Remarkably well presented. Makes me want to dive right in. I've bookmarked it and will re-visit. Many thanks. Le Marteau (talk) 12:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Le Marteau: Glad you've found it useful! It truly is a time saver and a wonderful tool. It's not perfect, but it gets you 95-98% of the way, and saves you so many headaches. You can focus on content/accuracy instead of manually entering citations and making silly little mistakes that you won't catch because your mind is tired of looking at half a zillion citations. Does J. Phys. Chem. refer to the Journal of Physics and Chemistry or the Journal of Physical Chemistry? Let the bot figure it out! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The “case 1” example is better before the “improvements” which only add illegible strings of numbers and letters that anyone who cares could find with a few seconds of effort, but fill the article bibliography with a massive amount of distracting visual clutter. Anyone who cares about "bibcode", "s2cid", "pmc", "pmid", "mr", "isbn", etc. etc. already knows how to look them up, and people who don’t care about them are poorly served by having to hunt past them looking for the actual content of the citation. For an open access paper like this, just one link is already entirely sufficient; for a non-open-access paper a single preprint link can be a big help. But adding every conceivable citation index identifier to every citation is ridiculous. –jacobolus(t) 14:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
