Talk:EndNote

	; Archives (Index) ;
	2013; 2016; 2017; 2018; 2019; 2021;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Education Low‑importance

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Software: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 September 2020 and 16 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Trep1908.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Legal dispute with Zotero: "click-thru license" is unsourced

"They also added a restrictive click-thru license to their styles download website" was added in this revision by @Nealmcb. I found this sentence confusing, as someone unfamiliar with the subject matter I was unsure which party "they" was referring to (my assumption is Thomson Reuters). I viewed the citation in an attempt to figure this out, but was unable to find any mention of a "click-thru license" in the original text.

This source previously (revision) appeared after the first sentence in this section, but was moved to the end of the paragraph when the click-thru license sentence was added.

Because I could not find any information about said click-thru license in the source, I am adding {{failed verification}}. Firvqipo (talk) 13:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Endnote 20.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep version history and compatibility?

Is it worth keeping all of the version history and compatibility section? I don't see it on other software pages. ToneDaBass (talk) 22:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely excessive, along with possibly the two preceding sections. Feel free to trim them down. –CWenger (^ • @) 22:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO the version history and compatibility section as of this version is quite long. But it is also a very helpful reference e.g. when trying to (help people) transfer their bibliographic databases from ancient Endnote versions to a current one. To give an example: With the minor version X9.3.3 Endnote got a new database format (SQLite rather than the MySQL). This section should be reintroduced.

The sections "Import format" and "Tags and fields" are helpful as a reference, too. But they probably could go to a new page ENW (file format), compare e.g. RIS (file format). Hkubr (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archives (Index)
2013 2016 2017 2018 2019 2021
This page is archived by ClueBot III.