Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mr.Z-man (talk | contribs) at 04:11, 1 November 2015 (→Autofill not initiating in absence of incrementables: sign). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Old 1.0 page Archive 1 Archive 2 Old 2.0 page Archive 1 Archive 2 Current none yet

Reorganize associated pages

I intend to move Misplaced Pages talk:RefToolbar 1.0 and Misplaced Pages talk:refToolbar 2.0 to subpages of Misplaced Pages talk:RefToolbar as Misplaced Pages talk:RefToolbar/1.0 and Misplaced Pages talk:RefToolbar/2.0, respectively. This will better organize the information related to RefToolbar in anticipation of future versions (for instance as a result of mw:New editor engagement/Smaller issues). It will also fix the disparity in capitalization. This page was previously a redirect to Misplaced Pages talk:RefToolbar 1.0, which was confusing. I have removed the redirect and added hatnotes so that future discussion on the version pages is limited to topics about that version. General discussion should occur here. It looks like few articles link to these pages so the moves I am proposing should be uncontroversial maintenance. If you can think of a good reason why it should not be done, please explain here. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 22:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

There has been ample time for discussion on this. Any last minute remarks before I go ahead and make changes? I intend to organizes some of the pages into subpages of this page, and also to redirect talk pages here so that there's a more unified place of discussion. I'm really quite disappointed that such a widely-used and important feature basically has no maintainers. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

 Completed I have completed the moves. It all went surprisingly smoothly. This page is now the centralized discussion on Misplaced Pages for the Reftoolbar implementation here. The talk pages for the 1.0 and 2.0 pages (now subpages) redirect here. I have also added an archive box to access the the old discussion. There's still the Mediawiki page and its talk page, so the discussion is still fragmented but at least now the discussion on Misplaced Pages will be more coherent. Perhaps more consolidation can occur in the future. Jason Quinn (talk) 04:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Roadmap to 3.0

The Reftoolbar currently has no active maintainers. This is a shame because it's part of the default interface and is one of the best tools for editors. I have used the toolbar for quite some time and have some good ideas for how it could be made even better which I have mentioned already at MediaWiki talk:RefToolbar.js. As preparation, I have organized a lot of the information related to the Reftoolbar to make it easier for people to understand how it works and where the relevant sources are. I am now proposing a roadmap to bring the toolbar up-to-date. It's a three-stage proposal.

Stage zero (gather support)

Find people interested in this project, perhaps even get the WMF involved.

Stage one (get current house in order)

Identify and fix existing issues with the current implementation.

• Under help > discussion, the "What you get" entries for "~~~~" and "~~~" have parse errors. This isn't a RefToolbar problem but a known WikiEditor issue. It is Bug 42107.
• The 1.0 no longer seem to work (at least under Vector) if the user doesn't want to use Reftoolbar 2.0.
• Any more??

Stage two (version 2.6 a/b)

Make "simple" improvements to modernize the template.

• Edit scripts to add a space after each parameter/value in the template rather than just creating a single long string without whitespace breaks. This is particularly important for smaller screens to get sensible line-breaking. I endorse the "space after" solution so that the generated code would look like this "{{cite book |last=Doe |first=John |title=The Life of John Doe}}".
• Revamp the form interface:
  • Remove deprecated parameters like "coauthors".
  • Carefully organize the forms in a way that makes sense.
  • Use more tooltips to explain the intention of the parameters.
  • Add useful fields not currently there like "quote".
• What else?

Stage three (leading to version 3.0a/b)

Make more complex improvements that greatly increase utility.

• Have a dynamic form that has an "Add author" button.
• A single "Page/pages" field that autodetects if "page=" or "pages=" should be used.
• What else??

To make this happen we need volunteers, especially those who can actually edit the templates. Unfortunately, my javascript is weak, as is my currently understanding of how the Reftoolbar works at the code level. I'll be learning as I go. I have however, devised a solid plan and given editors a better way of contributing. Jason Quinn (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to be of much technical assistance here, but I am perhaps a big, big user of the refToolbar tools, particularly when a group of us were working to cut back the URBLP backlog. The most critical functionality in terms of general use are the auto-fillin helpers, that is, the tools that take an ISBN, a Google Books URL, a New York Times web site URL (or even just a plain old URL to get a title), a DOI, an ISSN) and take a stab at filling in some of the fields for you. Different versions of refToolBar have selected different subsets of these features to include. The correct answer is "all of them", sometimes I want to start with an ISBN (they're everywhere), but many Google Books URLs include page number references, and those are properly handled by at least one version of refToolbar.

I wonder if it would be possible to provide automation to check for existing Wayback/WebCite snapshots, and/or request the latter. The reference expiration problem is serious.

I don't find the layouts of any of them to currently be problematic.

Missing quote= is sad, but at least one form in one of the versions has a "stick in your extra fields here" option and that works pretty well. --j⚛e decker 20:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, j⚛e decker. Glad to hear from another user of autofill. One of the current problems with RefToolbar is that the script that autofills the forms is in an inactive user's toolserver account and is unreadable. That script will have to be replaced if it cannot be obtained to upgrade. I'm slowly thinking about solving such issues but I have travels coming up and will not be very active for a few weeks at least. In terms of the current forms, I'm convinced that my versions would change your mind. At some point, I will produce mock-ups that are more concrete. Jason Quinn (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

This is great! It's such a useful feature, especially the ISBN autofill! I would love to use it on german WP too. I'll watch this page and i hope i can help in some way :-) --Atlasowa (talk) 09:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Jason, Sorry I've missed this until now. Congrats on your RFA, I was glad to be able to support. I don't have TS access so I can't help directly there, but bet we could find someone helpful in that community. I look forward to your mockups! --j⚛e decker 00:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Book ISBN bug

There's a tiny bug for First and last names: Screenshot This only happens for some books. (Maybe because of long list of authors). -Saurabh P. (talk) 10:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it is in whatever database that is being queried: http://toolserver.org/~alexz/ref/lookup.php?isbn=1588904571 --— Gadget850 (Ed) 14:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I see. Has it always been like this? I started using autofill just a while ago. The database staff should be let known of this extraction error. -Saurabh P. (talk) 09:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Now that we have access to lookup.php I can see that it is calling WorldCat and then massaging the returned data. The returned data includes author="Mark S. Greenberg ; with contributions by Nicolas Arredondo .... ." Lookup.php processes this to split the author into first and last names by looking for the last space in the string, thus filling in last=al] and first=Mark S. Greenberg ; with contributions by Nicolas Arredondo .... [et.

Lest you misconstrue, I am not a PHP programmer, but I have a lot of experience picking apart bits of code that I know nothing about. --— Gadget850 (Ed) 12:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

After reflection, I don't see any good solution. Lookup.php works just fine for a Western name with a singular surname, but will do the split badly for multiple names or for compound surnames such as Mark L. Van Name. --— Gadget850 (Ed) 13:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I think, we can put a different processing code for returned data if it includes "", "edited by" etc. If you or someone reading this has access to the PHP and editing rights, s/he can write the code for it, one can keep it in beta and errors will get reported. God knows how many badly cut references have been already placed in mainspace pages. Alternatively, we can make it put whole returned data in first name field, which is a bad idea. —Saurabh P. (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Cite video → Cite AV media

{{Cite video}} has been renamed to {{Cite AV media}} to more accurately reflect its purpose. {{Cite video}} is a redirect and still works as expected. --— Gadget850 (Ed) 08:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

lookup.php and crossref.php source code now available

After contacting User:Mr.Z-man, he has made the toolserver-based php sources (lookup.php and crossref.php) available so that others can take over maintenance of the Reftoolbar. I have started to investigate how it works. I have already noticed a potential problem with the xISBN Web service which is used to provide the ISBN lookup. That service is limited to 1000 requests per day. I have no idea how many requests Misplaced Pages generates. I would guesstimate it's around that. We may need to contact the Worldcat technical support at some point to make sure we are kosher. I am planning on trying to get a toolsever account and transfer the scripts over from Mr.Z-man's. It would also probably help for me to become an admin here so I can edit scripts without waiting or bothering others although I'm not really looking forward to that process. Regardless, we now have all the pieces to keep the Reftoolbar working. That's a huge improvement. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

That's great news! I'm particularly fond of the ISBN lookup in the Reftoolbar, so this 1000 requests/day limit is rather shocking ;-) There are stats on german WP counting total refs in April 2011 and April 2012: in 1 year there was a growth of 1 million refs (2,6 to 3,6 million), so ~2.500 refs/day are added. If 10% of refs are books, that could be a lot of ISBN lookups! --Atlasowa (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Please change embedded explanation of "Work" in cite web template to match its description in documentation

If you use the dropdown to insert a "cite web" template, the vaguely titled "Work" field provides a "?" over which you can hover, which then says "What larger work this is part of?". Every time I see that, I ask myself "What do they mean?". Then, buried in documentation, I see that it means "Title of website". Which explanation is short, sweet, and readily understandable. Can we please make the hint match the documentation? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 13:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The tooltip is located in MediaWiki:RefToolbarMessages-en.js:

'cite-work-tooltip' : 'What larger work this is part of',

The work parameter is used in {{cite journal}} and others to record the journal, magazine, newspaper or periodical; in {{cite web}} it is the website. I suggest:

'cite-work-tooltip' : 'journal, magazine, newspaper, periodical or website'

--— Gadget850 (Ed) 13:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with Gadget850's suggestion. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

While we are in this, are other tweaks needed? --— Gadget850 (Ed) 02:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The few other existing hints seem clear. Perhaps we could add a new one for the pages parameter? Esp. when citing books, I think that editors could easily jump to the wrong conclusion about what it means. Something like this?

'cite-pages-tooltip' : 'Not for total number of pages in source. Separate cited page ranges with an en dash (–) and non-sequential pages with a comma'

--Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I would rather be consistent and use the description from {{Citation Style documentation}}: "Pages in the source that supports the content; separate page ranges with an en dash (–); separate non-sequential pages with a comma (,); do not use to indicate the total number of pages in the source." This would show as ? --— Gadget850 (Ed) 13:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I thought that might be too long, but if not, it's good. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

What version of RefToolbar do you use? --— Gadget850 (Ed) 14:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't know the version--I assume whatever the default is for Windows 8 (bleh) and up-to-date versions of Chrome and JS. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:RefToolbar for the three versions. --— Gadget850 (Ed) 02:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

2.0b, in Chrome, which I've switched to using, since IE10 under Windows 8 is unstable and dies on me. And IE10 shows me no RefToolar at all, another annoyance. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The only tooltips I see are Cite web: work, author's article; Cite news: author's article; Cite book: author's article; Cite journal: at, ref, postscript. Found where the tooltips are inserted: MediaWiki:RefToolbarConfig.js. There are a lot of tooltips defined, but only those few are used. --— Gadget850 (Ed) 10:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• Hey, Gadget850, either we are talking to ourselves here, or others are agreeing in silence. Either way, I'd like to make your version of the edit and addition discussed here--I'd prefer if you would do the honors, but I'll have a go if I don't hear back. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh. I already did it, broke the whole RefToolbar and got it fixed. --— Gadget850 (Ed) 02:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, what do you know, the "Work" hint looks smashing now. How about adding the bit about "pages"? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Since I broke this once and got a lot of comments at VPT and HD, I am going to do this at http://test.wikipedia.org. Which is good, since I got a bit backwards. Pages has a tooltip defined, but the tooltip isn't actually used. OK— check http://test.wikipedia.org and see how it looks. --— Gadget850 (Ed) 11:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I checked it out there and it works fine. However, having tried it out, I am concerned that reproducing that entire block of text from the documentation is too wordy for a hint--I can't get through it all before it automatically disappears, and I already know what it says. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

For me, the tooltip shows as long as the mouse hovers over the ?. --— Gadget850 (Ed) 12:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Disappears after about 10 seconds for me--using Chrome/Windows 8. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a well-known feature of Chrome; see https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/comic-text/hfpglafkfedcnnojpioconphfcelcljj. --— Gadget850 (Ed) 00:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, then. In any event, it works, and either the long or short version are better than no guidance at all. Bung it on in! --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. --— Gadget850 (Ed) 02:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

How to install it?

It says on the page that all English users should have this as default (and I used to too) but for some reason I seem to have lost the "cite" option on my toolbar, though I don't seem to be using the "RefToolbar 2.0a" either because I have no {{}} icon. Could anyone tell me how I can get it back?! Many thanks! ----Brigade Piron (talk) 10:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Try logging out and logging in. --— Gadget850 (Ed) 10:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

This was a bug introduced from a recent edit. See Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(technical)#Cite_toolbar_not_working:_admin_needed for more information. It should work now. If not you may have to clear your browser's cache. See Misplaced Pages:Bypass your cache for instructions on how to do this. Jason Quinn (talk) 02:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Gadget not working on gl.wikipedia

I have ported this gadget to the Galician Misplaced Pages but it does not work. I tried following the instructions and did not work. Then I tried lots of other things with the same result. Can you check what's wrong? Here are the affected pages: MediaWiki:RefToolbar.js, MediaWiki:RefToolbarConfig.js, MediaWiki:RefToolbarMessages-en.js, MediaWiki:RefToolbarMessages-gl.js and MediaWiki:Gadget-refToolbar.js (and MediaWiki:Gadget-refToolbar and MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition). I would appreciate your help. Cheers! --Toliño (talk) 13:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I noticed gl:MediaWiki:Gadget-refToolbar.js uses "mw.user.options" but this is from module "user.options", which is not yet declared as a dependency on gl:MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition. Besides, the code is different from current version of Misplaced Pages:RefToolbar/2.0/porting. Helder 16:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your corrections. I have made this edits: and . However, they seem not to be enough. Any other suggestion? --Toliño (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Helder 17:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, thank you so much! I think there is one thing left: We need support for Galician to be added at MediaWiki:RefToolbar.js. Otherwise, messages are shown in English (which is default). Is that right? --Toliño (talk) 13:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

You will need to make a copy of MediaWiki:RefToolbarMessages-en.js, then save it as MediaWiki:RefToolbarMessages-gl.js then translate the parts after the colon. Then we can add it to MediaWiki:RefToolbar.js. --— Gadget850 (Ed) 17:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Not really. The script does not support other languages as it should. Currently, other wikis have to copy their translation over the local "MediaWiki:RefToolbarMessages-en.js". See MediaWiki_talk:RefToolbar.js#Portuguese_translation for details. Helder 13:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Now it works! Thank you so much! I am so grateful for your help. This tool is very useful. Thanks! --Toliño (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah. We should document what happened here so we don't reinvent the wheel on the next export to another language. --— Gadget850 (Ed) 14:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Is this change enough? Helder 16:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Lua updates

The following templates have been update to use the Lua module:

• {{cite book}}
• {{cite encyclopedia}}
• {{cite journal}}
• {{cite news}}
• {{cite web}}

These updated templates are backward compatible with the old version, but there are some new features:

• There is no limit to the number of authors: first1, last1...firstn,lastn
• The same for editors
• Coauthors still works, but should be deprecated

See Module talk:Citation/CS1/Updates for a discussion. --  Gadget850 (Ed) 12:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Errors with pipes in titles

Please see WP:VPT#Errors with pipes in titles; this toolbar seems to be one of the culprits. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Now archived: Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)/Archive 110#Errors with pipes in titles; but still a problem. Can anyone help, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

This is still an active issue. Has anyone recognized this as an official issue yet? Interference 541 (talk) 05:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Dates in cite templates

See my comments at Help talk:Citation Style 1#Full date not showing in "cite web" template. It seems that I've been using the "Templates" toolbar to insert references and dutifully inputting the date as separate elements in the date, month and year fields without realising that the resulting {{cite web}} template ignores the month and year fields when the date is entered. I suppose it was a fairly minor detail that didn't stand out so I didn't notice until now. The result has been any number of citations I've made that now only display the day of the month instead of the day, month and year!

Perhaps the "Template" dialog box could have a tooltip or other functionality to draw attention that, when the full date is known, the full date should go in the date field and the month and year fields should be left blank? I'm pretty tech savvy but completely glossed over that one! —sroc (talk) 02:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea. The Reftoolbar has many usability issues. I know how to add tooltips and this sounds like something that should be done. I'm traveling at the moment so the first chance to do it won't be for a bit. Jason Quinn (talk) 04:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! I wonder if there's a bot that could look for instances that need correction. I don't know where to start with all the tech stuff! —sroc (talk) 08:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

See Module talk:Citation/CS1/Archive 8#Deprecated day and month. --  Gadget850 11:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Gadget850, for pointing out the interesting discussion. I'll leave it up to you if you think it's worth flagging there the suggestion of a bot to handle the clean-up of cite templates using |date= … |month= … |year= … (and judging from the clean-up I've done of articles I've edited, I don't think I'm the only one to have done this). —sroc (talk) 15:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

As discussed at Module talk:Citation/CS1#Cite Template feature prompting incorrect entry of date.2C month.2C year parameters, I propose that the RefToolbar wizard be updated as follows:

• Remove the month field, as this parameter is to be deprecated;
• Rename the year field to year (when full date unknown) or year (Harvard referencing only) or something similar to indicate that it should only be used in particular cases and otherwise ignored when a full date is known (in which case the full date should be entered in the date field).

I think this would overcome the above issues. We would need a bot to clean up all of the existing faulty {{cite}} tags, though. —sroc (talk) 02:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that 'month' is going to be deprecated, as it is often used for a season for periodicals and 'date' will not support a season.

Perhaps we should show as 'full date' OR 'month' 'year'. --  Gadget850 10:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see.

I'm not sure that using the labels "full date", "month", "year" completely avoids the confusion, depending on how the "month" and "year" fields are set off from the "full date" field. Maybe something like: "full date", "month/season (Harvard referencing only)", "year reference (Harvard referencing only)"? Maybe including tooltips explaining the use of each, maybe with an illustrative example? —sroc (talk) 13:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Although admittedly the "full date" label should prompt the completion of the full date where it is needed and if the user also completes the "month" and "year" fields by mistake they would be redundant in most cases. Harmless, but time wasting for the poor editor that completes them every time for no reason. —sroc (talk) 13:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Porting instructions

I've been pulling my hair out trying to get the scripts to import onto a MW 1.20.4 installation (other instructions floating around the web don't work either). Could someone confirm if they still work, and if other dependencies are needed (I have Wikieditor installed, but that doesn't seem to help either). Vickytnz (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Have RefToolbar.js call RefToolbarConfig.js instead of RefToolbarMessages-LA.js

If you look at the tail of MediaWiki:RefToolbarMessages-en.js and MediaWiki:RefToolbarMessages-de.js you'll see they both have these two lines

// Load configuration for site
var RefToolbarLocal = importScript('MediaWiki:RefToolbarConfig.js');

as their last lines. Since all "message" scripts call these same two lines as the very last thing they do, it seems to make sense to move these two lines to MediaWiki:RefToolbar.js after the calls to the "message" script themselves (see the call graph). This is the first of a few code refractoring moves I intend. This is is the simplest. Any objections to this move? Jason Quinn (talk) 03:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I've made this change. Let me know if there are any problems. Jason Quinn (talk) 03:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

There's been one report of an issue. Not clear if it's cache-related or not. Anybody else? Jason Quinn (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Another proposed code move for maintainability purposes

I now intend to move the following large code block from MediaWiki:RefToolbarConfig.js to MediaWiki:RefToolbar.js. The block defines functions and aren't really related to configuration anyhow and so don't belong in MediaWiki:RefToolbarConfig.js. The remaining code in that file is stuff that is intended to be modified so this move isolates volatile code from the rest. Plus the Reftoolbar will then bundle most of its important stuff in only two places (MediaWiki:RefToolbar.js and MediaWiki:RefToolbarBase.js). This will make the code much easier to understand. The code will moved right after the line that imports MediaWiki:RefToolbarConfig.js in MediaWiki:RefToolbar.js.

new citeErrorCheck({'type':'reflist', 'testname':'samecontent', 'desc': 'cite-samecontent-desc',
'func': function(reflist) {
  var errors = ;
  var refs2 = ;
  for(var i=0; i<reflist.length; i++) {
    if (!reflist.shorttag) {
      if ($j.inArray(reflist.content, refs2) != -1) {
        if ($j.inArray(reflist.content, errors) == -1) {
          errors.push(reflist.content);
        }
      } else {
        refs2.push(reflist.content);
      }
    }
  }
  ret = ;
  for(var j=0; j<errors.length; j++) {
    ret.push({'msg':'cite-samecontent-error', 'err':errors});
  }
  return ret;
}}
);
new citeErrorCheck({'type':'reflist', 'testname':'repeated', 'desc':'cite-repeated-desc',
'func': function(reflist) {
  var errors = ;
  var refs2 = ;
  for(var i=0; i<reflist.length; i++) {
    if (!reflist.shorttag && reflist.refname) {
      if ($j.inArray(reflist.refname, refs2) != -1) {
        if ($j.inArray(reflist.refname, errors) == -1) {
          errors.push(reflist.refname);
        }
      } else {
        refs2.push(reflist.refname);
      }
    }
  }
  ret = ;
  for(var j=0; j<errors.length; j++) {
    ret.push({'msg':'cite-repeated-error', 'err':errors});
  }
  return ret;
}}
);
new citeErrorCheck({'type':'reflist', 'testname':'undefined', 'desc':'cite-undefined-desc',
'func': function(reflist) {
  var errors = ;
  var longrefs = ;
  for(var i=0; i<reflist.length; i++) {
    if (!reflist.shorttag && reflist.refname) {
      longrefs.push(reflist.refname);
    }
  }
  for(var j=0; i<reflist.length; j++) {
    if (reflist.shorttag && $j.inArray(reflist.refname, errors) == -1 && $j.inArray(reflist.refname, longrefs) == -1) {
      errors.push(reflist.refname);
    }
  }
  ret = ;
  for(var j=0; j<errors.length; j++) {
    ret.push({'msg':'cite-undefined-error', 'err':errors});
  }
  return ret;
}}
);
CiteTB.init();

If you see any problems with this move, let me know. I'm learning Javascript as I go here and my workflow still sucks as far testing this changes. I'm more or less doing it live. Jason Quinn (talk) 03:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Deleting text

The current ref tool is deleting text again. When one clicks insert it deletes the line of text that comes next. What can be done to fix this? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean it's deleting text again? Barring one small change a few weeks ago which was quickly reverted, there haven't been any changes to the code that should be causing new behavior in a long time. It should be working the same way it has been. Try refreshing you cache to make sure it isn't some browser issue. If you give me more detail, I can't can try to reproduce. Jason Quinn (talk) 03:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay will post here when it acts up again. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Help for the absent-minded?

I've just done it again: created a lovely ref, used "Preview citation", forgotten to use "Add citation", moved on elsewhere ... had to re-create the ref after noticing that the paragraph was still unsourced.

Various points within Misplaced Pages gently prevent me from doing silly things like that ("Do you want to leave this page?" while editing; reminder that I haven't given an edit summary, etc). It would be great if the RefToolbar function could do so too: a nudge when leaving a page with a reference creation box still open?

From the table in the documentation page, I seem to be using RefToolbar version 1.0. There was some reason I chose to switch off "Enable enhanced toolbar", can't now remember what it was. Perhaps this has been fixed in a newer version? If so I might reconsider that decision and move to access the new-and-improved RefToolbar. Over the months I've made this mistake umpteen times, and it's usually on the most complicated references. PamD 14:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

PS I think RefToolbar is brilliant: makes it so easy to add references. Well done. PamD 14:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

User-specific date format

So I'm trying to edit the accessdate to be autofilled to "MMM DD, YYYY" instead of "DD MMM YYYY". I added this code to my User:X96lee15/vector.js page:

$('head').one('reftoolbarbase', function() {
   CiteTB.UserOptions = "<monthname>, <date> <year>";
   CiteTB.UserOptions = ;
});

Is that the right code to add to the right location? Thanks! — X96lee15 (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

@X96lee15:I know this is ancient, but I copied your code into my /vector.js page and made the following change to get it to work:

CiteTB.UserOptions = "<monthname> <date>, <year>";

(I moved the comma after <date> rather than <monthname>).

Seems to be working fine, and I really appreciate it! Thanks!—D'Ranged 1  02:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@D'Ranged 1: Still not working for me. Is there something else I should by trying? (I've refreshed my cache). — X96lee15 (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

X96lee15 I've added the following to my .js page under your script above; this gives me additional tools in the left toolbar to change all dates in an article I'm editing to be the same format. I don't know if it makes a difference in the RefToolbar date format, but both are working for me. Try adding the script below and see if that helps; the documentation for the script is at User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates.

importScript('User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates.js'); //User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates.js

If you like, just go to User:D'Ranged 1/vector.js and copy the entire script from there. Good luck!—D'Ranged 1  19:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Non-standard labels appearing as "null"

I recently added a new cite template for {{Cite patent}} in my vector.js, extract of of code is below. Whilst it appears in the dropdown list fine, when I launch the full window for adding the parameters, all labels except for the title parameter come up with "null". This doesn't matter if I have specified a custom label or not. I've experienced similar issues with some other templates in the past, but due to the limited number of parameters in those I have managed. Is this something I have done wrong? Thanks to anyone that can help.

  new citeTemplate('Cite patent', 'patent',
  [ // Basic fields
     {"field": "country"},
     {"field": "number"}, 
     {"field": "title"}, 
     {"field": "status"},
     {"field": "pubdate", "label": "Publication date"},
     {"field": "gdate", "label": "Grant date"},
     {"field": "fdate", "label": "Filing date"},
     {"field": "assign1", "label": "Assignee 1"},
     {"field": "invent1", "label": "Inventor 1"},
     {"field": "invent2", "label": "Inventor 2"}
  ],
  [ // Expanded fields
     {"field": "invent3", "label": "Inventor 3"},
     {"field": "invent4", "label": "Inventor 4"},
     {"field": "assign2", "label": "Assignee 2"},
  ]);

Themeparkgc  Talk  06:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

   new citeTemplate('cite patent', 'patent',
   [ // Basic fields
      {"field": "country"},
      {"field": "number"}, 
      {"field": "title"}, 
      {"field": "status"},
      {"field": "pubdate"},
      {"field": "gdate"},
      {"field": "fdate"},
      {"field": "assign1"},
      {"field": "invent1"},
      {"field": "invent2"}
   ],
   [ // Expanded fields
      {"field": "invent3"},
      {"field": "invent4"},
      {"field": "assign2"}
   ]);
mw.usability.addMessages( { 
'cite-dialog-patent' : 'Patent citation',
'cite-assign1-label' : 'Assignee 1',
'cite-assign2-label' : 'Assignee 2',
'cite-country-label' : 'Country',
'cite-fdate-label' : 'Filing date',
'cite-gdate-label' : 'Grant date',
'cite-invent1-label' : 'Inventor 1',
'cite-invent2-label' : 'Inventor 2',
'cite-invent3-label' : 'Inventor 3',
'cite-invent4-label' : 'Inventor 4',
'cite-number-label' : 'Number',
'cite-pubdate-label' : 'Publication date',
'cite-status-label' : 'Status'
});

   new citeTemplate('cite patent', 'patent',
   [ // Basic fields
      {"field": "country"},
      {"field": "number"}, 
      {"field": "title"}, 
      {"field": "status"},
      {"field": "pubdate"},
      {"field": "gdate"},
      {"field": "fdate"},
      {"field": "assign1"},
      {"field": "invent1"},
      {"field": "invent2"},
      {"field": "invent3"},
      {"field": "invent4"},
      {"field": "assign2"}
   ],
   [ // Expanded fields
   ]);

Autofill

This feature has not been working for some weeks now. Any method of fixing it? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It still works (try ISBN 1-57806-640-9) for example but I believe I have noticed it's been very slow at times and seemingly missing more books than it once did. (Make sure it's not a Javascript problem if you're using NoScript or something similar.) Jason Quinn (talk) 18:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

You are right it works with firefox, just not google chrome. Maybe I need to switch back to firefox. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm... that's interesting. Didn't occur to me about that. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed! It works in FF 23 and IE 8, but not Chrome. I guess I'll be editing Misplaced Pages in Firefox now. --Slashme (talk) 06:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm not aware of any changes that have happened in the Reftoolbar scripts themselves that would have caused an issue a few weeks ago. The Reftoolbar is basically in the same form it has been for a long time. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Working on Chrome again today :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

For me it is not working on either Firefox or Chrome.-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

3 tweaks proposed: agency field, 2nd author's name, & works other than newspapers

There are three parameters that are used extremely commonly for articles that cite news reports but that are hidden from the main window until you click "show extra fields". It would be very helpful if these three fields could be moved to the main window.

• Agency field - Many news reports are based on the work of news agencies or wire services such as Reuters, the Associated Press, and AFP. My sense is that works developed by the Associated Press are now cited more frequently than those of any other entity. Yet the main window has no field to capture this information. Many editors who routinely use RefToolbar probably aren't even aware that Agency should be cited in these cases (I wasn't until after I'd been editing for many months).

• Second Author's First & Last names - Most news articles have only a single bylined author, but a great many additional articles have a second author. The number that have two authors is probably many times greater than the number with 3 or more authors. Can fields for the second author's first and second author's last names be added to the main window (ie, unhidden)? If not, can at least the names be split into 2nd author's first and last instead of just one field for both first and last?

• Work field, as an alternative to "Newspaper" - Increasingly, many of the news items editors are citing come from sources other than newspapers, yet the Reftoolbar cite news template form does not reflect this fact. Could maybe the Work field, or another appropriate alternative, be placed on the main window? "Newspaper" just doesn't work if you are citing NPR's Morning Edition, CNN's The Situation Room, or BBC's Newsnight. Dezastru (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Why this cannot be an extension?

I imported this to ml.wikipedia and it is great. Malayalam translations of interface messages can be available at ml:മീഡിയവിക്കി:RefToolbarMessages-ml.js (although I need to translate month names seperately at ml:മീഡിയവിക്കി:RefToolbarConfig.js). If this become an extension I believe every wiki may able to use advantage of this.--Praveen:talk 08:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Citation disappears if one forgets to re-select main edit field

Hello,

I have recently ran into issues with RefToolbar. When I click on "{{ }}" it opens the menus as usual and I can fill in the fields. But when I then click "Add citation", it does not add the citation code to the main edit field. The only way I can make it to add the code is if I, after filling in the toolbar text fields, remember to re-select the caret position where I want to add the citation code in the main edit field just before clicking "Add citation". This problem first appeared on March 11, 2014 – before that, it was not required to re-select the main edit field after filling in the citation fields and before clicking the "Add citation" button. This is particularly frustrating, as if the citation is not written anywhere after filling in the fields, one must start over and remember to re-select the main edit field before clicking "Add citation" this time.

I can successfully reproduce this error on Firefox and Chrome and in Monobook and Vector skins alike. --hydrox (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)/Archive 124#Problems with citation template. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, apparently I am not the only one with this issue. But there is still no solution. What User:Helder.wiki proposed there (turning off "Ehanced toolbar" in preferences) does not help. --hydrox (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I've suffered from it as well: very frustrating when you craft a good detailed reference, click to add it, and lose it. I haven't yet tried the suggestion of clicking at the insertion point, but even having to do that would be a backward step from the previous behaviour. Why are we being given a less helpful version of the software? 21:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PamD (talk • contribs)

I found the problem in the code. The functionality was broken when this commit updated MediaWiki core JavaScript support library so that the currentFocused variable gets updated whenever the user selects a new text field, including dynamically created ones. So the tags get inserted, but they go into the currently focused text field, which is usually one of the dynamically created text fields of the RefToolbar gadget when the user is filling in the citation fields. The RefToolbar text fields are then deleted right after the insertion, so the finished citation wikicode is lost unless one remembered to refocus the main edit field (#wpTextbox1) before hitting "Add citation". I've opened an edit request at MediaWiki talk:RefToolbarNoDialogs.js with a fix. --hydrox (talk) 14:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

This should be fixed now for all users. --hydrox (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@Hydrox: Thanks! Haven't tried it yet, but this sounds like really good news. PamD 21:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

VE support

See Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)/Archive 125#Adding citations in VE regarding a variant of RefToolbar that supports VisualEditor. Eran (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Please see mw:VisualEditor/Design/Reference Dialog. --Atlasowa (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Toolbar Cite book missing |year=

See This thread. The short of it is that in the cite book template from the drop down menu on this toolbar, |year= is missing and has been replaced with |date= . Can we please put |year= back to we can reference books correctly? — Maile (talk) 23:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

This editor believes that there is no need for |year= in any of the commonly used Citation Style 1 templates – which includes all of the CS1 templates available from the RefToolbar dropdown. Those templates are processed and rendered by Module:Citation/CS1.

When |date= is not present but |year= is, |year= is treated as an alias of |date=. When both |date= and |year= are present, which was sometimes necessary because of past limitations in the older {{citation/core}}, then the module handles them separately for backward compatibility. In those cases, the value in |year= is used as part of the CITEREF anchor. When only one of either |date= or |year= is present, then CS1 extracts the year portion of the supplied value for use in the CITEREF anchor.

When the format of the supplied date in |date= is invalid, incorrect spelling, punctuation, ambiguous format, etc, CS1 does not supply a year value to the CITEREF anchor.

I have seen no evidence to show that |date= in {{cite book}} fails to work with {{sfn}} or any of the {{harv}} family when |year= in {{cite book}} does work.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Deprecated fields

Any timeline as to when the deprecated fields will no longer be used in the pop-up citation creator? Specifically, "Coauthors" still appears in "cite web", "cite book", and "cite journal". It is my understanding that we are now to use "author2", "author3", etc., or "last2", first2", "last3", "first3", etc. It would also be wonderful to have an option to always show the extra fields; or to remove the button that hides them. This might prompt more people to archive the urls they're citing to avoid problems down the line. I don't know beans about scripting, or I'd offer to help; I could probably get the right fields to show in the template, but wouldn't begin to know how to transfer "Coauthors" to the proper field, and would hate to break millions of citation templates on current articles! Thanks for all your work on this—it really does make referencing articles easier and faster.—D'Ranged 1  02:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

My post seems to have been hijacked for an argument. The fact is, the |coauthors= parameter has been deprecated. When will it be removed from the tool? And when might we expect other improvements that have been requested? Thank you.—D'Ranged 1  02:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Removing coauthors is the easy part. The hard part is adding support for lastN/firstN in a sensible manner that works with the DOI/PMID/ISBN autofill tool. I've been working on it for a while. Maybe a couple more days. As for the "other improvements", I'd need to know what they are and how much support they actually have. I have limited time to work on this, so I can't afford to be spending hours implementing something that no one really cares that much about. Mr.Z-man 14:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and for hiding the digression. I gather from a bunch of posts that you are the primary reason we have RefToolbar at all. Sending much appreciation winging your way! There have been a few suggestions in the comments above, I would add support for showing an additional |last#=/|first#= in the basic area of the window as well as including |archiveurl=, |archivedate=, and |deadurl= in the basic window to encourage editors to submit their websites to an archive to reduce link rot. At the very least, could |deadurl= and |trans-title= be added? It's frustrating to specify a foreign language and not have an easy way to provide the English title. I will offer my assistance; however, I am very new at java (but learning quickly); if there is anything I can do to help, please let me know. Thanks again!—D'Ranged 1  18:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

If I were going to add firstN/lastN support to anything used in conjunction with DOI/PMID/ISBN, I would first carefully investigate how the information about the authors is being automatically retrieved using the DOI, PMID, or ISBN. Does the retrieval method distinguish real live people from institutional authors? Does it separate the name of real live people into two parts? Are the two parts called "last name" and "first name"? Or are they called "given name" and "surname"; there's a difference when it comes to East Asian names. Do the methods actually obey in practice whatever the documentation says about the nature of the names? Jc3s5h (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The PMID database only gives last name and initials together. The ISBN database concatenates all the names into a comma-separated list. The DOI database is the only one that separates the names into part; it uses the terms given name/surname, but appears to use them interchangeable with first/last. In some cases it only gives initials. The data is provided by the individual journals, so can vary in the amount of detail provided (some provide a full publishing date, others only a month/year). I don't think I've seen an institutional author on a paper with a DOI or PMID, so I don't know how that will work. It will probably break with an ISBN because of their crappy format (which also does stupid things like listing editors as authors and randomly adding "by" before the author names sometimes). The tool isn't designed to be foolproof. Users still need to check the results. Currently it uses first1/last1 for the first author, then puts the rest into coauthors as a semicolon-separated list of last, first pairs, which is the default format of the templates, so appearance-wise, there won't be any change. Mr.Z-man 03:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Maintainers

A December 2012 section currently near the top of this page says "The Reftoolbar currently has no active maintainers". Is that still the case? There seem to be a number of unresolved issues on this page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Cite has disappeared (well at least for me) Help?

I use the basic version of Misplaced Pages when editing, I don't use any add-ons or features. I'm old school. When I click edit, the tool bar at the top has the heading options "Advanced", "Special characters" and "Help"; until recently it had "Cite" too (with the sub-options web, book, journal, news ect) but that seems to have disappeared recently. I'm using the latest version of Firefox and I thought it might be something to with that such as compatibility, however it has disappeared on Google Chrome too and on my work's PC which uses Internet Explorer. I'm now having to manually write or copy + paste blank citations and it is rather annoying. It was much simpler before. Can someone please help? Or tell me of any easier less tedious ways to do references please? Regards IJA (talk) 17:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you have all preferences below enabled?

• Show edit toolbar (requires JavaScript)
• Enable enhanced editing toolbar
• refToolbar, adds a "cite" button to the editing toolbar for quick and easy addition of commonly used citation templates.

If yes, do you see any errors in the console of you browser? Helder.wiki 19:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I have no idea why my settings had changed but it is working fine now I've restored them. Regards IJA (talk) 21:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes it appears and disappears from time to time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Request: a warning if citation created, previewed and absentmindedly not added?

I asked about this 11 months ago and no-one replied, so trying again! It would be wonderful if RefToolBar could be enhanced so that if I Preview a citation but don't go on to Add it the system would warn me before this becomes irreversible (I guess that means clicking on "cite" again or saving the edit). Time and again I create a splendid reference, Preview it, and forget to hit "Add citation" so have to do the work all over again. There are lots of other situations where the software warns me before I do something silly, and it would be very helpful if it could do so here too. Any possibility? Any comments? Should I be making the request somewhere else? PamD 22:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

What version of RefToolbar are you using? I can't recreate the problem; once I've loaded a template form to fill in, I can't leave it without clicking either Insert or Cancel. As a start, I'd suggest going to your preferences page, click the Gadgets tab, and deselect RefToolbar and save the change. Purge your cache (usually you can just hold down the Shift key and click on the reload icon), then return to the Gadgets tab and select RefToolbar and save the change. Purge the cache again (you might want to wait a few seconds to give the server a chance to catch up), and you should be using the latest version of RefToolbar. Hope this helps!—D'Ranged 1  06:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

@D'Ranged 1: Thanks for your suggestion: sadly it didn't help. My version of RefToolBar has buttons labelled "Add citation" and "Preview citation", rather than "Insert" and "Cancel" (and a tick box labelled "Vertical form"). Does that help identify it? The "Cite" button has a tendency to wander round within the bar of buttons - used to be always penultimate next to "ref", now is often in the middle, currently between "horizontal line" and "Redirect". PamD 09:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

PamD Apparently you're still using Version 1.0! To enable the latest version, you need to go to your Preferences (yes, again), visit the Editing tab and check both Enable enhanced editing toolbar and Enable wizards for inserting links, tables as well as the search and replace function. Then save the changes, purge your cache (yes, again), and you should be set! Hope this solves the problem; if so, mischief managed!—D'Ranged 1  14:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

@D'Ranged 1: Done. It certainly looks very different now. It does indeed need a "Insert" or a "Cancel" to close the dialog box - great. I'm sure there was some good reason, a long time ago, why I unticked "Enable enhanced editing toolbar". I may remember it if I hit whatever problem it was causing, but things may have moved on since then. Thanks for your help: it should save me from losing carefully-built references in future. PamD 21:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

PamD You're very welcome; so happy I was able to help; I'm rather new at all this and giving advice seems beyond my realm; glad it worked! I took a look at your user page; thank you for all your contributions to Misplaced Pages—it's editors like you that keep it going! It's good that you'll have a bit of an easier time of it now.—D'Ranged 1  22:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

error: Unknown dependency: ext.gadget.refToolbarBase, Exception thrown by ext.gadget.refToolbar

I had been installed mediawiki 1.22.6.
I tried to follow the instructions for RefToolbar located at mw:Citation option in your edit toolbar and Misplaced Pages:RefToolbar/2.0 but I don't understand either. but it doesn't work..

I get the error message in the Firefox Error Console.

Exception thrown by ext.gadget.refToolbar
Error: Unknown dependency: ext.gadget.refToolbarBase

What's the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee Ji-sung (talk • contribs)

@Lee Ji-sung: Can you provide a link to a page where this error is happening? It seems you did not create the (hidden) base module as in MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition#editing. Helder.wiki 13:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

1 June 2014 major update

This update adds support for "last1/first1, last2/first2" or any arbitrary "field1, field2" Documentation update to come later. Detailed changes described below.

In MediaWiki:RefToolbarMessages-en.js:

• Add 6 new messages (5 field labels, 1 interface for the alt text on the "add another" button)

In MediaWiki:Gadget-refToolbarBase.js:

• Adds the support for incrementable fields
• Replaces the deprecated jQuery live() function
• Adds fallback for label fields missing from the messages - first look for a "label" attribute in the template. If neither exist, use the field name

In MediaWiki:RefToolbar.js:

• Adds the support for incrementable fields
• Removes some unnecessary code

In MediaWiki:RefToolbarConfig.js:

• Make last/first, author, authorlink, editor-first, editor-last, and editor-link fields into incrementable fields
• Remove coauthors
• Make sure all templates include the "ref" field for Harvard references
• Replace "work" with "website" in cite web
• Replace "newspaper" with "work" and add a few fields like "agency" in cite news

-- Mr.Z-man 00:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

New version suggestions / problem

First, and definitely foremost, thank you for all your hard work—the ability to add multiples is especially amazing! I wish there were a more tangible way to show my appreciation for your excellent gadget, which is now much-improved.

Suggestions—simple, short-term

• In the cite web template, please add Date to the base group
  • Many times this template is used to reference news articles, which are usually dated. All the other templates include Date in the base group; while cite news might be a better option, editors are going to use cite web anyway in some, if not most, cases.
• For all templates, please include Archive URL and Archive date in the base group
  • This will hopefully encourage editors to submit websites to the web archive, which will go a long way toward avoiding link rot.
• Add 'archivedate' to 'autodate fields' by default
  • As editors increase their archiving activity, they will be adding sites to the archive, which will result in the archive date being the current one.
• Please add a Dead URL? field (capturing |deadurl=) to all templates, falling immediately after the Archive URL and Archive date fields
  • Currently, the default for this field is "yes"; if more editors are archiving live websites, this option is needed to show the site is still live. Over time, if enough editors are archiving sites on a regular basis, perhaps the default itself could be "no".
• Please add the Translated title field to cite web, cite news, and cite book directly after the Language field
  • This is the English Misplaced Pages; as such, citations should be understandable in that language. Too often, I see citations to sources in other languages that fail to include a translated title; this is very frustrating.
• Please switch the positions of Translated title and Format on the cite journal form
  • This would put the Translated title field directly next to the Language field, not preceding it in another column.

Suggestions—more complex

• Please add an ability to change the default date format from the form itself
  • I don't know what the ratio of users in the U.S. vs. users in other English-speaking countries is; however, having the format default to DMY creates problems in U.S.-centric articles. While there are some excellent tools to convert all dates in an article to one format or another, it would be nice if the dates were entered in the proper way to start with (to use the format currently being used in the article).
  • This would also enable U.S. editors to change their default format when editing U.K.-centric articles.
  • I realize this is modifiable if an editor adds code to their .js file; however, many editors don't know to do this, or don't know how.
    • Ideally, this would be two buttons somewhere on the form labelled DMY and MDY which would set/change the date format in all date fields on the form.
    • Even more ideally, the button selection would be remembered, so the editor would only have to click it the first time s/he used the particular template unless they wanted to change formats when editing an article which used a format other than their chosen default.
• Please add an incrementable button, Add parameter with two fields: Parameter name and Parameter data
  • This would allow editors to modify the form to include parameters not listed, enabling the addition of the parameters to be included in the Preview and Parse options
  • This would avoid many errors in citations that are incurred when inputting additional parameters. Such errors include mis-spelling parameter names, placing the parameter outside the closing brackets, forgetting to put a pipe in front of the parameter name, leaving out the = sign, etc.
    • Ideally, the Add parameter field would be a drop-down list of all available parameters (not currently on the form) to ensure that the parameter name is spelled correctly.
• When parsing the information, please strip out https: if Archive URL starts with https://web.archive.org
  • web.archive.org URLs are automatically rendered as secure https; however, the site supports protocol-relative URLs; we should take advantage of this.

Problem

• I cannot for the life of me get the forms to expand to show extra fields by default. I use many of the fields that are not currently in the base area. Here's what I've added to my .js document:

$('head').one('reftoolbarbase', function() {
   CiteTB.UserOptions = "<monthname> <date>, <year>";
   CiteTB.UserOptions = ;
   CiteTB.UserOptions = true;
   CiteTB.UserOptions = true;
});

All the other options are working correctly.

Thank you again for all your hard work and for your patience in dealing with my suggestions/problem.—D'Ranged 1 VT 20:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Video tutorial

I showed reftoolbar to another editor and she's struggling with it. I've found File:RefTools.ogv - is this so old as to be useless? Is there something, text or visual, that is better? Dougweller (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The form has changed but the video is still helpful and any reasonable person should be able to adapt to the changed form after watching the video. Make sure you're friend hasn't customized their Misplaced Pages such that they don't even see the Reftoolbar. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

author link bug

Hi, If you go to extra fields in cite book, and try to add the "article=" field, it changes it to "authorlink1" instead on rendering. These are two very different things :) -- phoebe / (talk to me) 05:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't reproduce this. First, which version are you using? Also, which button do you press next? --Redrose64 (talk) 08:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Toolbar generating date errors

Can this be fixed? I just generated this now, from the PMID:

1. Bond-Smith, G; Banga, N; Hammond, TM; Imber, CJ (2012 May 16). "Pancreatic adenocarcinoma". BMJ (Clinical research ed.). 344: e2476. PMID 22592847. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)

Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes been getting it a few days to. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The tool hasn't changed, it's just that the errors used to be "silent" and I think eventually fixed by a bot, but on the 11th I think they turned the error messages to visible. See (if you have time on your hands) Help talk:Citation Style 1, especially this section Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Error_messages_across_the_entire_project Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I think I recreated the circumstances. Select Cite → Templates → cite journal. Enter 22592847 in the PMID field and click on the autofill icon (magnifying glass). The date is autofilled as 2012 May 16. This is how the date in the source is formatted, and a sampling shows that all of the NCBI dates are in that format. This format does not comply with MOS:DATEFORMAT which is the guideline the CS1 templates use in date checking. Also per MOS:DATEFORMAT, publication dates in an article's citations should all use the same format and RefToolbar is not going to apply that, thus the date can be in whatever format the source uses. RefToolbar autofill grabs the date in whatever format the source uses with no formatting or checking and no regard for the current date format in an article. QED. --  Gadget850 14:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

So the suggested fix is to eliminate the PMID autofill? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Certainly not. It is to get the tool to convert the date to an approved format (or change the MOS). Wiki CRUK John (talk) 14:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

See Gadget850's last two sentences. Per that, "an approved format" is not good enough. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

A possible solution would be for the autofill to display the source date as protected text to the right of the "Date" input field. The user could then look at that date and enter it in the correct format for that article. It's far from an ideal solution, but it's perhaps better than any alternative, and something to consider. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Which date is "wrong", the access data or the "|date=2012 May 16"? Breaking the tool is silly. Just accept whatever data format is entered.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The |date=2012 May 16 is wrong because that is not a valid date format per MOS. The accessdate error was created by the user, by entering an accessdate without a url, and that error has nothing to do with this issue. The following shows what is created by the PMID autofill, without any user changes.

1. Bond-Smith, G; Banga, N; Hammond, TM; Imber, CJ (2012 May 16). "Pancreatic adenocarcinoma". BMJ (Clinical research ed.). 344: e2476. PMID 22592847. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

‑‑Mandruss (talk) 16:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

There's an access date error? How do I know that? I just hit the calendar icon. There's no URL because one is not needed with the PMID link. Should I not add any access date? If so, how am I supposed to know that? Wiki CRUK John (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

In your example above, I see two errors. The first is the date error, the second is "|accessdate= requires |url= (help)". If you're not seeing that, I don't know why. CS1 rules say that accessdate without url is an error condition, because accessdate by definition applies to a web page. You'll find this in the doc for accessdate in {{Cite journal}}. And thanks for illustrating the need for the error messages. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 17:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Help:CS1 errors#Controlling error message display.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Now I'm confused, as I thought those error messages were enabled for everyone now. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The RfC that caused us to turn off date errors also required us to turn off several other errors because of the way the RfC was worded. One of those that got turned off, and perhaps the one that caused the most furor, was the accessdate error. With the 11 October 2014 update, the only error message that was re-enabled was the date error message.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, this is only an "error" because "we" (ha!) have chosen to make it so. The PMID link is certainly a URL. I can see the argument that as it is permanent there is no need for an access date, but there is certainly no harm, and in fact there is considerable utility in having one, as it shows you the date at which a previous editor thought this particlar PMID the best reference - a very important point in medical articles. It seems that even the left hand doersn't know what the left hand is doing here. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, but that's outside the scope of this discussion as it has nothing to do with RefToolbar. Your beef is with CS1. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The change is to the core functionality of the CS1 templates. The templates have a system of error checking that ensure the quality of the citations. The date checking has been enabled for some time but the errors were only visible to those who enabled them. This allowed bots to run through and fix thousands of errors. The last update made the errors visible to all. With this report, we now understand how many of these dates with invalid formats have been inserted into citations. --  Gadget850 16:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It would seem to me that any 'fix' to the RefToolbar should default to a MOS compliant date format. It would also seem that users should be able specify a preferred format so that new citations are in keeping with the format chosen for the article. I would also suggest that the accessdate field be disabled until the url field has a value.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

All good ideas. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 17:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a gentle reminder that editors are responsible for checking their edits, even when using automated or semi-automated tools like Reftoolbar or Reflinks. If a semi-automated tool suggests the addition of a date deemed unacceptable by the MOS, it is the responsibility of the editor to fix that date. That said, BattyBot, which runs about once a month, will fix PMID-style dates for you if you are willing to wait for it to come around, and making the Reftoolbar more sophisticated as suggested above would be a positive development. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll gently disagree with your gentle reminder, based on two or three decades of designing and developing user interface software. It's just good practice to take all reasonable measures to make user errors impossible. I wouldn't want to have to explain to an editor why a mainstream Misplaced Pages tool is introducing data that is unacceptable to Misplaced Pages, and then expecting them to fix it. We should be designing for the inexperienced editor who, with all the other learning required, hasn't yet memorized the valid date formats per MOS. I fully support what you said after your final comma. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 01:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

RefToolbar should check and properly format the dates. Who is taking on this task? --  Gadget850 17:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Since I'm basically the only one actually maintaining it, I guess I am. By "properly format", it will default to the format set in MediaWiki:RefToolbarConfig.js, which is the type "18 October 2014". Users can change it for themselves by following the directions here. Setting a specific format for each article would be difficult to do in a user-friendly way. Mr.Z-man 19:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Just an idea for consideration. The dialog box could have a date-format control, either a group of radio buttons or a dropdown menu. The settings you mentioned would determine the initial or default state of the the control. The control would determine the format produced by the PMID autofill and the accessdate calendar icon. For that matter, you could even take it further and automatically reformat any date entered manually, based on the date-format setting. I can't speak to the technical considerations. Your work is appreciated. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 20:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

If the article already has either {{use dmy dates}} or {{use mdy dates}}, that could be detected by the javascript to determine the preferred format, so the other format should not be offered. --Redrose64 (talk) 06:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Now that I read MOS:DATEUNIFY more closely, it seems that it's ok to use different formats for |date= and |accessdate= in the same article. That would kill my suggestion above. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 08:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Why? two radio buttons, a checkbox, and a bit of text along the horizontal rule that separates the control buttons from the data entry fields:

Date formats: () dmy () mdy – Use ymd for access and archive dates

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Not bad, but MOS:DATEUNIFY explicitly allows ymd for |date=, too. Wouldn't you need something like this?

Date as () dmy () mdy () ymd             Access date and Archive date as () dmy () mdy () ymd

‑‑Mandruss (talk) 11:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

That works too. I understand MOS:DATEUNIFY to say that archive and access date formats are to be the same as the publication date format or ymd. So I suggested a checkbox that would override the selected publication date format. I didn't include a ymd radio button because, for the most part, editors don't choose that format for publication dates.

Archive date (and url) fields are available on three of the four RefToolbar cite pages. I wonder about the appropriateness of archive date and url on the cite book page. I think it should be the same as the cite journal page. Archive date is not auto filled.

Autofilled dates as: () dmy () mdy () ymd             Access date as ymd

There may be a need for another version of this date format selector stuff. Autofilled dates are associated with DOI, ISBN, and PMID. DOI and PMID are journal article identifiers. Currently, the cite web RefToolbar has a field for DOI. I don't think that it belongs there. If it is removed, only the access date field is autofilled so for the cite web RefToolbar page, the date format selector might be:

Autofilled access date as: () dmy () mdy () ymd

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems this isn't as simple as we thought (that happens a lot). Do you think it's wise to decide important questions like this between two or three people on a talk page? You're getting into areas where I have no experience. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 22:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

There are always things that we have not thought about. Sometimes more brains thinking about things is good; often, though, too many brains is just too many brains and whatever discussion and progress there was falters to a halt. Parkinson's law of triviality? I'm quite content to leave what is, for the most part, a technical discussion here. Were we discussing matters of style or policy, then, yeah, a broader participation by the community would be required. But not for this issue. Matters of date style are settled. I suspect that most editors just want it to work, and work correctly. I think that the only person whose voice hasn't been heard, and whose voice should be heard is Editor @Mr.Z-man:.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The main complicating factor is that I've generally made an effort to make the tool as "generic" as possible so that it can be used on other wikis with minimal configuration. If their template system is based on ours, they can just copy and paste it, and translate the messages. But what the preferred date formats are on the English Misplaced Pages might not be the same on the Chinese or Turkish Wikipedias. I know the default setting on zhwiki is "2014-10-19", which is allowed here, but is probably less common. A set of radio buttons wouldn't be too hard; it could just be set not to display if the wiki only has one date setting. But it would still be a bit clunky as it would still rely on the user to manually choose the correct format for each article. Automatically detecting the format, based on something like {{use dmy dates}} would be a little more enwiki-specific. So it would need some sort of site-specific "extension" that it's not currently designed for. None of this is impossible, but all of it will probably take a while as long as I'm the only maintainer. The fix for PMID dates though should be done in a day or so, since it's mostly just a few minor changes to the lookup program to get it to output the same format as DOI. Mr.Z-man 02:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mr.Z-man:. This tool is absolutely fundamental for editors. What would you think of a community effort to try to get the WMF to formally start updating and maintaining Reftoolbar? Seems to me that for a small fraction of the cost and effort they have spent on the Visual Editor, they could have improved Reftoolbar and WikiEditor. Dollar per dollar this would have been a far better investment. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I've been asking for more maintainers - paid or volunteer - for years. I'd be all for it. An actual WMF employee/contractor, or even just someone funded by a grant to give it a one-time overhaul would be a major help. Mr.Z-man 02:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do a lot of training new editors in the medical and scientific areas. Already I can never get the DOI filler to work myself, and now I have to explain that most top-quality medical references will generate one or more error messages (which they may or may not be able to see) that they are supposed to fix? It would be great if it can be fixed, and certainly the WMF should invest more in this. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd recommend and RfC on whether WMF should dedicate more resources to it. I am pretty sure it would generate a lot of support, and thus force WMF to help out (which I am very surprised to learn they are not doing). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Belatedly adding support for any proposal for WMF to put some more support into RefToolBar - so useful for basic day to day editing, so important to so many editors. PamD 09:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

is refToolPlus broken?

One of my students tried installing Misplaced Pages:RefToolbar/1.0#refToolPlus, but we couldn't get it to work (yes, we disabled the regular toolbar in prefs, and CTRL+F5 reloaded pages). Perhaps it was the IE (it was the only browser in the lab :( ). (On a sidenote, how long before this very useful Google Book link to ref functionality is part of the regular toolbar?) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Which skin are they using? The advice on that page is to install to monobook.js, so presumably the gadget only works with that specific skin, and not another like Vector. Vector has been the default for all users registered since mid-2010, but there are several gadgets that still don't work with it. Does it work if at Preferences → Appearance they switch to monobook skin? --Redrose64 (talk) 10:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Good point, but I am not going to have my students use the old interface just to make one gadget work, so even if this is the case, the work-around is not helpful (but I do appreciate your id-ing of the likely problem). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@Piotrus: There is a new tool that might help, autofilling refs. It builds on the new mw:Citoid features for VisualEditor. It is still beta, not yet done. To make it easy to use on-wiki, there is one user script for VE

• User:Mvolz/veCiteFromURL

and one (alpha!) user script for wikitext

• User:Salix alba/Citoid

BTW, I have collected these and two dozen more citation tools at de:Benutzer:Atlasowa/ref citation tools (old / new / website / addons / bookmarklets / etc.) for comparison.

I really hope that we can have this citoid feature in the RefToolbar! Anybody knows how to integrate it? --Atlasowa (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions for citation tool

I've started using the "Cite" form in the RefToolbar more and more, in lieu of manually typing {{cite web|blablabla}}. I understand that clicking "Show/Hide Extra Fields" will show probably more fields than most people would use anyway, but there are still some fields that I wish it included. One is subscription=yes/no. I also wish that the format field in the GUI was a dropdown instead of free text, which included some of the most popular formats, such as PDF, DOC or XLS. Thank you everyone for your hard work in creating this citation reference tool. Lugevas (talk) 02:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

|subscription= just looks for a value; yeas and no give the same result. --  Gadget850 02:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

That should probably be fixed; Module:Citation/CS1 shouldn't display the subscription message when |subscription=no.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 03:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

|registration= as well. --  Gadget850 10:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I've tweaked Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox so that |subscription= and |registration= display the appropriate link note only when set to yes, true, or y.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Seconded: I've just come here to suggest "subscription" and "registration" tickboxes too. (I've made a couple of recent links to the online OED). PamD 11:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Show parsed preview by default?

Every single time I click "Preview" I then need to click "Show parsed preview" to see what I really want to see, which is "What does this reference look like?". It's irritating. I'm sure I'm not alone. I prefer to check my refs before hitting "Insert", especially as when I'm editing a section I don't see them when I hit "Show preview" for the whole edit, and the system makes me click on what seems an unnecessary link every time.

Could I suggest one of the following:

• Show the parsed reference by default (what problems would this cause, if any?)
• Have two separate buttons: "Preview" and "Preview code", where the first one shows the Parsed version as well as the code, and the second shows the current setup
• Have a preference or similar whereby I can opt to see the Parsed version automatically
• Have a preference or similar whereby anyone who doesn't want to see the Parsed version automatically can switch it off and remain with the current version, but the editors who want to see the Parsed version (possibly the vast majority?) are shown it by default.

Any thoughts? PamD 12:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

No replies, so no objections (well, not many people watching this page, I guess). Is there anyone technical out there who could implement this change (by any one of the four routes suggested above, or any other means to the same end)? PamD 09:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: this is now also asked at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#RefToolbar: Show parsed preview by default.3F.

Fwiw, I agree with the request. I don't know anything about implementing it. Quiddity (talk) 19:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Adding embedded file: "thumb" or "thumbnail"?

When I add a file using the "embedded file" button on the toolbar, the default size option added is "thumbnail". An editor has just changed that to "thumb" in an article I've edited. Looking at Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style/Images#Image_syntax, "thumb" is used, though I see that Misplaced Pages:Extended_image_syntax, after initially showing "thumb" as the word to use, then refers to ""thumb" (or "thumbnail"...". It looks as if the RefToolbar is offering the less preferred word here: could it be changed so it adds "thumb", please? PamD 09:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

RefToolbar is the citation part of the Edit toolbar; see Help:Edit toolbar. Best to ask this at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical). --  Gadget850 09:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Gadget850: Thanks - see Help_talk:Edit_toolbar#Thumb_or_Thumbnail.3F. PamD 09:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

url vs. website

Please see this discusion of an issue with RefToolbar 2. Please can we change the tool's wording, so that the label "website" becomes "website name", to avoid confusion with the |url= parameter? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• MediaWiki:RefToolbarMessages-en.js:
  • 'cite-website-label' : 'Website', → 'cite-website-label' : 'Name of website (not URL)',

--  Gadget850 01:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done -- Gadget850 16:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Sajax

Discussion: Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)/Archive 135#User scripts using the old Sajax framework

MediaWiki:RefToolbarLegacy.js will probably stop working by the end of the year unless it isupdated. -- Gadget850 16:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Appearance/font size changed

I don't know if I'm asking in the right place, but has RefToolbar's appearance and font size changed for anyone recently? It went from being size 16 or so to about size 20 or more, and the buttons have become quite large and are now grey. I've checked in both Chrome and Firefox and it's the same. I can't find anything about these changes. Have I missed something? How can I restore its previous appearance? Thanks, Melonkelon (talk) 21:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I've got the same - reassuring to know it's not just my computer. PamD 22:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Seems to be all dialogs; for example, → . -- Gadget850 23:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

It's back to normal for me, which is good. Melonkelon (talk) 01:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

This was due to phab:T93050 —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Format is now ALL CAPs

As of the past week or so, all of the |format= fields I have populated are all now ALL CAPS. I understand that the usage of the |format= field is for PDF and XLS, etc. But I also think it is a great place to add other possible formats, like audio interview, podcast, etc. I know this is not its original intention (the format field), but I think a little flexibility for this field would be responsive to the completeness and current existence of various types of resources online that are really great citations. I would like to suggest the ALL CAPS forced format be removed and leave it at whatever no format default it was before the last few weeks. Especially for other formats like PowerPoint, Google Docs, etc., which don't need to be ALL CAPS; if they were ALL CAPS I think they would be harder to read and would be jarring and a bit "scream-y."

Instead of the suggestion above, I was told I should be using the |type= parameter instead; however, it is not on the four options under Cite, Templates. Would it be possible to add the |type= parameter to these forms?

Thanks so much! BrillLyle (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

"Date" field not in default display for Cite web

Publication dates are a crucial part of all citations, especially on websites, but this tool inconsistently hides the "Date" field under the "extra fields" for Cite web. Dates should not be an "extra field"; they are crucial information, and should be part of the default fields presented on all citation types. Can this oversight be addressed, please? ViperSnake151  Talk  01:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Not working

When I click on the Cite option in the menu bar the options "templates", "names references" and "error check" appear. However, when I click on "templates" and select one of the option (eg "cite web") the pop-up has no options to fill in, only the bottom buttons ("insert" etc). Is this just a problem for me? Or is the RefToolbar having problems? Gaia Octavia Agrippa 15:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes my favorite tool is giving me nothing. Am using another version here but not integrated with the edit box. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Likewise, same issue for me as well since yesterday (August 20) at least. It has occurred both at home (Windows 10 with Firefox or Chrome) or at work (Linux/Chrome). If I can provide any additional information for the sake of troubleshooting, please let me know. Caidh (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

It's now working for me! Thank you to whoever fixed it. Gaia Octavia Agrippa 22:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Likewise. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Drag&drop

When you press the "Search and replace" button in Toolbar there opens a subordinate window, which allows a user to simply drag the text from the background text editing area & drop into the window of gadget. Is it possible to copy this feature in the gadget? --Vladis13 (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

News Citation parameters

Is it possible to add a couple more extra fields in the News Citation box? The parameters are 'via' and 'subscription' (per Template:Cite news) and are required by Misplaced Pages:BNA#Citation. Thanks. Derek Andrews (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Adding the OCLC number to the citation generation template in the source editor editing bar

We're at the Wikiconference USA session on OCLC, and there's a request to add the OCLC number to the citation generation template in the source editor editing bar. One person here thinks this task might be part of the Citoid team's portfolio, and says if it's not, you'd know who does this.

We're all really enthusiastic about how the ISBN can generate quick citations, and hoping the OCLC number could be made to do the same thing. --Djembayz (talk) 15:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Autofill not initiating in absence of incrementables

Hello, I've just tried to make autofills work on Czech Misplaced Pages, but in spite of probably correct modifications to the config, the magnifying glass button does not get any onclick event set on it. Upon detailed code inspection of MediaWiki:Gadget-refToolbarBase.js, I see that since the 1 June 2014 major update, autofill buttons are only initiated (set an onclick event) if at least one incrementable field has been detected (via the "needsetup" variable). I do not understand this dependency and because there are no incrementable fields in my forms, the autofill button is never initialized and clicking on it does not do any action. If I remove the check for needsetup, the button starts working. Is that check a feature or a bug? If a feature, what shall I do to get my button working? --Blahma (talk) 11:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Blahma: This should be fixed now. Mr.Z-man 04:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)