Is there a reason this is classified as a "bibliographic database?"
It appears to be purely "reference management software," as it is a software package.
Steve3
This article was nominated for deletion on 3 December 2025. The result of the discussion was keep.
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries 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.LibrariesWikipedia:WikiProject LibrariesTemplate:WikiProject LibrariesLibraries
Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Is there a reason this is classified as a "bibliographic database?"
It appears to be purely "reference management software," as it is a software package.
Steve300321:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
There are multiple publicly accessible databases that use refbase as a backend, such as USGS-Woods Hole. Since this article doesn't discuss those particular databases, I'm not strongly opposed to removing the cat. I think it could be useful to have a subcat under both bibliographic databases and reference management software for the commonly used web-based managers (at ~10K records each, these tend to be much larger than mere reference managers & a bit smaller than notable bibliographic databases). --Karnesky23:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps products that serve as backends belong in their own category? I see a number of similar products that don't seem to have a real category: refbase, DSpace, Greenstone, Eprints, and perhaps Fedora. Could all these products be called "institutional repository software," or "web-based managers" (as you mentioned), or something similar?
I'm guessing the primary difference between these and "reference management software" is having real scalability and providing a web interface? Perhaps "reference management software" is more something that runs on a client workstation and has some level of document editor integration? (Does refbase do client integration too?) Steve300300:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
W.r.t. client integration: While refbase can generate a bibliography from an office document that contains manually placed in-text citations, refbase currently does not offer a macro & palette to allow direct database access from within office desktop applications (more info). This is a planned feature, though. Matthias Steffens18:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Secondary sources
Latest comment: 8 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion
The article is currently tagged as Unreferenced. There are a couple of claims where I think a citation would be needed so I marked them as such. However, outside of pages like this one I cannot find any regular secondary sources.
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.
The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.