Wikipedia talk:ProveIt/Archive 2014

Editors, author, and chapter author
I'm trying to cite Kempinski's Tel Kabri: The 1986-1993 Excavations. Unfortunately I'm not sure how I can cite chapters in this. The book has editors like any other, but because Kempinski died before it was published, they put him as the author. That's all well and good, but each chapter has an author to it as well, and I want to cite chapters. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 29 Kislev 5774 16:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's such an unusual situation that a tool like this probably isn't going to help. I'd suggest you edit the citation directly, not with this tool.  IMHO; I'm just a user.  --Elvey (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!
I think Provelt is just great. I would never have the patience to do the references in this way, but Provelt makes it so much easier. Thank you and happy new year! Lova Falk    talk   10:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! That's really great to know.  Feel free to leave feedback and suggestions here.  Happy New Year! Superm401 - Talk 06:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * ProveIt is a great gadget, thanks. emijrp (talk) 14:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, just tagging along on this thank you note, this tool is just amazing, and I can't imagine why it's not available on the French Wikipedia, it's just the perfect simple tool to make great references quickly (I can never remember the correct syntax for a web link template)! Thank you again for your work! Bouktin (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Please disable on non-wikitext pages
ProveIt is of no use on JavaScript, CSS pages; it should not take screen space when editing these. The relevant variable is. Check if it equals  before starting up. — Keφr 08:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Broken (for me) on English Wikipedia
ProveIt is broken (for me) on English Wikipedia. Simplified example: I'm editing my sandbox and the [update edit form] button isn't working. The edit form isn't updated when I click on it. It's a reproducible problem, at least while I'm following the steps.

Steps to reproduce:
 * 1) Go to the url above (and notice that the references count in ProveIt is 4).
 * 2) paste this:
 * 3) Hit the preview button (and notice that the references count in ProveIt went from 4 to 5.)
 * 4) Expand ProveIt, and edit the new reference, filling in some of the blank fields.
 * 5) click the [update edit form] button
 * 6) notice that the the edit form content hasn't changed.

This shouldn't happen; the edit form content should have changed, right? Reproducible by someone else? The above is a simplified case; same thing happens here (but ref. count goes from 148 to 148) --Elvey (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It works for me on that page, editing that reference. I can not reproduce this. Superm401 - Talk 03:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Broken
ProveIt is currently glitching out on me; the window appears uncollapsed immediately upon editing, but the "show/hide" button indicates that it is hidden. Pressing the button results in this; this was taken from editing Schloss Weimar, and is reproducible on every page. – 23W (talk &middot; contribs) 23:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I am experiencing the same problem as of today.- Gilliam (talk) 00:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Just started for me as well. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Same here.- MrX 01:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And me. And it's popping up whenever I try and edit an article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, same here. Obvious error in coding. If it stays too long I'll sadly have to remove it as a gadget. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks like the developers have not been active for a while. A report has been filed at Github. I assume this was probably triggered by a recent change to MediaWiki.- MrX 19:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I put in a note at Village Pump Technical but no reply... no idea if that was the right place. Thanks for the update . EvergreenFir (talk) 02:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Same here. ProveIt is uncollapsed immediately upon editing and goes haywire when I click on it. Please find someone to fix it. I am removing it from my Preferences. Poeticbent talk 03:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I filed the issue there. I apologize for the inconvenience.  I am aware of the issue, and will get it fixed as soon as I can. I believe it was caused by MediaWiki core upgrading jQuery UI. Superm401 - Talk 06:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the follow up. Your work on this gadget is greatly appreciated.- MrX 22:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Gigantic
Mine isn't glitching quite the same way as above; it works, kind of, but when I edit a section ProveIt at once pops up to an E-N-O-R-M-O-U-S box 23 cm wide x a ridiculous 8 cm high.

Worse, the old down-arrow in the box's top right corner has been replaced by an UP arrow, so the only way to go is BIGGER, aargh. That makes the ProveIt box an absurd 15 cm (that's SIX INCHES in old money) high, occupying much of the browser's client area.

It also makes the edit sequence go like this:


 * 1) spot a problem
 * 2) click Edit
 * 3) click the UP-arrow on ProveIt thinking it's the 'shut up and die' button
 * 4) ProveIt doubles in size
 * 5) click the Down-arrow which has now mercifully appeared on ProveIt (swearing softly)
 * 6) try to recall what one wanted to edit
 * 7) vow to uninstall ProveIt remarkably soon

Please can we have a small box back, with a down-arrow. Even better, can the box stay collapsed until the user clicks 'Add a Reference' please.

Your until-now loyal user, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Similar problem to above
It pops up in every edit window and when I click to minimize it EXPANDS and then minimizes with an additional click. Very annoying.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 20:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I recommend that you disable it until it's fixed. See the thread above.- MrX 21:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ This is fixed. As always, let me know if you are having issues (you may want to clear your cache first if you still experience problems). Superm401 - Talk 22:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

New release of ProveIt
I've released a new version of ProveIt. The changes are under the hood (refactoring and cleanup, fixing the bug discussed above, images now hosted on Wikimedia Commons since we've moved away from Google). As always, post here or [https://github.com/proveit-js/proveit/issues/new?body=What%20steps%20will%20reproduce%20the%20problem?%0A%0A1.%0A2.%0A3.%0A%0AWhat%20is%20the%20expected%20output?%0A%0AWhat%20do%20you%20see%20instead?%0A%0AWhen%20were%20you%20using%20ProveIt?%0A%0AOn%20what%20browser%20%28including%20version%29%20and%20operating%20system?%0A%0AIf%20page-specific,%20what%20article%20were%20you%20editing?%0A%0AOptionally,%20what%20is%20your%20Wikipedia%20username?%20%20If%20you%20do%20not%20wish%20to%20post%20ithere,%20you%20can%20privately%20email%20the%20team%20%28http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/User:ProveIt_GT%29.%20%20This%20will%20help%20us%20see%20any%20potentially%20conflicting%20scripts.%0A%0APlease%20provide%20any%20additional%20information%20below. file a bug] if you experience any issues. Superm401 - Talk 22:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Testing. Poeticbent talk 22:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It still needlessly appears on CSS and JavaScript pages. I repeat, check whether wgPageContentModel === 'wikitext' before starting. — Keφr 08:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Also, it now uses mw.config.get throughout, rather than legacy globals, and there is some coding convention cleanup. Superm401 - Talk 04:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, . Apparently, the "cite book" is not working when selected from the drop down menu. It looks OK in the open dialog box of ProveIt, but it turns into "cite undefined" in the editing area, which has to be corrected manually. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 21:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * , I can't reproduce this. Is it when editing or adding a reference?  Also, what browser are you using?  It may also help to temporarily disable other user scripts and gadgets to see if any of them may be conflicting. Superm401 - Talk 23:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, . This is how it looks like. All best, Poeticbent talk 02:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Deprecated parameters
I notice that ProveIt is still including at least one deprecated parameter in the cite journal template; I didn't do a lengthy investigation to find out if there are deprecated parameters in the other templates. The list of valid parameters for CS1-style templates is at Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist; those marked with 'false' are deprecated and should no longer appear in the tool. Currently, they are: albumlink, artist, coauthor, coauthors, cointerviewers, day, director, month, notestitle, publisherid, and titleyear. These parameters are scheduled to stop working altogether on October 1, 2014; in the meantime, inserting references into documents using the deprecated parameters puts the article into a category identifying articles that need fixing. There are currently 73,000 or so articles, it would be most helpful if using ProveIt didn't add to the list. (Some of the fixes are not easily accomplished by bots, so they have to be done by hand.) Please update the code. Thanks so much!&mdash; D'Ranged 1  VTalk  05:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Second request. Please fix this. Template:Cite journal clearly lists "month" as a deprecated parameter; the ProveIt dialog for Reference type "Journal" should show either "Date" (date) or "Publication date" (publication-date), and both "Year" and "Month" should be deleted from the dialog. (year is an alias of both date and publication-date; however, the label might mislead users to input only the year when what is actually wanted is the entire date.) Continuing the use of the deprecated parameters causes errors in the citations, and adds articles to Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters. Currently, there are nearly 70,000 articles in the category; if you would please change the code on ProveIt, it will help prevent adding more articles to the category. Thanks!&mdash; D'Ranged 1  VTalk  14:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to confirm I'm aware of this issue. As always, thanks for the report. Superm401 - Talk 21:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Provelt
In News Cite what does the "Work" parameter mean? -- NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 07:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The name of the newspaper, where as the publisher</tt> parameter refers to the company who publishes it. <span style="background:hsl(105,25%,25%);border:thin solid hsl(102,25%,75%);color:hsl(102,25%,75%);">23W 07:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Accessdate format
When using cite web and a few others the tool automatically fills in the accessdate using the form "2011-01-08" when the full written form is preferred i.e., "January 8, 2011" or "8 January 2011". See, e.g., the example accessdates in the documentation for cite web and cite news, the examples at WP:CITET, or the retrieval dates in today's featured article. There is a possible WP:ENGVAR issue if you default the style to January 8, 2011 over 8 January 2011; someone down the line might say "hey, why are you choosing for us the middle endian form over the little endian form" and so on, but anyone can change this and there are manifestly more articles written by people who would naturally choose month day year over other formats. Ideally, though, the tool would recognize the date format at the start of the article and choose the accesdate format from that example and, if not present, would default to the most common format.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's a good point. I didn't realize the YYYY-MM-DD format wasn't preferred (I revealed my programmer bias and used the MySQL format ;). I filed a bug report with your comments. http://code.google.com/p/proveit-js/issues/detail?id=95 Please feel free to add to them if desired. MaxVeers (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad you have now got rid of YYYY-MM-DD. Unfortunately the default now always says month day year. This is the (very illogical) American format and is inappropriate for most non-US articles, where the date format already in place will usually be day month year. It won't really do to say that editors can change it if they want; most people won't bother. Could the box not be left blank altogether? Access date is never a required field anyway, and in many cases is positively inappropriate, such as when the reference is to a book or newspaper that is not online. -- Alarics (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As Fuhghettaboutit said, I think there are significantly more pages using the American format. I think leaving it blank is inferior, and will lead to more people just leaving it out altogether.  It is very common for pages to change or link rot entirely.  Thus,  I think there's a valid purpose to auto-filling it.  Your argument about cite book is spurious, since it's not auto-filled for that (accessdate is not even a default parameter for book).  For cite news, I think the majority of uses are websites.  Using it for a printed newspaper is unusual, but it doesn't cause any problems.
 * I would like it to use the article's existing date format, in compliance with the manual of style. But detecting this is technically challenging.  Keep in mind that the first use of a date format is not necessarily in a reference. Superm401 - Talk 02:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have filed this as an enhancement, issue 109. While reviewing the manual of style, I noted that the date page says, "Access and archive dates in references should be in either the reference format, or YYYY-MM-DD."  So it appears our original format is (now?) permitted, even if both the reference date format and body date format are different.  I still think it's preferable to use the reference date format, but we may have been too hasty in changing the behavior. Superm401 - Talk 02:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The use of YYYY-MM-DD in access and archive dates is the result of an accident. About three years ago date auto-formatting was deprecated and editors removed the formatting from the cite templates without considering the mish-mash of date formats used. When new editors see this style in use, they replicate it. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 02:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I remember the date delinking argument. The question is whether we should take advantage of the MOS here and use YYYY-MM-DD, or keep American, at least until we can fix issue 109. Superm401 - Talk 03:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am leaning towards YYYY-MM-DD; see below. Superm401 - Talk 08:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I personally prefer the American way, just because majority of people that use English Wikipedia are American. America have a population of 300,000,000 and growing... So I wont be surprised if such format would be in use.--Mishae (talk) 02:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Excepting the USA and countries that have a non-Julian calendar, all date formats all have the month in the middle. It is only the USA that has a middle endian (day between month and year).  Most significant, there is a Y2K bug in many date format usages, and the ISO date format is the only one that is intrinsically universal and unambiguous.  See, for example: ISO Dates.  Finally, ISO dates are totally agnostic and unambiguous to all readers, not just those from the USA. So, I feel that the ISO date for citations is both brief and unambiguous. Enquire (talk) 17:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I want to revive this discussion. I noticed now that the access date format now uses YYYY Month DD (e.g., 2014 September 15), which is actually what I prefer. But I've noticed that these date formats are getting reverted by bots (e.g. User:BattyBot), and I double checked and apparently this is non standard date formatting on Wikipedia (see MOS:DATEFORMAT). I'd like to see it changed either to YYYY-MM-DD (e.g., 2014-09-15; although from the discussion above it looks like this is not preferred), or to DD Month YYYY (e.g. 15 September 2014). ozhu  (talk·contribs) 15:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's most likely using your date preference from Special:Preferences (Appearance section). You can either change that or specify a ProveIt-specific date preference.  See here for instructions if you choose the ProveIt-specific route. Superm401 - Talk 06:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * @Superm401, that was exactly the issue. Thanks for clearing up the confusion. $$|$$ ozhu  (talk·contribs) 18:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Not working?
I don't know why, but ProveIt is saying that there are 0 references on the page Geeta (album). ? Eman 235 / talk  05:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ProveIt's parser is not recognizing the references due to HTML comments inside them . This is a known issue (issue 63).  In this case, all of the references have such comments. You can workaround it by moving the comments outside the tag or removing them. Superm401 - Talk 05:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Aha. A bit annoying, no? Eman 235 / talk  05:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It is not on my short-term list, but I would like to fix it if possible. Superm401 - Talk 06:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion/request
Would it be possible to prevent proveit from overwriting text? Many times I have overwritten the reference I just generated with its refname only and have been unable to get it back.
 * ProveIt is based on overwriting wikitext in the edit box. So we need to look at the exact problem, and see how to avoid it.  Is it possible you are clicking "insert this reference at cursor" when a reference is highlighted?  This functionality is intended for when you have a source with a refname and want to insert a citation to the same reference/source in another place (the cursor/caret should be positioned, but nothing should be selected).
 * There is no use case for this particular functionality to overwrite anything, so I could look at an enhancement if you confirm this is the problem. Superm401 - Talk 05:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I generate and insert the ref, which is highlighted by default. For whatever reason I then accidentally select "insert this reference at cursor" . For a new reference this destroys all the data. Thanks, Testem (talk) 12:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

ProveIt in Russian Wikipedia
Is it possible?--Fastboy (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's possible, add it, please. -- Ochilov  (talk)  16:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)