Wikipedia talk:RefToolbar/1.0/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:RefToolbar. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Conflict

This is a great tool, but I can't seem to figure out how to use it at the same time as WikEd. I either have the WikEd buttons, or the RefTools toolbar, but I can't get both their buttons onto the page at the same time. Or is there a simple fix that I'm missing? --El on ka 08:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

They both seems to work correctly for me. The cite button is in the normal editing toolbar, wikiEd's toolbar is below. Mr.Z-man 20:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, when I have them both enabled (via the Gadgets page), WikEd trumps RefTools. Like right for this post, I have the WikEd toolbars at the top, but the "normal" editing toolbar is completely absent. Do you use the Gadgets page, or do you have the javascript right in the monobook page? --El on ka 00:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, looking at it more, the way wikiEd works, even if I can bypass the problem with the button, it still won't work correctly as wikiEd replaces the normal edit window with its own frame. I might eventually make a version that's semi-compatible with wikiEd. Mr.Z-man 20:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Location field

Hi, wonderful gadget, will be very useful. One niggle, the location field generates with a capital L (Location, instead of location) and this stops the location shewing up when saved. DuncanHill (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, and added {{cite journal}}. Mr.Z-man 21:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Still coming up as a capital L when I try it in my sandbox, and not getting the citejournal either. DuncanHill (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Try purging your browser cache, on MediaWiki:Gadget-refToolbar.js if you use it from Gadgets. Mr.Z-man 22:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That fixed it! Thank you :) DuncanHill (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to add - it really is a very helpful gadget, and makes editing much easier, thanks again. DuncanHill (talk) 21:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Toolbar buttons

After using the cite button, none of the other toolbar buttons work. Running the latest FireFox under Windows. I have every editing gadget enabled except WikiEd. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 20:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, you'll need to bypass your browser cache of MediaWiki:Gadget-refToolbar.js to see the changes immediately. Mr.Z-man 22:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 22:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Reformats text

It looks like refToolbar (as a Gadget) reformats all the text in the edit box with hard line breaks after 72 characters. That messes up indenting on talk pages and isn't a good idea on article pages either. I admit to using a very old version of FireFox, but that still shouldn't happen. --Latebird (talk) 04:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I just tested it in FireBird 0.8 and had the same problem. I can't think of any reason that it would do that, besides a bug in the browser's JavaScript interpreter. That's really just bizarre. I have a semi working version in User:Mr.Z-man.sock/monobook.js, it works in FireBird 0.8 and newer versions of Firefox (so I assume it works for everything in between), but not in IE. You can either update your browser (recommended), use the version in User:Mr.Z-man.sock/monobook.js in your Mypage/monobook.js page and/or wait a while for the next update to the gadget, which should, among other things, fix that. Mr.Z-man.sock (talk) 05:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Gadget not working?

The gadget does not now seem to work. When I click on the "add citation" button, a little drop down box appears, with the names of the templates in it, click on the template I want, and nothing happens. I use Safari 3.1 on WinXP. DuncanHill (talk) 13:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Integration with Cite-o-matic

Hi,

I wonder whether there is potential to integrate this handy tool with one of my own devising (which needs a bit of a facelift!) - see here for details. Could be useful for cite journal at least?

Verisimilus T 15:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Named refs

This just keeps getting better. The list of named refs is most excellent. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 11:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Cite news option

Just a minor thing. When I select the news option, I get a cite web template. Kind regards. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

This was just fixed last night. You may need to bypass your cache of the script. Mr.Z-man 00:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, right. Thanks. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

i don't want to cite at the beginning

this is a very good idea, however i have one little glitch. Whenever i use the tool, regardless of where my cursor actually is, the citation is added to the beginning of the text. I'm using monobook, and IE 7 on XP. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 20:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It uses the same function to insert the ref as the rest of the toolbar buttons use, but IE seems to forget where the cursor is after you type to fill in the citation fields. If you fill in the fields, then click where you want it to go in the text to reset the cursor, then click "add citation" it should add it in the correct position. Mr.Z-man 22:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I know it says that the gadget doesn't work with wikiEd

But is there a easy way to toggle between the two? Since wikiEd has the disable/enable button, would there be a way for refToolbar to show up when it's disabled, instead of going to preferences>gadgets and unselecting it each time? Thank you. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be great - they're both really vital tools for my Wikiediting; it would be so much better to be able to use both, or switch easily - the next best thing! Many thanks, Drum guy (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Great!

I've just copied your script to the Norwegian wiki (and I've tested it out and it works there, but will try to adjust it to the norwegian versions of the templates) One question. Is it possible to give a new line and two spaces like this {{reference help}} here on en-wiki?

Regards Nsaa (talk) 23:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Typo

The twelfth word in this section is spelt incorrectly.--Just Plain Brittish (talk) 10:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume you meant the word "different" was incorrectly? If so then this is

done. --Kanonkas : Talk 14:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Dates

All the dates on this are wrong. The accessdate "2008-11-24" doesn't work, it is only plain text. I don't know how to change it, but you may. Could it be fixed? Thanks. -- American Eagle (talk) 03:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Feature request

It would be very helpful (and not too much of a pain on your part, i think) to give format examples above each field. like 120-125 above pages, or YYYY-MM-DD above date. Also, having maybe a checkbox near accessdate to "Use current date" would be useful. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

With WikiEd

Well, I have the refToolbar on my monobook.js and it seems to work with my wikiEd. I haven't run into any problems so far, that is. Thought it'd be worth mentioning. ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 19:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Great!

Great tool. I use it a lot. More citation templates would be nice. I find myself using cite web for anything that doesn't fit the other templates. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not working

Your brilliant gadget is making the other edit helps not work. I use Internet explorer, if you nee to know. The gadget works, but how do i make the rest work again? Thanks Gaia Octavia Agrippa^Talk | _Sign 21:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Checking for duplicated content

Would it be possible to post an additional warning where two refs use the same URL but with different accompanying text? This would help to catch duplicate refs where some have been converted to use the "cite…" templates and one or more has been missed. TIA HAND —Phil | Talk 07:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Tabbing gets unexpected result

Great tool--thank you. In my initial testing, tabbing moves the cursor back to the edited document, rather than to the next field. Feature not a bug? Workaround? I'm using Firefox 3.0.5 under Vista. Barte (talk) 07:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I get the same problem, and it occurs on Firefox 3 under Vista and Mac OS X Leopard. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

And I think I fixed it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No, setting it to tabindex=1 was the fix. The editform is designated as tabindex=1, so the only way to prevent it from tabbing into that is to set them all to 1. Mr.Z-man 16:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Cite video game, & cite video

Thank you for this brilliant feature. It's been very helpful. Any plans to add {{cite video game}} and {{cite video}}? They would be really useful.--EclipseSSD (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and some requests

I've been making a great deal of use of this tool. It's a huge help is formatting citations. One thing I've noticed is that when using cite book, it always provides the citation as a "pp" indicating pages rather that "p" for page. Would it be possible to recognize a single page number versus a page range and change the parameter from "page=" to "pages=" automatically?

Another question: I try as much as possible to archive a copy of web sources using WebCite. Would it be possible to add in the "archivedate=" and "archiveurl=" to the template?

And finally: This may be a deliberate ddesign decision. The cite web automatically sets the retrieval date. But the cite book does not. Could it be done autimatically too?

Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, could it include the "|quote=" field please? Could be very useful (I only found out about this field recently). DuncanHill (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I also really like this tool. It's much easier and more reliable than entering a reference manually. But there's one thing I would really like it to include: a preview button. When editing a section, to preview a reference (as far as I know) requires finalizing the reference with refToolbar (How else would one enter a reference?

), adding <references/> at the end, previewing, and then remembering to remove <references/> before finalizing.

So, would it be possible for you to do something similar entirely within refToolbar? I.e. add the reference, add <references/> at the end if no <references/> or {{reflist}} is found, preview, and then undo it all? Or maybe just display a preview of what would be the contents of the <ref> tags?

Thanks! — Ken g6 (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a great gadget, thanks, and I use it all the time. My request is that you add a "year" field to the "Book" fields, to save the time of the chap who follows me around changing "date" to "year". When someone's referencing a book, they're very unlikely to have a publication date more detailed than the year, so perhaps it would be more useful to offer "year" instead of "date"? I've noticed that you say "Future features ... Better date handling ... if the user doesn't give a full date, use |month= and |year= instead of |date=", but for books it might be simpler to just change the field that's offered in the template? Thanks, anyway. PamD (talk) 09:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Excellent tool! Can you please add a work area so that users can copy all the biblio details there and then complete the fomr wihtout frther switching of pages / tabs. --Philcha (talk) 07:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

doi

Thanks, I love this button. Just a quick request, one useful field that isn't prompted when doing journal articles is DOI. It isn't too much hassle to add the field after the citation has been entered, but pretty please with sugar to have it in the toolbar? Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Pretty, pretty, pretty please. DOI is the most useful of the ids, because it provides a direct link to the article. --Philcha (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

User-specified date format for accessdate?

Is there a way to change the format of the automatically inserted accessdate? When I use the {{cite}} button, the accessdate is automatically formatted like "2009-03-13", whereas I like "3 March 2009". Is there something I can put in my monobook.js or something like that to change my preferences? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Especially since the use of numeric dates like 2009-03-13 is now deprecated anyway. Alarics (talk) 16:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible bug with IE8

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Edittools_-_More_IE8_fun.21 - refTools appears to clash with IE8, stopping Edittools working properly - it would be nice to have both working.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I've started getting the same behaviour recently, and I still have IE7 (version 7.0.5730.13CO, to be precise), so it's not unique to IE8. With reftools turned on, the "Insert" pulldown menu for inserting special characters stops working and IE indicates "error on page" (Line: 10, Char: 5, Error: Expected ";"). No idea what's changed recently though (several things, quite probably). I use reftools so much that I prefer to live without the ability to insert special characters than without reftools, but it would be nice to have both at once.

PS Village Pump discussion referred to above now moved to archive at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive_61#Edittools - More IE8 fun!. --Qwfp (talk) 14:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Still work?

I seem to have a new editing environment, and no longer have the button for adding refs. Any clues on what to do? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Prefs -> Gadgets --Philcha (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I checked that. I just turned it off and then on without success. Basically I seem to have that new interface created by the usability study, and all the old buttons are gone. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Brackets in titles not properly escaped by cite button

See bug for details. --71.134.234.64 (talk) 03:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Getting error

"hookEvent() is not defined".

How to fix this? Thanks,-59.95.97.251 (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Props!

Just wanted to say a big thank you! for creating this wonderful feature. I finally started to use inline citing after i discovered it. Great job! Suede67 (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

+1! this has been really helpful for me. thank you! Spencerk (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Beta

It doesn't work with Beta site layout. Best regards, --Smihael (talk) 08:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Go to Special:Preferences, click the "Editing" tab and uncheck "Enable enhanced editing toolbar" if checked. Sswonk (talk) 13:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I knew that. In other words: and in case I wanna use enhanced editing toolbar, when (if) refToolbar will be compatible with the new toolbar? --Smihael (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:Mr.Z-man#Cant_see_refTools. As Z-man says, the enhanced toolbar is still too buggy. Best to ask him, but I think the info in the link from only two weeks ago is probably not going to be any different today. Sswonk (talk) 17:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Problems with Vector skin or toolbar

The reftool doesn't work with the toolbar even if I add the import line to the Vector skin JS.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Go to Special:Preferences, click the "Editing" tab and uncheck "Enable enhanced editing toolbar" if checked. Sswonk (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

"Location" in cite news

Please could the "location" field be added for news citations. This is normal practice outside the USA. The problem is that nearly all US newspapers include the name of the city of publication in their title, e.g. The New York Times. Outside the USA this is largely not the case, so one needs to distinguish between e.g. The Daily Telegraph (Sydney) and The Daily Telegraph (London). People need to be encouraged to include the city of publication in all cases where it is not obvious. Thank you! - Alarics (talk) 07:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for adding this parameter. -- Alarics (talk) 09:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

cite.php update

The cite software has been updated to define named references within the reference list; see Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#cite.php update. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

If a list-defined reference is invoked within a <blockquote>...</blockquote>, then the error checking reports it as "Unclosed <ref> tag". ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Feature request- breaks

Can the error checking look for breaks within a citation template? This has bitten me in the butt a few times and it is not at all obvious. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Date formats

In the accessdate bit, the tool lists the date is this format: 2009-10-10. I work on the articles of a band which is british and I need to use this format 10 October 2009. Is there a way reftools can allow us to set the date format in advance? It's a laborious job otherwise. That would be extremely helpful. Thank you! Suede67 (talk) 01:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

You can add importScript("User:Remember the dot/ISO date format unifier.js") to your JS. It add links in the left toolbar to convert all ISO dates. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly what I needed, many thanks! Suede67 (talk) 12:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, ISO dates for access dates are no longer approved of (a bot is changing them to "15 November 2009" format). ANy chance you could change the default setting for the bot for all users? (Not just for those who are technical enough to be able to follow the above instruction). PamD (talk) 08:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Mr.Z-man 00:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is it default day month year format all of the sudden? I use month day, year format on the articles I edit. Is there a way for it to sense your preferences and use the format you like? Naturally I'll use whatever the article has already, but in most cases it is not day month year format. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely no such disapproval of the ISO date format. See Wikipedia:Mosnum/proposal on YYYY-MM-DD numerical dates, where a proposal to deprecate it failed by a more than 2-to-1 margin. Personally, I'd prefer the default format be changed back to ISO so we don't have these Commonwealth vs. US date format disputes. Exactly which bot is doing this reformatting exactly? I'd like to see its BRFA. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm currently working on a new version of this script (using the new "enhanced" toolbar) that will include a way for users to set a preference in their user JS page. Once that part of the script is done, it should be adaptable for this script. That should hopefully be in the next few weeks, with the new script done by the end of the year. As an aside, its things like this and this that really discourage people like myself from wanting to work on things like this. Mr.Z-man 03:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Can the new version have citation fields "archivelink" and "archiveurl" as well? That'd be a great help. Suede67 (talk) 03:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Why does the tool need to have a default access date at all? It is a simple matter to type in the date in whatever format one prefers. It is particularly unfortunate that "cite news" includes a default entry for access date, since this gives people the impression that access date is the most significant date, whereas the date of publication is far more important, and the "retrieved on" date often serves no purpose, e.g. when the news item being cited is on the stable website of a mainstream newspaper and itself clearly dated, or alternatively when it is not on the web at all but only on paper. I would be much happier if the "accessdate" were left blank, for the user to fill in or not, as appropriate. -- Alarics (talk) 09:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point. There is no need for it to be automatically filled in. A lot of times I am converting sloppy refs to use the template, so their accessdate is not always the day I convert them. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I think YYYY-MM-DD is fine for access dates. Anyway, fixing to dmy format makes my articles inconsistent. Also, please keep it filled in by default, typing in the date over and over is annyoing. An alternative would be a button to fill in the current date. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Why was the format changed? Since previously most access dates have been in the YYYY-MM-DD, the change creates a major inconsistency, and should be reverted unless there is a very good reason for it. Offliner (talk) 03:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The only reason that "previously most access dates have been in the YYYY-MM-DD" is that that became a standard thing to do at a time when autoformatting of dates was in force. It was assumed that users would have a date format prefererence set, so that YYYY-MM-DD would not be what they actually saw. This assumption proved spectacularly wrong, as only a fraction of users (even of those who log in, itself a small minority of Wikipedia readers) ever bothered to set date preferences. Automatic date formatting was therefore abolished, removing the original justification for using the YYYY-MM-DD format. Of course you can still use that format if you want to, but it is wrong to keep it as a default. The tool should leave the field blank. It cannot reasonably claimed that typing in a date is too much trouble. -- Alarics (talk) 09:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone really should implement something to toggle date formatting and/or spelling variants. I imagine a combination of templates and some MediaWiki-level JavaScript could do it. For that matter, setting this based on geolocation would be extra-cool, but likely impractical due to performance reasons. But I digress... --Cybercobra (talk) 10:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The date format is now customizable per-user, see User:Mr.Z-man/refToolbar#Customizing for details. Mr.Z-man 22:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. But I'm still wondering why the default was changed, creating a major inconsistency as users using the default will now be adding DMY dates, while most of the old refs are in the YYYY-MM-DD format. Offliner (talk) 09:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The situation as between different articles is already highly inconsistent. All we can strive for is consistency within a particular article. The only reason why "most of the old refs are in the YYYY-MM-DD format" is, as previously explained, an accident resulting from the abolition of automatic date formatting. -- Alarics (talk) 12:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"an accident resulting from the abolition of automatic date formatting" - I believe this claim of yours was disproven by another editor elsewhere where this was discussed. Do you have any proof? Although, this is irrelevant to my question "why was the default changed?" Offliner (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any proof to hand at this minute (what form would such proof take, anyway?), but several editors of much longer standing than I have said so in various places, and it seems to be the general perception. -- Alarics (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Harvard citation templates

Hello,

Your gadget is a great addition to the toolbar and gets a lot of use from me. It would be even more useful if it supported the templates listed at Wikipedia:CITET#Harvard_reference_and_shortened_footnote_examples, in particular {{Harvnb}}. They are actually very simple once you look into them. Many thanks, -Arb. (talk) 16:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

A request

Can the tool have 2 extra fields, when entering details, called "archive url" and "archive date"? This will be very helpful in adding sources of websites that tend to disappear, and have been archived, example, a page like this. The "archive date" field would use the same date as "accessdate". Thanks if you can do this, i'd be grateful forever! Suede67 (talk) 14:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to add cite encyclopedia ?

Template:Cite encyclopedia/doc

Full version, horizontal format (with current date)

{{cite encyclopedia |last= |first= |author= |authorlink= |coauthors= |editor= |encyclopedia= |title= |url= |accessdate=2024-12-02 |language= |edition= |date= |year= |month= |publisher= |volume= |location= |id= |isbn= |oclc= |doi= |pages= |quote= |ref= }} (Ice Explorer (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC))

and cite map?

Template:Cite map/doc

Full version:

{{cite map |publisher= |title= |url= |edition= |year= |cartography= |scale= |series= |page= |section= |inset= |accessdate=2009-11-13 |isbn= |id= }}

It would be much easier to use. Just adding in.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 21:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

"Newspaper" might be better than "Work" in cite news

In "cite news" I find many editors don't realise that "work=" means the name of the newspaper or magazine, and they put this under "publisher=" instead. In fact, "publisher" is not meant for that, and doesn't render the name in italics, as it should be. "newspaper=" works just as well as "work=" and I want to suggest changing "work" to "newspaper" in the cite news page of the tool so that it will not be ambiguous. -- Alarics (talk) 09:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yikes, I did not know that. Thanks.--SPhilbrick T 15:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Add "cite press release"

Would like to see {{cite press release}} added to this tool. Would be quite handy, and I've wished it was there on a number of different occasions recently. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Not appearing

The gadget doesn't appear at all in my Firefox 3 browsers I use on different computers. Don't have the enhanced editing tool checked on either. Anyone know what could be wrong? Hotcat tool works, so it can't be a Javascript issue, can it?Ingolfson (talk) 04:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

In case it helps to identify Ingolfson's difficulty, refTools has always appeared and performed in my FF whenever I have installed in my Preferences, carries over FF updates, plays nicely with wikEd. My current Editing Preferences (only those that are "on") are: Browers default font in edit box; Show edit toolbar (requires JavaScript); Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary; Warn me when I leave an edit page with unsaved changes. --Philcha (talk) 06:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ingolfson, do you have "Show edit toolbar" off perhaps? It needs to be on since the {{CITE}} button is part of the toolbar. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you - that solved it. I may experiment with it a bit, as in the past, I was not happy with the editing toolbar and disabled it again (can't remember what I disliked). Oh, can you guys ensure that the "Gadget" tab where you select it mentions the fact that the edit toolbar must be on? Because that would be useful!. Cheers, Ingolfson (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I made some changes

Hello. I am a long time happy user of refToolbar. Recently, I copied it over to my user space and made some changes. In User:Apoc2400/refToolbar.js I have added that it:

Trims leading and trailing whitespace in all fields. Copying and pasting from a website often adds extra spaces.
Uses |page= instead of |pages= if there is only one page. This makes i.e. "p. 5" instead of "pp. 5".
Replaces hyphens with en dashes in the page field (WP:ENDASH)
Makes sure there is one space after each comma in the page field
Uses |year= instead of |date= if only the year is specified

Feel free to use in your version.

I also have a more experimental version at User:Apoc2400/refToolbar-testing.js, which has buttons for setting the accessdate to todays date, and for copying the last name to the reference name field. Finally, I used some of refToolbar for my external Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books. --Apoc2400 (talk) 12:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

If you'd like, you can take over maintenance of this script. I really don't have the time to do anything other than make sure it continues to work. Let me know if you're interested. Mr.Z-man 04:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it sounds like a good idea. After all, Twinkle has been maintained at various times by AzaToth, Ioeth, and Amalthea, and so this wouldn't be that much of a stretch. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, after all... SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

If Apoc2400 is doing to take over maintenance of refTool:

Many thanks to Mr.Z-man for all the work on refTool - I must have used it thousands of times since I fall in love (lurv!).
Many thanks to Apoc2400 for continuing the support and development of the tool.
Would it best to transfer to the current production version to one of Apoc240's sub-pages and then make refTools a redirect to this?
I suggest it would good to collect into one post and then prioritise all the suggested improvements, as IIRC there are many. This is not a complaint - it's well-known that the most useful software packages have the longest wish-lists. If you like, I'll comb through the archives one the new page is set up - as I said, I've found refTools incredibly useful, and would be happy to contribute within my limitations. --Philcha (talk) 07:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I can take over maintenance if you do not want to keep doing it. How does the gadget in the preferences work? I suppose it is stored somewhere else where only admins can edit. It will take a while until a new version is stable enough to for that, but it would be good to know. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not necessary to move the scripts to another page. That seems to be too much hassle for very little gain. However, it would be a good idea to move the tool's pages to the project namespace rather than the user namespace. Again, I cite Twinkle as an example. Despite the various maintainers, TW has always remained in AzaToth's userspace, and the actual page for Twinkle is in the project namespace. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Only Mr.Z-man and admins can edit User:Mr.Z-man/refToolbar.js. There is no hurry though, I can work on a new version in my user space. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The gadget is stored in the MediaWiki namespace at MediaWiki:Gadget-refToolbar.js (you can find it, and the description for it at Special:Gadgets). The main script can be left in my userspace, or I can change mine to importScript Apoc's, it doesn't matter to me. One of these days (once its done, and the UsabilityInitiative code on enwiki catches up to what my test wiki is running) I'll be maintaining the version for the new toolbar. Mr.Z-man 01:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Are you working on refToolbar for the new interface of the usability initiative? Is it different in functionality from this version?

Also, as Philcha suggested above, a list of the most requested features for refToolbar is a good idea. If anyone is willing to make that for me it would be great. I have some ideas of my own that I am working on right now. I will make it available for testing soon. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The functionality for the new toolbar version will be basically the same, but I started from scratch for the code (since the new toolbar provides ways to integrate features like this better). Most of the requested features involve new citation templates. Mr.Z-man 00:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Please try the new version!

The new version is ready for testing! I would be happy if as many as possible would try it. It includes many requested features:

Support for {{cite encyclopedia}} and {{cite press release}} templates.
A button to quickly make a reference section with <references/> or {{Reflist}}.
Archive url and archive date fields added to cite web.
DOI, PMID and quote fields added to cite journal.
Trims leading and trailing whitespace in all fields. Copying and pasting from a website often adds extra spaces.
Uses |page= instead of |pages= if there is only one page. This makes i.e. "p. 5" instead of "pp. 5".
Replaces hyphens with en dashes in the page field (WP:ENDASH).
Makes sure there is one space after each comma in the page field.
Uses |year= instead of |date= if only the year is specified
Under News, the 'Work' field has been renamed to 'Newspaper'

To try the testing version:

If you have the refTools gadget enabled, uncheck it in your user Preferences, under the "Editing gadgets" section, then click the "Save" button.
Open your monobook.js page (or whatever skin you use)
Remove
```
importScript('User:Mr.Z-man/refToolbar.js');
```
if it is there, or add // in front to comment it out

Add

importScript('User:Apoc2400/refToolbar.js');

Bypass your cache (press Ctrl+F5).

"refToolPlus" experimental version

Screenshot of refToolPlus development version

You can also try the more radical development version "refToolPlus" which introduces some major new features:

Enter an ISBN or Google Books URL for a book, press a button, and other fields are filled in automatically with information from reftag or Diberri's tool. Support for fetching information by DOI, PMID, New York Times URLs and more is upcoming.
Preview citations before inserting into an article.
The cite book section has many new fields and functions. It could still use some design fixes.

Note: This tool uses external resources, including my site at reftag.appspot.com. The owners of these sites can see you IP and browser information.

To try it, do as above but add

importScript('User:Apoc2400/refToolbarPlus.js');

instead to your monobook.js.

Comments and discussion

Please report any bugs or problems here. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

a naive query I'm sure: I followed the directions for the testing version--unchecking the box in preference, adding the line of code to my monobook.js, bypassing the cache. In editing mode, I get the cite button, but the menu looks like the old version.No obvious support for the additional templates, for example. Thanks--I much appreciate your work. Barte (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there a button "More"? Try that one. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

That's it. Thanks. Barte (talk)

The placement/phrasing of the "Fetch" buttons might suggest to the unfamiliar user that it fetches the ISBN/URL, rather than fetching the other info based on the given ISBN/URL. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, perhaps spell out m, d, and y, although I appreciate that the limited space might preclude this. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

True. Any suggestions for an alternative for "Fetch". I am thinking of a little icon with arrows pointing out from the text field. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Given that the ISBN text field is unnecessarily long, renaming the button "Fetch info based on ISBN" doesn't seem unreasonable. Not sure what to do for the URL button though. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks good! Powergate92Talk 01:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The press release screen looks like it has the right fields, but the prompt is "Cite encyclopedia source"Barte (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you! --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm still seeing: More/Press Release->"Cite encyclopedia source" Barte (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You will have to bypass the cache again. --Apoc2400 (talk) 08:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Likewise, the prompt for Journal reads "Cite book source" --Cybercobra (talk) 09:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

This was actually wrong in Mr-Z-Mans version too. Strange that nobody ever noticed before. --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Both now look good from here. Barte (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It would also be neat if the fetch functionality was added for DOIs. This seems to be possible given {{cite doi}}. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Working on it right now! --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Lookup by DOI is now available for cite journal in the "refToolPlus" version. Bypass the cache and try it out. There is also an external tool version at http://localhost:8080/doiweb.py

Example doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-0505.2009.03.001 --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Great improvements. While you are in full on development mode, any chance of incorporating the Harvard citation templates mentioned above. This allows for the case where one needs to reference at different points in an article different pages of a single work. -Arb. (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Template works great! Wondering if we could add Template:cite map soon? I requested it atop. Its really useful.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 21:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Added now. Make sure you import User:Apoc2400/refToolbar.js or User:Apoc2400/refToolbarPlus.js in your monobook.js, bypass the cache, and check under More / Map. I guess {{cite map}} is not so commonly used, but it doesn't hurt to have for those who want it. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Already done :) - but thanks. Appreciate it.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 20:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:CITE, if an article does not use reference templates, newly added references should continue to not use templates. So this tool needs to detect that situation and (for example) substitute the templates it adds, if there are not already templates in the article. If the idea is that people should be able to use this tool without thinking too much, then the tool needs to do the thinking about what the established style is, and then needs to follow that. A similar consideration applies to parenthetical referencing, and to pages that use {{citation}} instead of the cite foo templates. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Basically, it is up to the user to decide when and how to use this tool. It would be difficult for a tool automatically detect citation style. Also, this rule only applies to articles that already has a well developed citation style I believe. The refToolPlus version actually supports making {{citation}} and non-template plain wikicode citations, but only for books so far. It is a manual choice, and I think it will stay that way. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that we can't make this a "default option" if it would lead to well-meaning but naive editors violating WP:CITE. There's no problem if editors have to opt in to using the tool, because then they are responsible for using it correctly. But if it were turned on by default, then "I just used the tools you gave me" is actually a pretty reasonable defense. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

We should be glad the user is adding/using a reference at all. Changing templated to non-templated after the fact is pretty trivial, just subst and cleanup, or copy-and-paste the displayed text and re-add italics. --Cybercobra (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Does this template support Vancouver style, that is, {{vcite book}} instead of {{cite book}}, and similarly for {{vcite journal}}, etc.? If not, then could you please add that? As a first cut it should be as simple as putting a "v" in front. Eubulides (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Not yet. The feature to produce plain wikicode book citations actually uses {{vancite book}} internally, subst:ing it and removing any ugly tags. I will consider adding the vcite templates, but I think they are not very widely used yet. I will not have much time for Wikipedia this and next week, but hold on, there are several features and some interface cleanup coming. Requests are always welcome. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there any reason why only three pairs of last name/first name are provided? Most citation templates allow up to nine such pairs; and the Harvard referencing templates such as {{harv}}, {{harvnb}} and {{sfn}} recognise up to four last names. If the citation template has |ref=harv, an anchor for an internal link is created based upon |last1= through |last4= plus |year=, which the {{harvnb}} will link to without further tweaking. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Just space reasons. It used to be just one. I am looking into having a little (+) sign or something that can be clicked to add an other author. Does anyone know how that is best done in JavaScript? --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

First, thanks to Apoc2400 for taking this over (and belated thanks to Mr. Z-Man for the prior work done). I use this gadget extensively, and I'm happy to see that the continued development is in good hands. I'm a fan of the LDR citation style. I see that the new version has the ability to create a Reference section ready for LDR style references. However, unless I'm missing something, it does not have the ability to generate a reference in LDR style. By that, I mean that one would fill in the necessary boxes, including a reference name, select a location in the document and the add citation button would add <ref name="test"/> to the main text, with the full reference detail in the proper place in the reference section. Perhaps this is possible, and I just don't know how to do it? If it isn't currently possible, can we discuss exactly how it might be done?--SPhilbrick T 22:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It does not currently have this feature. It seems difficult to do, but not impossible. The major problem is that you are often only editing a section of the article, so the references section is not within the part that is currently being edited. The tool could go fetch the whole article wikicode, add the LDR citation in the references section, and save it. Users might be surprised that the article is edited before they actually click Save, so there would have to be some kind of warning. Also, there might be an edit conflict when you finally click save. It would be much easier to do for whole-article editing only. A related feature would be to make the "Named references" list contain reference names from the whole article rather than just the current section. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I was worried that it might not be easy. I tend to edit whole articles, rather than sections, precisely because I'm often adding references, and I like to add them as LDR. Oh well, maybe someday.--SPhilbrick T 19:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

For editing whole articles, it wouldn't be that difficult. The function could be disabled when editing a section. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Beta toolbar support

Will RefToolbar be compatible with the beta toolbar soon? NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 21:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure. Does anyone know what the incompatibility is exactly? --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

In the beta toolbar, the RefToolbar button isn't visible. Or at least it's not obvious. Barte (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible feature?

An issue came up that seems like it should be so common, I wonder if it can be done, and I just don't know how. I added a reference to a journal using the tool. After adding it, I realized I forgot to include the page numbers. I was able to do it manually, by inserting the code in the ref, but one might not know the right code. I thought it would be nice to select a ref, and "load" it into the tool, then add whatever is needed. Is this possible? If not, would it be useful to others?--SPhilbrick T 19:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It is possible, but would be quite difficult. Especially, it would have to be careful not to break a citation if anyone tries to load one that wasn't made with this tool. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Multi-author journal articles

Multiple author fields for {{cite journal}} like there are for {{cite book}} would be nice. I seem to come across more multi-author journal articles than multi-author books. --Cybercobra (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Both {{cite book}} and {{cite journal}} allow up to nine authors, and each allow them to be alternatively specified as field pairs, |last1=/|first1= through |last9=/|first9=. The advantage of using such pairs is that harvard referencing works better. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. It is coming. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

"Fetch" buttons changed to arrow icon.

But buttons for filling in fields based on Google Books or New York Times URL, ISBN or DOI are now this icon: . Is that more clean than "Fetch"? There are also title texts that display when you hold the mouse pointer over the it. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

RefToolbar script for new toolbar ready for testing

See the full announcement on the village pump. Mr.Z-man 03:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Changes to the gadget

I've made a proposal for some changes to the gadget, here. Mr.Z-man 03:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Now broken?

It seems that the general user interface upgrades for Wikipedia have removed the reftools from the toolbar. I can't access / find it anymore, even though it is still selected in the my preferences, as is the edit bar. Bummer - I had just gotten so used to it. I don't want to go back to hand-coding my refs! Ingolfson (talk) 08:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm facing the same problem. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Me too. I started a thread at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Is there a way to have the vector skin editor include the "cite" button?. It was suggested there by Bruce1ee that "adding "importScript('User:Mr.Z-man/refToolbar.js');" to [my] vector.js file brings it back". I'd like to see the cite button become standard though. 11:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, plase add back the RefToolbar. All is One (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I have the same problem, and have raised this at the feedback page. RolandR (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Possible workaround until it's sorted: uncheck "Enable enhanced editing toolbar" in your "Editing" prefs. Worked for me. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

That worked for me - now I have Two Cite buttons, but it sure beats zero--SPhilbrick T 20:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The resulting dialog box now has more features: thanks to ~~whomever~~ User:Apoc2400, I believe. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Workarounds that assume editors' must edit their "personal" js are inadequate - most editors have no developer experience, and the most we can assume is how to use Web forms. The problem shows that the "vector" skin did have not thorough regression testing, and the skin should be reverted into tested thorough. --Philcha (talk) 07:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm having problems with the new interface too, so I unchecked the enhanced toolbar button also. I liked the old cite button better. You know, Philcha, that would be too sane and reasonable for them to think that regression testing should be done!! :-) --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

broken since 14 February 2011?

Since one or two days ago I noticed the old reftool bar has changed for a new one. Sadly the new one does not properly work for me. I tried in vain to recover the old tool bar using combinations of preferences, gadgets, and monobook.js edits but I have failed. I have asked for help here and here. The instructions at Wikipedia:RefToolbar 1.0#Testing versions looked promising but again did not work for me. At the right is a screenshot of what I have been used to and quite happy with for a year now. -84user (talk) 11:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Update here is what happens. I use Firefox 3.6.13, I use the Monobook skin and I have emptied my monobook.css. I have been editing my User:84user/monobook.js to figure out what is going on. So far with "importScript('User:Apoc2400/refToolbar.js');" in my CSS:

all gadgets off and "Show edit toolbar" off: no edit toolbar appears
I select the "refTools" Gadget: no edit toolbar appears
I then "Enable enhanced editing toolbar" under the Editing tab: the new edit tool bar appears with "Cite" drop down; I click Cite, then Templates and then "cite web", but nothing appears; the dropdowns for Advanced and Special Characters do work
I then "Enable dialogs for inserting links, tables and more" under the Editing tab: this time the Cite dropdown Templates work (a dialog window hovers over in the "new" style)

So, this combination produces the new toolbar (I guess it is version 2.0): "refTools" Gadget + "Enable enhanced editing toolbar" + "Enable dialogs for inserting links, tables and more" + User:Apoc2400/refToolbar.js

I now uncheck the "refTools" Gadget: the new edit tool bar appears but this time without the "Cite" dropdown
I now uncheck the "Enable enhanced editing toolbar" under the Editing tab: the same as above, toolbar without the Cite dropdown
I now uncheck the "Enable dialogs for inserting links, ..." under the Editing tab: no toolbar appears at all.

I now comment out "importScript('User:Apoc2400/refToolbar.js');" from my monobook.js to ensure it is not interfering: edit window still gives no toolbar, as expected

I select the "refTools" Gadget: no toolbar
I then "Enable enhanced editing toolbar" under the Editing tab: the new edit tool bar appears with "Cite" drop down, but the Cite Template choices have no effect
I then "Enable dialogs for inserting links, tables and more" under the Editing tab: this time the Cite dropdown Templates work (a dialog window hovers over the edit window in the "new" style)

So, this tells me the presence of User:Apoc2400/refToolbar.js had no effect: the behaviour depends only on the Gadgets chosen.

I then disabled the Gadget "refTools": the new edit tool bar appears without the "Cite" drop down
I uncomment the "importScript('User:Apoc2400/refToolbar.js');" in my monobook.js: the new edit tool bar appears without the "Cite" drop down

That's my testing for now, I still cannot see how to get the old toolbar back. -84user (talk) 12:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

There now appears to be some solutions, see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#RefTools_not_working oldid. -84user (talk) 13:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

wikEd compatibility

When using the wikEd gadget, refToolPlus for the non-enhanced toolbar will only insert citations if you first disable wikEd using the on/off icon. I think it used to work for awhile, but it's definitely broken since the MediaWiki 1.17 upgrade. I have fixed the problem in my forked copy (diff). To use the fix, turn off refTools in your preferences and add the following to your Custom JavaScript file:

 importScript('User:UncleDouggie/refToolbarWrapper.js');

—UncleDouggie (talk) 07:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

This has suddenly started working again without my change. —UncleDouggie (talk) 08:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Cite shortcut not working

I asked a question at Village Pump [1] about a problem with the Cite shortcut when I edit, and I was pointed here. I assume I have the original version of the toolbar. I'm not aware that I have upgraded to the newer version. The poster at VP suggested that the Cite button is now on the left, but I can't see it when I try to edit articles. Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 09:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Everybody was upgraded unless you since downgraded in your preferences. I'm using the 1.0 toolbar and Cite is working for me. The toolbar has over 20 small icons above the edit window. —UncleDouggie (talk) 09:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks the same layout to me as before, except my cite shortcut has disappeared. I'm not aware that I've downgraded. Above the editing window I have 2 rows of icons. The upper row has 5 icons (including Bold, Italic) and then the sub-menus of Advanced, Special characters and Help. I previously had a Cite sub-menu after Help but this has now gone. The lower row has a drop-down box (when I had Cite this is where Cite web etc would show), then some bullet/number icons, four "A" icons, and then four more icons, ending with Redirect and Table. Eldumpo (talk) 09:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like RefToolbar 2.0.

RefToolbar 1.0 Enable enhanced editing toolbar=Off

RefToolbar 2.0 Enable enhanced editing toolbar=On

Comparison of RefToolbar versions

If so, ask this at Wikipedia talk:RefToolbar 2.0. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Mine is RefToolbar 1.0 - and I was missing the cite button altogether yesterday, and if I enabled 2.0 there similarly was no "cite" to click on, or templates to choose. It now intermittently appears on the far left on Toolbar 1.0, not the far right where it used to be and where the above image shows it. That's ok, if it doesn't disappear again. Is 1.0 stable now? Thx. Tvoz/talk 20:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Stability on Wikipedia is a relative term. The button is now on the left for everyone using the 1.0 toolbar. I attempted to move it back to the right and put the drop downs where they used to be, but I failed. The way that ResourceLoader works, there's no way I can find to force the button to be added on the right. I don't recall the details right now, but it was a painful experience. —UncleDouggie (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

As long as it doesn't disappear again, I'm ok with it being on the left. Thanks for trying! Tvoz/talk 03:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

ISBN numbers not allowing autofill

I have a problem with the cite function when using RefToolbar 1.0. When I try to autofill the fields after adding an ISBN number it will never find any data. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Text change

Per discussion at discussion at WT:Citing sources, we'd like to add some text, alongside the form which editors are meant to complete, to the effect that "Most parameters are optional". Can this be done, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Addition of video to cite template.

Would it be possible to add a template to cite video to the toolbar? It seems that after the web, video would be the most popular followed by books and then journals. NewManOfAnOldAge (talk) 01:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Archive fields for cite news

Would it be possible to add the archivedate=, and archiveurl= fields to {{cite news}}? News article, especially recent ones have notoriously fickle URLs as the newspapers content management system moves them around. Adding WebCite archives alleviates the problem of link rot, and having the field available just like in {{cite web}} would make things a lot easier. -- Whpq (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Please clarify: do you want to use these fields in the "cite news" popup from the editing toolbar? These fields are already available if you click "Show/hide extra fields" within the popup. – Fayenatic (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Now I am confused. I assume that the pop-up you refer to is the appearance of a bunch of fields that shows up above the toolbar. I don't see any button to "show/hide extra fields". -- Whpq (talk) 18:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

That is a feature of RefToolbar 2.0. See WP:RefToolbar. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 18:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I am using RefToolbar 1.0 and my request is for an enhancement to RefToolbar 1.0, assuming that it is still being enhanced. I prefer the functionality of 1.0 over that of 2.0 -- Whpq (talk) 18:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

doi

Could I suggest an improvement to this wonderful tool? If only doi is provided, replace cite journal with cite doi. Is this possible? Decstop (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)