Possibly relevant as an alternative solution to the problem: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Citoid I suspect that Google would be reluctant to add a Wikimedia citation format, because there is no one Wikimedia citation format. (Happy to be corrected on that if I'm wrong, though.) Luis On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Liangent &lt;liangent(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- Luis Villa Deputy General Counsel Wikimedia Foundation 415.839.6885 ext. 6810 *This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer>.*

On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Andy Mabbett &lt;andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk&gt; wrote: Presumably those materials are all in English, unlike Scholar (and Wikipedia!) Both Google and Wikimedia claim to be global, multi-lingual solutions. So both we and Google should be aiming higher. But of course take my perspective with a grain of salt - I've always found it crazy that there is not a standardized citation format across the projects, so I may be putting words in Google's mouth. Luis -- Luis Villa Deputy General Counsel Wikimedia Foundation 415.839.6885 ext. 6810 *This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer>.*

Google Scholar seem to do very well on the Citoid tests: http://zotero-translator-tests.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/testTrans… Just make sure to get that thing running and we will have a more robust solution to ask potential source sites to adjust their metadata to. *Med vänliga hälsningar,Jan Ainali* Verksamhetschef, Wikimedia Sverige <http://se.wikimedia.org/wiki/Huvudsida> 0729 - 67 29 48 *Tänk dig en värld där varje människa har fri tillgång till mänsklighetens samlade kunskap. Det är det vi gör.* Bli medlem. <http://blimedlem.wikimedia.se> 2014-08-03 21:44 GMT+02:00 Luis Villa &lt;lvilla(a)wikimedia.org&gt;rg>:

Hej! Det går alldeles utmärkt, ni är varmt välkomna! *Med vänliga hälsningar,Jan Ainali* Verksamhetschef, Wikimedia Sverige <http://se.wikimedia.org/wiki/Huvudsida> 0729 - 67 29 48 *Tänk dig en värld där varje människa har fri tillgång till mänsklighetens samlade kunskap. Det är det vi gör.* Bli medlem. <http://blimedlem.wikimedia.se> Den 13 augusti 2014 10:17 skrev Anders Wennersten &lt;mail(a)anderswennersten.se&gt; :

Lodewijk: Yes indeed. The citation/footnote coding format for different language editions of Wikipedia is not the same, not to mention the other Wikimedia projects. I wonder if this is something that Wikidata could (eventually) handle? I have been hoping that one day all books (at least those with ISBNs) could have a Wikidata entry. This would mean that all of the bibliographic metadata published as CC0 by a variety of national libraries could be imported and we would have a tremendously useful catalogue of published works. Presubamly then, each Wikipedia could rely on this database for footnotes to specific books (each with its own presentation format if it wants) - rather than having to manually enter each book's bibliographic information every time you want to cite it on a new Wikipedia article... This would be similar to the way Commons is a central repository for Media files, Wikidata could be a central repository of footnote information. Does this make (logical and technological) sense? Is this feasible, or completely out of scope for Wikidata? Andy: Thanks for pointing out the way "Trove" provides a citation tool for easy use on (English) Wikipedia articles. For those who've not seen it, here's a random example - http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/page/1038049 click the "cite" link near the top-left corner. I asked them to incorporate this into the Trove system in 2009 in association with the GLAM-WIKI conference in Canberra. Over the years this has proved to be hugely beneficial to Trove (a service of the National Library of Australia), and has generated thousands of deep-links to their catalogue http://linkypedia.inkdroid.org/websites/16/ These links made Wikipedia their number one non-search-engine provider of inbound traffic [I was employed at the NLA until recently]. -Liam / Wittylama On 4 August 2014 09:18, Lodewijk &lt;lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org&gt; wrote:

On 4 August 2014 11:43, Fæ &lt;faewik(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I find that often rimes out, sadly. (It works well with Google books URLs, though.) -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

On 4 August 2014 08:18, Lodewijk &lt;lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org&gt; wrote: I believe such is being discussed, as part of the wider conversation around using Wikidata as a repository for citations. But that is months if not years away, and we could in the meantime have, if we can secure Google's cooperation as proposed, a quick solution for the majority of cases in a few days or weeks. A hack-y work-around, if one is needed, would be for non-english sites to aheva template called {{cite journal}}, and have that always "subst:" into a ,coal template, as en.WP currently does with for example, various de.WP infobox templates . -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk