I read more about {{cite doi}} and the related bot-filled templates (currently listed at Template:Citation Style 1). I'm just mentioning them for completism, and to aid anyone else searching in the future. —Quiddity (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

footnote1,2,3,4 links[edit]

I'm thinking we should remove the footnote1, footnote2, footnote3, and footnote4 links as well as the supporting "Italics indicate deprecated or obsolete content." row. I just don't see that this long-since obsolete material would be useful enough to editors to be worth cluttering up the template. Jason Quinn (talk) 06:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)