Tools, part 1: References, external links, categories and size

Broadly defined, a tool is any implement designed to make a process simpler, more efficient, or easier, adding extra functionality in the process. On Wikipedia, tools for editing articles run in various ways; some are attached to the standard edit toolbar (which may need to be activated in the Preferences), some to the sidebar, some are bots, and others run on the Toolserver. Some are completely independent of Wikipedia and run on their own, separate sites. However, they all have something in common: they were designed and built by competent coders to make editing easier and faster.

User scripts consist of JavaScript code that runs in your browser, adding functionality to Wikipedia's standard user interface. They range from extra links to extensive editing platforms. Never copy scripts into your skin.js page; instead use importScript("User:Example/awesome script.js") which keeps scripts updated with bug fixes and enhancements. Compatibility varies with skin and browser, with Internet Explorer being problematic. A more extensive script list is at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts.

The RefToolbar 2.0 is one of the most popular Wikipedia tools. The improved second version adds an extra drop-down menu, "Cite," at the end of your toolbar. This allows you to insert any of the four main citation templates: Cite web, Cite news, Cite book, and Cite journal. Just as useful are its "Named references" insertion button and its error check. This saves you from memorizing all of the citation parameters, which can be simply inserted into the template.

Author : Mr.Z-man

Placement : Adds an extra drop down-menu to your toolbar.

Demo : Try it in Wikipedia:Sandbox

Installation : Two ways: (i) Go to Special:Preferences, click on the tab "Gadgets," check the box for refToolbar, and hit the Save button; or (ii) go to Special:MyPage/skin.js, and insert the text {{subst:js|User:Mr.Z-man/refToolbar 2.0.js}}

Editrefs searches an article for every instance of <ref> </ref> tags and displays them in convenient individual text boxes for easy editing. This makes checking that reference fields are filled out, making sure they are standardized, and other general reference checks easier and simpler to do.

Author : Dr pda

Placement : Adds "Edit references" to the side bar. Note: Only displayed when editing the page.

Demo : Paste javascript:importScript("User:Dr_pda/editrefs.js");editRefs() into your browser's address bar while editing the article of interest.

Installation : Add {{subst:js|User:Dr pda/editrefs.js}} to your Special:MyPage/skin.js page

Reflinks adds titles to bare references, taken from the HTML <title> element of the linked Web page. For example,

<ref>http://example.com</ref>

becomes

<ref>[http://example.com Example Web Page]</ref>

The tool is available in two modes: interactive and automatic. In interactive mode, assumptions made upon expanding references are presented for review, while the automatic mode tags titles with <!-- bot generated title --> comments for possible later review by humans. It also supports the Cite web template, filling out other fields besides the title, such as the access date.

Author : Dispenser and NicDumZ

When given an article name and the requesting user's name, this toolserver bot crosschecks Internet databases to add DOIs (character strings identifying online papers) and PMIDs (for PubMed-indexed life science and biomedical papers) you may have missed while preparing an article, and then the Citation bot automatically adds the values to the article.

Author: Smith609

Checklinks checks all of the outgoing links on a page and ensures that they work. A table is displayed giving the status of each. It is an efficient way to check an article for dead and broken links. WebCite and Wayback Machine integration allows easy fixing from within the tool.

Author: Dispenser

Hotcat allows the placement of categories on a page from a "hot" list. It adds icons (−) and (±) onto the page's Category bar. Clicking on these icons allows you to quickly delete, edit, or add categories to a page. As you type in a word, the tool displays a list of categories starting with those letters; for example, typing in "Shield" will give you Shield volcanoes, Shield bugs, and Shields. Press the button and the tool will automatically edit in the category for you, saving you from having to search out the category yourself.

Author : TheDJ

Placement : Adds text buttons to the category tab at the bottom of the page.

Demo : Try it in Wikipedia:Sandbox

Installation : Add {{subst:js|User:TheDJ/Gadget-HotCat.js}} to your Special:MyPage/skin.js page, or go to Special:Preferences, check its box under "Gadgets", and click "Save".

Prosesize measures the amount of "readable prose" in an article. Installing the tool adds a "Page size" link to the sidebar; pressing this highlights the readable prose on the page and displays the total size, in both kilobytes (kB) and number of words. This is useful for determining whether a long article should be split or condensed, or whether an article meets the criteria for the Did you know? section of the Main Page.

Author : Dr pda

Placement : Adds a "Page size" link to the Wikipedia side bar.

Demo : Paste javascript:importScript('User:Dr_pda/prosesize.js');getDocumentSize(); into your browser address bar while viewing the article of interest.

Installation : Add {{subst:js|User:Dr pda/prosesize.js}} to your Special:MyPage/skin.js page

DYKcheck is similar to Prosesize, except it has more features, also checking expansion dates, article creation, and other parameters. It can be used by editors reviewing suggestions to help assess articles for Did you know.

Author : Shubinator

Placement : Adds a "DYK check" blue link to the Wikipedia side bar.

Demo : Paste javascript:importScript('User:Shubinator/DYKcheck.js');dykCheck(); into your browser address bar while viewing the article of interest.

Installation : Add {{subst:js|User:Shubinator/DYKcheck.js}} to your Special:MyPage/skin.js page.

← Previous "Dispatches"

Next "Dispatches" →

In this issue

6 September 2010 (all comments)

News and notes

In the news

Book review

Dispatches

WikiProject report

Features and admins

Arbitration report

Technology report

+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

This page has been blanked for ease of comment. ResMar 23:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is also "Cite for Wiki", a downloadable addition which creates a "quick and dirty" tool for adding initial sources from web pages which are susceptible to later refinement by bots and others. I've found it useful in dealing with unsourced, but credible, edits, as long as they are reliably sourced on the web. Rodhullandemu 23:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these, like Reflinks and DYKcheck, would work better as bots, wouldn't they? Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 07:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ginger, at least on Reflinks, and it sounds like the same on DYKcheck, you sometimes need a human to review before edits are saved. Using Reflinks, the tool extracts infomation from websites used as sources for an article and one problem is that sometimes the info is incorrectly labelled e.g. reflinks, on the plain links setting, can suggest within a cite template: author=11 June 2010 by Joseph Pulitzer|date=11 June 2010... i.e. a human needs to look at this and see that the date has been duplicated. Having said this, Reflinks was used automatically in the past see [1] Tom B (talk) 10:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, thanks for this article! I found it the most useful Signpost article I've read in a long time. Many of these features should really be included as standard, but since they aren't, people need to know about them. (I expect most users aren't even aware of all the possibilities available under User Preferences.) Robofish (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a wonderfully useful report, thank you for writing it.--Eloquence* 04:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I wonder whether it's possible to save it as a WP page, after the next and final installment. Tony (talk) 07:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A good addition to Signpost. I think it's a shame that probably people who read Signpost are going to be towards the end of the spectrum that are aware of useful tools already. Still, it should inspire a few readers. --bodnotbod (talk) 10:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'de be suprised... ResMar 23:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is good article. "Demo" link is especially nice. --Was a bee (talk) 01:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]