Wikipedia talk:ProveIt/Archive 2016

Revision tagging for ProveIt
Hi, we started a proposal (T123636) on the use of revision tags to better understand the quality and volume of edits produced via specific tools and interfaces. I was wondering if you would be interested in adding this tag to summaries of edits editors make via ProveIt (cc, ). --DarTar (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've submitted a pull request for this. Please check and post there to confirm I did it correctly (one of them is inside a link, and I'm not sure if it's case-sensitive, but assuming no).  Side note, people have probably mentioned this, but it would be nice to clarify the terminology here.  Revtagging and revision tagging sound too similar to change tags (also called just tags or revision tags).  Maybe call the the hashtag based one revhashtagging or something specific. Mattflaschen - Talk 22:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit summary
Please change edit summary from  summary.value += " (edited with ProveIt)";  to  summary.value += " (edited with ProveIt)";  for other wikis--ԱշոտՏՆՂ (talk) 08:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Or create meta user page--ԱշոտՏՆՂ (talk) 08:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Good idea, thanks! I've submitted this as https://github.com/proveit-js/proveit/pull/214 . Mattflaschen - Talk 22:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

It sees no references
Hi! Today, after updating one citation at Zika virus outbreak (2015–present), ProveIt suddenly says there are 0 references (there are really more than 100). I previewed the page and then saved the page, then clicked on "edit source" and still, 0 references. I purged the page. No change. I logged out, quit the browser, and rebooted. It still doesn't see any references. This is peculiar because I've been using ProveIt for a couple of weeks now and have been very pleased with it.

I am using an iPad Air 2, running iOS 9.2.1 (13D15), editing using Mobile Safari. I went to the issue report page at github, but I couldn't report anything without having an account. I hope this is something easy and obvious. TIA.— Gorthian (talk) 03:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hmm, weird, when I click edit the whole page there are zero refs but click on individual sections most of them show refs, a few don't. Chrome, Windows 7 Raquel Baranow (talk) 04:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's working now, all okay! Raquel Baranow (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay, I did a bit of experimenting. I noticed that ProveIt was seeing refs in other articles, so I wondered if something in my edit had broken it. So I reverted myself and poof! It sees all the refs now. I can't figure out what specifically broke it, but maybe you'll be able to see it. — Gorthian (talk) 04:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Citation 94 in that edit is missing the closing braces for the cite template. That could break ProveIt. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see now. Thank you! — Gorthian (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

WikiCite
this event in late May in Berlin (WikiCite 2016) might be of interest to the ProveIt crowd.--DarTar (talk) 15:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Formatting of author fields
Proveit incorrectly formats author fields in cite templates. For example this edit introduced Multiple names: authors list error, because two names ware placed in author field, instead of being separated. --Dcirovic (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

MediaWiki version versus version at GitHub
While tracking down a behavior of ProveIt, I discovered that the version I am getting when editing here is apparently the version at MediaWiki:Gadget-ProveIt.js which is from a year ago March and is quite different from what is current at the GitHub project. Is this the correct behavior? And if so, why the large lag time between the two? Thanks --Arg342 (talk) 03:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Solved! The version at GitHub was only deployed at the Spanish Wikipedia, but now it's also deployed here at the English Wikipedia. --Sophivorus (talk) 23:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Individual Engagement Grant
Hi, I'd like to notify anyone reading this that I requested an individual engagement grant to the Wikimedia Foundation to enhance this gadget. The full proposal can be found here, please check it out, edit it if you want and endorse it if you think it's a good idea! --Sophivorus (talk) 09:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The grant was granted! I will be working on the gadget until December, feel free to contact me with any requests or concerns. --Sophivorus (talk) 23:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

New version
If you want the old version, you can load it by adding the following to your common.js (and disabling the gadget from your preferences) However I'm working very hard on the new version and I want to incorporate all of your requests, so please consider leaving your feedback and checking back often, to see what's new. New amazing features are incoming, promised! --Sophivorus (talk) 15:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Is there a way we can go back to the old style. It was much easier to use IMHO. - Yellow Dingo&#160;(talk) 07:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC) pinging main contributor to new version. - Yellow Dingo&#160;(talk) 08:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want to go back to the previous version, you'll have to copy the old JS and the old CSS to your common.js and common.css and deactivate the gadget from your preferences. That being said, I would appreciate greatly if you could let me know what is it you miss from the old version, or what do you hate from the new version. I may be able to accommodate your requests in little time, as I'm actively working on the gadget due to a grant the Foundation has given me to enhance it. The previous version did have a few features that are not present in the new one, but the new one also has its fair share of new features, including full internationalization and template data extracted directly from the template documentation. Another big feature I'm planning to add is autocompletion of references with data taken directly from Wikidata, something you will never find in the previous version. Cheers! --Sophivorus (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In my case, the first thing i miss is that ProveIt no longer adds a tag to the edit summary when i use it. Secondly, the buttons (intuitive and easy) are replaced by tabs which really don't make clear what they do.  Thirdly, i miss that the initial display was easy to read, with just the reference titles listed, so i could easily correlate the title i was looking for with what i could see.  Fourth, it's not obvious at all what to do with the mass of things i am presented with; i click on a reference, but i don't know where or what i'm supposed to click on.  Sorry to sound negative, and i'm sure the new version has got useful features, but it isn't going to be used (by me) if it isn't clear and easy; until a couple of days ago ProveIt was incredibly easy and intuitive to use.  Happy days, LindsayHello 05:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I basically agree with . Especially her 2nd and 3rd points. - Yellow Dingo&#160;<b style="color:BLUE">(talk)</b> 05:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ProveIt now adds a revision tag to the edits, so we can track the gadget usage. Why was the edit summary useful? Because it saved you the work of having to add a summary explaining that you added/edited references? I'm not trying to question you, just trying to understand so I can help.
 * Do you mean that "Edit" and "Add" are not clear? How about I change that for "References" and "Add a reference", like before?
 * So listing the kind of references (Cite book, Cite encyclopedia) isn't useful? Should I bring it back to listing just the content of the references?
 * The previous version had the "Update reference" button always visible, while the new one has the button at the bottom of the parameters. Does that confuse you? Should I bring it back to being always visible? Thanks for your input! --Sophivorus (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, Sophivorus. I think you've done great by adding more citation templates, but I'll have to agree with the other users. I liked the edit summary because it was also kind of a way to show that I was mainly working on references (and to advertise the tool, cause it's great.) But my main problem is that before, when you named a reference, you could easily insert it into many places by going to ProveIt, clicking the ref and selecting the "insert into edit form" or something like that. Now I have to type the ref name manually (and I hate typing!) Regards,   MediaKill13   (  talk  )   14:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC) And it also used to fill in the date for me...    MediaKill13   (  talk  )   14:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support, I worked very hard on the gadget and the improvements may not be so visible yet, but under the hood it has been COMPLETELY transformed to allow internationalization and TemplateData. I agree that the ability to add citations is a big loss, but it will come back very very soon, trust me. Thanks for the input! --Sophivorus (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I second the thanks,, i don't wish to sound ungrateful at all, quite the opposite, it's simply that the way ProveIt was worked extremely well with my needs, and i found it so useful.
 * Does a revision tag not show in the edit summary? Some of the tags listed on that page certainly do; i use some of them to help locate vandalism or unhelpful edits.  My last two edits with ProveIt, however, show no tag at all ~  and  ~ and yet i used it, because i use it exclusively for correcting the CS1 errors i have been doing lately. It's helpful to have the edit summary as it ensured i had one even if i forgot, plus, as  says, advertising!
 * "Edit" and "Add", meh, i don't mind; what concerns me is that the layout is no longer intuitive ~ what is see is a spot which says "<proveit-edit-tab>" and another which says "<proveit-add-tab>", with no visible tabs, no buttons no indication i should be clicking at these spots or anything.
 * The previous version had a number list of the titles of references available, and a button to press to edit one of them. This one, seems to be a jumble of letters and numbers that mean nothing to me.  Numbers, i like; i use them to track which reference i want, and then i can focus on that single reference.
 * I hope this little list of issues is helpful; that's my only purpose here. Happy days, LindsayHello 15:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I hope this little list of issues is helpful; that's my only purpose here. Happy days, LindsayHello 15:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The new version is virtually unusable for me. It doesn't remember my default template, fields are missing, the fields are spaced too far apart, dates don't autopopulate. I guess it was written to ignore the CSS I had meticulously crafted to customize it to my needs. Was there a mandate for this change or did a developer just get bored and decide to "improve" it without soliciting input from the user base? And for crying out loud, please put a resize window and move controls on it so we don't have to deal with three scrollbars! - MrX 14:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have created issues for your requests, trust me, I'll take care very soon. As to the missing fields, you can correct that yourself by editing the TemplateData in the template documentation. --Sophivorus (talk) 15:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you Sophivorus. Can you please point to the user comments that said it would be a good idea not to autopopulate access dates, or not to include size/move controls? I ask because the version prior to these changes incorporated features that were discussed on this page. Please help me help you by explaining the process you went through to gather community input. Can this be rolled back, forked, or otherwise until there is some level of consensus for the changes? Some advice: Before something that has such wide scale use is changed, requirements should be gathered, discussed, culled, prioritized, and implemented methodically. While I appreciate your willingness to make some changes, it should not be so ad hoc.- MrX 15:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Check the top of this section, I have added simple instructions to easily return to the previous version until the critical issues are solved. The story is this: two years ago I decided to truly internationalize the gadget so that it could be used in the Spanish Wikipedia and others. I did so, but in the process the code changed SO MUCH that it was virtually a rewrite. I added it to the Spanish Wikipedia and the reception was good. I kept on improving it and this year I integrated it with TemplateData in the Wikimedia Hackathon in Jerusalem. A couple of months ago I got a grant from the Foundation to improve it further, including a connection with Wikidata. Two days ago, I had solved so many issues listed at the gadget repo that I thought that after years of no updates, the new version would be a welcome surprise, but maybe I was too bold. However I will try to make it up, just give me a little time and patience and the reward will be worth it. :-) --Sophivorus (talk) 15:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Bold is good, and I appreciate your work, but please collaborate with the user base. Please actively seek input on the design and functionality from the gadget's users. Does that seem reasonable?- MrX 15:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. I made a patch, buttons are always visible now. --Sophivorus (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

More worryingly ~ much more worryingly ~ i have just noticed that the gadget is no longer working as it used to, in that it is editing things i am not touching at all. My last edit on Dan Kennedy (soccer) has been reverted, quite rightly, as edits were made which i did not do:, you can see, in the first section i took out an archiveurl, an archivedate, and an accessdate ~ except i didn't, all i did was remove the " http://www " in the website parameter. ProveIt took the rest out, breaking links. This is not expected, nor acceptable, behaviour, right? Surely an unexpected consequence of this update.... Happy days, LindsayHello 15:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have posted a notice at The Village Pump/Technical to get more input.- MrX 15:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have reverted to the previous version until I can fix the critical issues. If anyone wants to use the new version, you can do so by disabling the gadget from your preferences and adding the following to your common.js --Sophivorus (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks Sophivorus. - MrX 15:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, thanks for seeking, accepting, and acting on feedback, Sophivorus. Happy days, LindsayHello 16:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, thanks for seeking, accepting, and acting on feedback, Sophivorus. Happy days, LindsayHello 16:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm having trouble with some of your bug reports. While you were using the new version, your edits somehow didn't add the ProveIt tag as expected, and the fact that you saw stuff like <proveit-add-tab> suggests that the problem is an error in the code execution, rather than some missing functionality. Could you tell me what browser you're using, and what version? Thanks! --Sophivorus (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , sorry about the slow reply; didn't see your query any sooner. I use a Windows 10 machine, Chrome, which tells me it is version 52.0.2743.116 m and up to date.  Hope this is the info you're looking for...clearly, i'm a technical idiot ;) Happy days, LindsayHello 16:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm fixing some of the issues you reported, but I'm having trouble understanding two of them: you said that the previous version allowed you to resize the window and move the controls. I'm playing with the previous version but I see no way to resize or move anything. I did a search for "resize" and "move" in this talk page but had no luck. Could you point me to the relevant discussion, or send me a screen of the functionality? The second issue may be related to the first. It's about the three scrollbars. I agree that it is quite annoying, but it seems to me like it was also an issue in the previous version. What would be the desired behavior regarding this point? Thanks, thanks, thanks! --Sophivorus (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I misspoke. I have a custom CSS rules to increase the size of the window so that it did not have to scroll. Ideally, the enclosing box should have an x-y resize handle and detachability/moveability that is persistent until changed again. I hope that makes sense.  I assume you are using JQuery or similar, so I assume that's possible.- MrX 19:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I have one request for your new version, which by the way we do appreciate and look forward to using after fine-tuning. Can you make it so that if I type stuff in ProveIt, lets say as a cite web, and then decided I want to use another template, i.e. cite news, the stuff I have already written transfers across when I change the template type. Often I type the URL or the title in and then realise I'm using the wrong cite template. I then have to re-type it all in because when changing between two templates ProveIt clears all fields. Obviously this would only work for parameters that are identical in the original and new cite temps in use. I probably haven't explained this very well and I'm not sure it is feasible. Thanks, - <b style="color:#FFCC33">Yellow</b> <b style="color:brown">Dingo</b>&#160;<b style="color:BLUE">(talk)</b> 07:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support. The new version already does this, which required major restructuring of the code. ;-) --Sophivorus (talk) 13:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

ProveIt mostly AWOL
About a week or so ago, ProveIt disappeared from the bottom of my edit screen. I figured it was a temporary glitch because of the notification changes. But a week later, it still doesn't show up 90% of the time. I got a glimpse at some point of a different-looking interface on some page or another (sorry, I didn't note which page), but I can't check it out because it's just not there. Are we all on hold while the new version is being birthed? Is this a technical thing related to the Echo stuff? Do I just have wonky karma? — Gorthian (talk) 02:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I just reverted the gadget to the exact same state as it was before I intervened. Please do a hard refresh and let me know if it's working ok now. Sorry for the inconvenience. --Sophivorus (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've seen it around today; thanks! However, it's not showing up here (I usually look for the icon in the edit-window toolbar when I'm on talk pages). — Gorthian (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Trouble using ProveIt in other languages
Hello, I tried following the instructions to install ProveIt for the Spanish Wikipedia (copying the two lines of code, clearing my cache etc). I tried this over and over many times but ProveIt is still not being installed. Any help? - &#9992;Sunnya343&#9992; (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ProveIt is a standard gadget in the Spanish Wikipedia, check your preferences! --Sophivorus (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok I found it, thanks! - &#9992;Sunnya343&#9992; (talk) 05:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

messed up UI
I just hit the "demo" link in the preferences and the UI just looks like a big mess: https://snag.gy/cULJWh.jpg --77.180.231.32 (talk) 08:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --Sophivorus (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Some requests
Hello! I really like your work! May u add russian translation for your code? About design of tool: Thanks for your work! Iniquity (talk) 11:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) I think 'Edit' tab must be rename to 'List' tab.
 * 2) First click on reference must only show the reference; not to open reference parameters.
 * 3) Double click must cite the reference.
 * 4) When you open the reference's parameters: 'List' tab changes to 'Back' tab.
 * 5) References without supported templates must be highlighted.
 * 6) Needs to add Preview button when you create new reference.
 * Thanks a lot for your translation and support. I'll add your requests to Phabricator as soon as I can get a project for ProveIt created there, and will try to satisfy them asap. Check your talk page, I left you a message for spreading the gadget to the Russian Wikipedia! --Sophivorus (talk) 14:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Citation dating
Thanks for your work. Question: Can ProvIt date citations in either American (m/d/y) or European (d/m/y) formats? I ask because this past week several articles I watch have had the consistency of the dates scrambled by other ProveIt users and wondered if it has the functionality to choose date formats either en masse or per article. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 23:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ProveIt follows user date preferences (Special:Preferences>Appearance). Here's a thread that provides some background: Wikipedia talk:ProveIt/Archives/2013/June.I don;t think that ProveIt respects template:Use mdy dates and template:Use dmy dates, but of course that wouldn't help anyway for articles that don't have that template.- MrX 00:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I wonder if that functionality could be added?  GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 23:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

V2 UI request - Add reference number to each item in the list
Thanks for the new V2!

One point that I would find helpful is for each item in the ProveIt References List to have the reference number shown, in addition to the new great "Cite Web " that you show now.

The reason is that when editing an article with hundreds of references, if the editor knows the reference number, (s)he would be able to find it in your list very quickly. Otherwise I guess (s)he would have to do a Control-F on his browser against the reference's title to find it in the ProveIt list.

Many thanks, John --Arg342 (talk) 10:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Done, but the list number will be a bit off if there are references within or other weird stuff, like references coming from templates. Accounting for those special cases is too complicated to be worth it, I'm afraid. Cheers! --Sophivorus (talk) 14:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that is a really good update! Iniquity (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Move to Phabricator
After much effort, I have migrated all code and issues from GitHub to Phabricator, see https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/project/profile/2317/. Phabricator is the service used by the Wikimedia Foundation and volunteer developers to coordinate the software development. The reason for the move is double: first, because Phabricator is specifically designed for software development, it has many features that make life much easier for developers; and second, because ProveIt is now becoming a cross-wiki gadget, so it's crucial to have a central place where users from all Wikipedias can converge to report issues, request features and develop solutions.

Of course I will still be checking this page to see what issues and requests you come up with. However, once the critical issues are solved, and the new version is adopted, I would like to ask to archive all previous discussion and leave this talk page blank, with a notice at the top linking to Phabricator, so that new issues and requests are posted there. Sounds good? Cheers! --Sophivorus (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's great news! About cleaning of the page, I think this page must be save for people who want to ask smth about ProveIt. Or do u want to move discussion to on the Commons? Iniquity (talk) 00:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Didn't think about that! You're right, the optimal approach would probably be to transwiki this talk page to Commons and leave this page for helping users and coordinating stuff specific to the English Wikipedia, like updating the TemplateData of the citation templates here, or adding new templates to the config, or modifying the edit summary, etc. Thoughts? --Sophivorus (talk) 13:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * yep, you are right. Iniquity (talk) 17:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

New version 2
Hi everyone, I've been working on your concerns: Furthermore, I added a couple of extra features: To enable the new version, disable the old one and add the following to your common.js: importScript( 'User:Sophivorus/common.js' ); There are a couple of concerns left though: Now it's your turn! Please try out the new version and let me know if you stumble into any further issues. Any feedback is welcome, thanks! --Sophivorus (talk) 00:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Automatic edit summaries are back
 * I restored the functionality to cite references
 * ProveIt now remembers the last template you used
 * ProveIt can now be resized and moved around
 * Fields are now closer together
 * I identified the cause of your unintended edits and fixed it (it had to do with parameter aliases)
 * Values are now preserved when you switch from template to template
 * References without template can now also be edited from the interface
 * References with a template and with content before and/or after are now sensibly managed
 * There's now a Remove button to delete the selected reference and all its citations
 * You said that you were seeing stuff like "<proveit-add-tab>", a bug that I haven't been able to reproduce. Is it still an issue with the new version?
 * I haven't implemented date auto population yet. It's not so easy because different Wikipedias and even different parameters may have different preferred date formats. The temporary solution I came up with is showing the current date as a placeholder. We can discuss how to best implement this feature here.
 * I have only tested the gadget in the latest Chrome, Firefox and Safari, so there may be unexpected bugs in other browsers.
 * So far so good, I've only done some light testing though. I'll start really working on an article soon and tell you if it holds up. Regards,   MediaKill13   (  talk  )   09:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Awesome, looking forward to it! --Sophivorus (talk) 13:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * , thanks for the work you've done addressing our concerns; users helping users, improving and working together is just about the best thing about this place, a wonderful example of community. Unfortunately, however, the very first article i have loaded and tried has displayed the same issue you say you've not been able to reproduce. I've taken a screenshot, which i'll try and upload to show you, but i've never actually done any image work, so no promises!  In case i can't, here are the details i can give:  I use Windows 10, Chrome browser which is set to keep itself up to date, and tried to edit Poplar Walk (if that matters).  Happy days, LindsayHello 10:58, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the nice words and for testing out the gadget! I just tried editing Poplar Walk (and other articles) on Windows 10 (Home edition) with the latest Chrome (54.0), but the bug still doesn't happen to me. Can you help me a bit more? Could you reproduce the bug, then right-click anywhere on your screen, click the Inspect option, and from the window that will show up, select the Console tab? That is the JavaScript console, which should show any errors that fire during script execution. Could you share a screenshot of that, or copy-paste any errors that seem relevant (especially the red ones)? Also, if there are no errors, maybe ProveIt is conflicting with other gadgets. Do you have many enabled? Would it be too much of a pain to disable them and see if the error persists (or maybe log in with an alternative account with less gadgets, and enable ProveIt there)? Thanks a lot! Also, is anyone else experiencing this issue? --Sophivorus (talk) 13:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, what language of interface do u use? Iniquity (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Iniquity, your question led me to find the cause of the bug, please do a hard refresh to load the latest JavaScript and it should be fixed now. :-) --Sophivorus (talk) 17:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yay! I just edited Poplar Walk and was able to do so perfectly.  I scarcely understand 's question, and have no idea how that led you to the solution,, but i am grateful that it did.
 * No comments yet on the new version, as i've only done the single edit; i'll use it a bit more and let you know. Happy days, LindsayHello 09:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi . I have a couple of initial comments:
 * 1) The resize handle is on the bottom right. Since the window is anchored to the bottom right of the page, the resize handle should be on the top left of the window. It also seems to limit how tall the window can be made. The window cannot be moved around as far as I can tell.
 * 2) Once resized, the ProveIt window size should persist between edit sessions for the user.
 * 3) The current release version of prove it displays the most common fields and allows users to add or delete fields. Yours does not. If possible, these settings should also persist.
 * 4) There's a little too much space between the text labels and the input boxes.
 * 5) It is not easy to visually discern which label corresponds to which input box. It may be a good idea to have alternate row shading.
 * 6) The Quote field should be much higher on the list and should be a resizable box (like reference content).
 * 7) The web template shows a source title and a website title field. "Source title" should be changed to "Title" and "Website title" should be change to "Website" and moved down below authors, because it is less commonly used. I think it's important that the labels correspond to the CS1 field names as much as possible to avoid confusion.
 * 8) I like the tooltips.
 * I hope this helps.- MrX 14:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The gadget can be moved around by dragging from the header. Once you drag, you can resize freely.
 * I have created an issue for this.
 * The new ProveIt is connected to TemplateData, which means that the fields available are extracted from the template documentation, rather than defined by the gadget. You can add and delete fields by modifying the documentation of the templates (and waiting a few minutes for the cache to update). You may be interested in knowing that the gadget has the following display logic: first it shows the required parameters in bold, then the suggested parameters, and last the optional parameters, each group ordered as they are defined in the TemplateData.
 * I have put the fields closer together, but please remember that other languages require more space than English. You can reduce the space even more by adding  to your common.css
 * Now that the fields are closer together it should be easier to visually discern. I tried the alternate shading but it doesn't look good, check for yourself by adding  to your common.css
 * I have edited the TemplateData of the Template:Cite book and made the Quote parameter a suggested field so that it shows up higher in the list. I have also made an exception for it so that it shows as a textarea. If you want to change the position of the field in other templates, please edit their TemplateData as you deem fit.
 * I have edited the TemplateData of the Template:Cite web to rename the field "Source title" to "Title" and "Website title" to Website.
 * I'm glad you like something. :-)
 * I hope this helps. --Sophivorus (talk) 12:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * [Placeholder] - I intend to respond to this when I have more time.- MrX 14:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * [Placeholder] - I intend to respond to this when I have more time.- MrX 14:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Why were so many useful features removed?
In comparing the current version of ProveIt with the version that is working on, I noticed that a number of useful features have been removed. Some of these feature are cosmetic, but some actually make it easier and more intuitive to use ProveIt. I'm hoping to understand the rationale for these modifications. I don't mean to be critical, and I understand at least some of the benefits of the new version, but I'm inclined to continue using the old version, with updates made to the citation templates. I doubt that I am alone in this view, which raises the question: should this be forked. In other words, should users have an option to use either the old or the new version of ProveIt going forward?- MrX 14:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) When the current version is collapsed, there is a conspicuous up arrow to show that the window can be expanded. The new version simply has a black box with the words "[ProveIt]" inside.
 * 2) When the current version is collapsed, Two buttons corresponding to the two tabs are visible: "References" and "Add a Reference". Immediately after the word References is a count of the number of references in the article. Clicking on either button maximizes the window. for that respective tab.
 * 3) On the references tab, references without a ref name are color coded in red text.
 * 4) On the references tab, there are helpful icons that visual indicate the type of citation template (web, new, book, etc.)
 * 5) On the references tab, each reference is presented in collapsed state, listing only the reference title. The new version of ProveIt displays the raw citation without brackets and pipes. This strikes me as too much (loosely formatted) information and requires more scrolling.
 * Is it not intuitive enough that by clicking the black box you expand the gadget?
 * Now that there's a number next to each reference, you can scroll to the bottom of the list to know the reference count. Is knowing the number of references useful?
 * In the new version, when you want to cite a reference without a name, the gadget prompts you to add one. With this feature, I think that distinguishing references with name from references without name is unnecessary. Or am I missing something?
 * I removed this feature for two reasons: first because it's not internationalizable. Different wikis have different citation templates and therefore in order to have the icons, a table that maps template names to icons on every wiki is required, which is hard to build and maintain. And second, each icon requires an extra request to Commons, which doesn't seem worth it.
 * What do you mean? The new version shows the values of the first three parameters, ordered by required parameters first, suggested parameters later and optional parameters last. What would be better?
 * I'm working very hard to merge the two versions of the gadget so that developers from all Wikipedias can collaborate in improving it for everyone. The new version may still have some shortcomings compared to the old, but the new is being actively developed while the old is not. Furthermore, next month I will be working on integrating the gadget with Wikidata, so that references are autocompleted with data taken from there. I think that new users will appreciate the benefits of active development. However, if you think it may still be worth it to keep the old version, sure, but all I request is that we call it "ProveIt-old" (or "ProveIt-original", whatever) and reserve the name "ProveIt" for the new version. Sounds reasonable? --Sophivorus (talk) 12:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It is for me, but I can't speak for other editors. I will say that it is more intuitive to have a visual element indicating that user action will cause the box to expand.
 * Forcing users to scroll to get information is not a good idea. I think seeing the number of references at a glance is useful.
 * I just tried this, and the gadget did not prompt me to enter a ref name. I'm not sure it should prompts, as that would be another user interaction even if a user didn't intend to add a ref name. Again, color coding adds information that editors can use to determine if and how to improve an article.
 * OK, I understand the issues. Icons are not a deal breaker.
 * I'm referring to the "references" tab in the old version and the "List" tab in your version. You can see more references in the same amount of space in the old version compared with your version. I firmly believe the old way is more functional.
 * I'm cautiously optimistic that making this gadget work across all wikis will be a net benefit. As to what the names will be, I suggest using major version numbers, rather than tagging the the current version as old, which suggests obsolete.- MrX 14:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I would like to see some support for this before implementing it, as I see no benefits and it's actually not that easy to do. I hope it's not a deal breaker either.
 * I have added the reference count.
 * I just tried it and it seems to work fine. Are we sure we're talking about the same thing here? Because it's impossible to cite a reference without a ref name, so even if the user didn't intend to add a ref name s/he will still have to do it. The prompt happens just at the right moment (when clicking the Cite button) so it's as unobtrusive as I can think of. There is an issue open to see if we can do this even easier. How about you add your thoughts there?
 * Cool.
 * I have reduced the spacing between references.
 * We can call the old version "original" or "classic". The reason for my request is that I want to switch the current users to the new version, which can only happen automatically if the new version replaces the old and keeps the "ProveIt" name. --Sophivorus (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have only used it a little, as i've been less WP-active for a while, but i should give a little feedback based on that little:
 * I find that the initial appearance is less than intuitive; an additional problem for me is that the first (and often second) time i click the Prove It box nothing happens ~ not a problem for me (other than the annoyance), as i know that it will expand eventually, but definitely a potential problem for someone just exploring and testing the thing out. The addition of an up arrow or some indication that clicking will (in the end) activate the gadget would be useful.
 * For me the appearance of the gadget is less easy and obvious than it used to be. Once it opens, the list of parameters is odd; for one thing, it appears at a random point in the list, not at the top or bottom, and not consistently at the same parameter from edit to edit or article to article.
 * I like the listing of the cite at the top; i don't actively use it in editing, but it's convenient to see the difference what i do makes.
 * I haven't had any issues moving or resizing the gadget, but i don't see the need; literally, i have never had to move it at all, nor wished that the old one would.
 * I also echo 's point 5; the list of raw cites is not as helpful as the title in finding the reference i need.
 * It is also useful to see what template is in use; and i like the bolding of the required parameters.
 * I don't know if it's coincidence, but the new version seems to be picking up more references than the old did: I would relatively often open an edit window where the old version didn't have any cites listed, though there were some in the article; it may be that i simply haven't edited enough with the new version, but that hasn't happened yet.
 * In the end, though i appreciate the work that has gone into it, i'm not certain that the new version is enough of an improvement, nor that it was necessary, to remain as the permanent version. Happy days, LindsayHello 20:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Adding a ping ~ ~ as it should have been there previously. Happy days, LindsayHello 20:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't been able to reproduce this bug yet. Indeed it could be confusing to new users. If you find a pattern to reproduce it, will you let me know?
 * I'm not sure I understand what you mean: do you mean that when you're editing a reference, the list of parameters doesn't appear in the same order every time? Also that the parameters that have content should appear at the very top?
 * Ok, cool.
 * I'm thinking about removing it, because implementing the persistent size and location that MrX wants isn't easy and because if you just add  to your common.css you get persistent size. What do you think MrX?
 * So just the title? I think it makes sense, really, but the problem is that in other languages, the parameter isn't called "title", so we need a cross-languauge solution. Plus, some templates (like, say, map templates) don't have a "title" parameter. Lastly, the gadget has already been adopted by three other Wikipedias (and three more are underway) so I created a task at Phabricator to discuss it further.
 * Great, I'm glad you like that.
 * So that's a good thing right? XD
 * I understand that the previous version still has some things that you like more, and that the new version may not have much to offer to you yet. But please try to see a bit ahead: six other Wikipedias are already testing the gadget, and developers from all over are starting to contribute, so real improvements are inevitable (just check the task list at Phabricator, especially this one). The version of the gadget that you have will probably never receive any other updates (not by me anyway), in fact it hasn't received them in four years (the previous developer is into other stuff). And as the great H. Jackson Brown, Jr. said: Never resist a temporary inconvenience if it results in a permanent improvement. --Sophivorus (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * About point 4, I just found out that TemplateData allows to specify the desired parameter order, so I'll connect that with the gadget soon, see T149025. And as to point 5, I also just found out that TemplateData allows to specify arbitrary data about the template for usage by third-party consumers like ProveIt. So I have just pushed a change that allows you to set, from the TemplateData, the main parameter of each template (in your case "title"). See T148982! --Sophivorus (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the replies,.
 * Easy, the pattern to reproduce it is...open the edit window and press the Prove It button. I'm not trying to be stupid but, literally, every time i start to use (the new) gadget it doesn't open on the first click.
 * Sorry for being unclear. What i mean is that the list is in the same order (as far as i know; i've not noticed otherwise), simply that it doesn't present at the beginning of the lis, but somewhere in the middle.  A variable starting point.
 * Nothing
 * Nothing
 * Yes, the title (if it's a website, the page title) is what i use to locate the reference i am editing. If there's a list of fifty or a hundred i need something to hang it on in my memory; the number doesn't work, because Prove It doesn't always find every reference in the article, so its numbers vary.
 * The other things are good or i'm indifferent to. The final point, that the new version may not have much to offer me yet, true enough; my point really is that i started using the gadget six or seven months ago, and quickly found it easy to use, so i stuck with it; were i to come across it now, i may well not.  This may be a case of DON'TLIKE, because i know myself and i know that i am a very tentative beginner and anything which isn't intuitive and easy and replicable i shy away from; i'm not saying that others are like me, just offering a bit of anecdotal evidence that the current ProveIt wouldn't be on my list of things to use, had i not come to it from the previous. Happy days, LindsayHello 11:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding Sophivorus's response #3 above " Because it's impossible to cite a reference without a ref name". That's not true. Ref names are not required, and in fact serve no particular purpose when a source is only cited one time.- MrX 20:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The gadget prompts you to enter a reference name when you try to press the Cite button to add a second citation to a reference. So it prompts you to add a name at the right moment, I think. --Sophivorus (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, that makes perfect sense. Thanks!- MrX 16:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Btw, could you comment on T148409 please? Thanks! --Sophivorus (talk) 01:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding Sophivorus's response #3 above " Because it's impossible to cite a reference without a ref name". That's not true. Ref names are not required, and in fact serve no particular purpose when a source is only cited one time.- MrX 20:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The gadget prompts you to enter a reference name when you try to press the Cite button to add a second citation to a reference. So it prompts you to add a name at the right moment, I think. --Sophivorus (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, that makes perfect sense. Thanks!- MrX 16:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Btw, could you comment on T148409 please? Thanks! --Sophivorus (talk) 01:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Deprecated parameters
When citing, the month and year (still used with journal citation, at least) should be replaced with date now per Help:CS1_errors. ¬Hexafluoride (talk) 05:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The month parameter is being proposed for removal (not just deprecation) in this discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Filed as https://github.com/proveit-js/proveit/issues/212 . Mattflaschen - Talk 04:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to confirm, 'year' is okay on its own, so not being deprecated (but 'year'+'month' should be handled with 'date')? Mattflaschen - Talk 04:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Correct. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears that ProveIt may still be inserting the unsupported month= parameter. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It appears that ProveIt may still be inserting the unsupported month= parameter. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Another one. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Enable new version?
I'd like to enable the new version so that I can start gaining feedback from the English userbase, close this stage of my grant to enhance the gadget and move on to the Wikidata integration stage. I think I solved the critical issues, and the remaining ones can be dealt with along the way. We can retain the old version for those users who still prefer it, by renaming it to ProveIt-classic. Do I have your support? Thanks! --Sophivorus (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not from here but I think you need to close this task before . Iniquity (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fix! Iniquity (talk) 20:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the only problem I've run into so far is that the ProveIt window occasionally appears in weird places (like smack in the middle of the edit form) but this is usually when it hasn't loaded properly. From me, you're good to go!    MediaKill13   (  talk  )   19:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Go for if you thinks thats whats needed. — <b style="color:#FFCC33">Yellow</b> <b style="color:brown">Dingo</b>&#160;<b style="color:BLUE">(talk)</b> 04:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * So far looks very promising! You have been very responsive to the bug reports, which is greatly appreciated. I would suggest making it live, archiving this page, make a new page here explaining briefly the current version, and then waiting. If after one or two weeks of no major issues, feel free to leave it live and report the grant project as complete! Many thanks again for all the work. You are making a very good tool truly great! John --Arg342 (talk) 11:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to enabling the new version and I think it it would be valuable to get feedback from a larger set of users (assuming there is any). Please don't archive this talk page though. There needs to be some continuity so that users understand what led to this new version. I also recommend posting an announcement at the village pump.
 * , before you enable the new version, would you please post a link on this page to the location of the classic version for those who wish to use it? Many thanks for you substantial effort and patience.- MrX 12:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , i meant to get back here a couple of days ago, i apologise for the delay.
 * I did a few more edits, a dozen or so, to see how i felt, if any intervening time had changed anything in my feelings or the application. Interestingly, and for the positive, the issue i had with having to click twice on the initial button has reduced ~ this time it was no more than half the times i needed to open Proveit that i had to click and again; so that's good.  Oddly, however, the whole thing had gone very tiny, so small i could barely read the print, even with my glasses on; nothing else had changed, i changed none of my preferences, nor anything in my Chrome nor Windows settings, but from the first appearance of the button, to the display of the cites, to the listing of the parameters, everything was tiny.  In addition, for me there is no certainty about which parameters in the list are going to appear first (where in the list i am), so i have still had to scroll up and down to find what i need.
 * Overall, i echo : Go ahead and enable the new version, but not until there are clear instructions on how to retain the old version which is, as far as i'm concerned, the only currently working properly version. I also echo his thanks and appreciation of your effort. Happy days, LindsayHello 09:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, may you take a screenshot for me with you 'tiny' problem? I need to check something, thanks! Iniquity (talk) 23:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * , sure, here it is; hope it helps. Happy days, LindsayHello 17:51, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , you can check the size now:) Iniquity (talk) 11:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah,, i took a quick look, and it appears that the new version has stopped being tiny. Whatever you did, worked. Happy days, LindsayHello 11:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)