Wikipedia talk:ProveIt/Archive 2022

Any way to change the date format?
When pressing the "today" button in the "access date" field (and other date fields), the tool defaults to the yyyy-mm-dd format. Is there a way to switch to other formats acceptable under MOS:DATE, such as mdy or dmy dates? feminist (talk) 07:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no way to do so yet, but I created T248050 to track this issue and will try to implement it eventually. Sophivorus (talk) 04:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd definitely like this to be implemented as well. I hate it when Wikipedians using ProveIt disregard an article's preferred date format template and continue to change all dates in references into the yyyy-mm-dd format. Happily888 (talk) 04:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Almost two years later, any progress? Kailash29792 (talk)  06:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Citing YouTube videos
When citing YouTube videos (per WP:PRIMARYCARE), "YouTube" should be in the "website" or "work" section, not the "via" section. "Via" is how the source was created, while "website" and "work" are self-explanatory. An example of "via" would be Gale; Gale has the ability to export citations, so when they're imported to Wikipedia, they should say "via Gale". An example of a website or work would be Fox News; Fox News is a website, where the content was published, so it should say "Fox News". I'm explaining all of this because Walter Görlitz used ProveIt to move "YouTube" to the "via" section in citations to Steve Terreberry. L33tm4n (talk) 01:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I did not use ProveIt to move "YouTube" to the "via", that is the correct place for it to be placed. YouTube is not the source. YouTube is a self-publishing platform and not the publisher itself. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * (Tag: ProveIt edit) – This is the tag that's used in one of your edits, "I'm going to fix this again, please don't break it again.- Reference edited with ProveIt, Script-assisted fixes: per CS1 and MOS:ITALICS". Also, the "publisher" section is not for the website itself, but rather the publisher of the website. Plus, if it's a self-publishing platform, it can go in the "website" or "work" section (YouTube is a website), and it won't need a publisher name next to it. And like I said before, "via" is how the source was created, not for the name of the website; Twitter created a proper method of citing tweets, so they include "via Twitter" in citations of tweets. L33tm4n (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Your statements about my actions are correct. Your statements about how YouTube should be listed in a reference are not. YouTube should in the  parameter. This tool correctly moves it there. While it is a website, that is not the correct parameter. It is most certainly not a work. You should be raising this as a question at a citation template not demanding a change from this tool or from me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * In fact, now that I have had a bit of time I looked at Template:Cite web. The  parameter states that it should be used for the "name of the entity hosting the original copy of the work, if different from the publisher." It then lists YouTube as valid use here. The problem that the subject in your example is also the publisher (a self-published work) which is why I nominated the article for deletion so long ago. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * But we're using Template:Cite AV media, not Template:Cite web. I'm using a paragraph explaining "via" to prove my earlier point, "Name of the content deliverer (if different from publisher). via is not a replacement for publisher, but provides additional detail. It may be used when the content deliverer presents the source in a format other than the original (e.g. NewsBank), when the URL provided does not make clear the identity of the deliverer, where no URL or DOI is available (EBSCO), or if the deliverer requests attribution."
 * "via is not a replacement for publisher, but provides additional detail." – YouTube is the name of the publisher. Also, what you're failing to acknowledge is the en-dash separating "via" in the same sentence as the retrieval date; because of this, we can conclude that "via" is how the source was retrieved, not the name of the website/publisher. L33tm4n (talk) 01:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And that's the wrong template even for that. That template is for physical media such as vinyl recordings, DVDs, etc. At best you should be using cite web for YouTube videos. Regardless, Cite AV media has the same criteria: via: name of the content deliverer. In short, Terreberry is the publisher, not YouTube. It does not matter one bit which template you use, the works are self-published and YouTube is simply the way the publisher is pushing the content to the planet.
 * PRIMARYCARE makes no claim to support your position. No template supports it. YouTube is not publishing anything, they are simply a medium that others use to publish works. Whenever YouTube is encountered as a source, it should be in the  parameter. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , ProveIt does not show the via parameter when you open Cite AV media, even though that is what must be used for YouTube videos. Can something be done about it? Kailash29792 (talk)  10:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Kailash29792 Hi! I just added basic template data documentation for the "via" parameter (diff). It should start appearing in ProveIt in the next few hours (due to cache delays). Feel free to improve the documentation as you see fit! Sophivorus (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Small bug
I noticed that this gadget attempted to change author into last and contribution into chapter. Per the documentation at cite book, these are not precisely the same. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 08:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Xenophore ; talk 06:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've run into the problem with contrbution and chapter, as well. Writing the foreword or introduction to another author's book calls for contribution; writing a chapter in an edited work calls for chapter. The two are definitely not the same and ProveIt should not make that substitution as contributor and its related parameters require contribution to be present, not chapter.
 * Xenophore ; talk 06:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Sdkb @Xenophore According to Template:Cite book/TemplateData, "author" is an alias of "last" and "contribution" is an alias of "chapter". If they aren't, just mend the template data and ProveIt (and the visual editor) will stop treating them as such. Sophivorus (talk) 11:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If proveit is renaming-parameters-just-to-rename-parameters, it should stop doing that. cs1|2 aliases are there primarily for user convenience, context, and semantics; Jon Smyth is not the same as Jon Smyth so changing the former to the latter is semantically incorrect and proveit should not make that kind of a change.  An author's 'contribution' to an edited work may be stated in contribution or in chapter or in entry or in article or in section; the choice of which of these to use is the prerogative of the en.wiki editor who writes the citation; proveit should not arbitrarily override the en.wiki editor's choice of parameter name.  In the specific case of contributor and contribution the former requires the latter so proveit renaming-parameters-just-to-rename-parameters breaks these citations.
 * I suspect that this-parameter-requires-this-other-parameter is not functionality supported by templatedata. If it does not, then it is proveit that needs fixing (which is not to say that templatedata shouldn't also be fixed...).
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ProveIt is still causing this error: : |contributor= requires |contribution= (help)
 * ProveIt is still causing this error: : |contributor= requires |contribution= (help)
 * ProveIt is also breaking cite av media but needlessly changing people into last. This causes a CS1 error when multiple people have been listed in the people parameter as cite av media allows. Xenophore ; talk 06:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Xenophore Hi! I just changed Template:Cite AV media/doc so that "people" is no longer considered an alias of "last" (the cache may take a few minutes to catch up). As to the problem with "contributor", I don't quite understand it, but can you try to fix it yourself by improving Template:Cite book/TemplateData? Kind regards, Sophivorus (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * At first glance (literally, my first look at TemplateData of any kind), there is something strange in the notes as it says, "For the contribution alias, see contributor-last", but "contributor-last" is never mentioned on the page. I don't know why "contribution" is mentioned as an alias of "chapter as it functions entirely differently than "chapter" does. It really functions more like "others" than it does "chapter" except that it must be paired with "contributor" or its component parts "contributor-last" and "contributor-first". In the long run, it could be that "contribution" and "contributor" should just be folded into "others" or vice versa. Xenophore ; talk 18:47, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes please keep helping me in prove my page I allso need spell check much guid
Yes thank you for all the help that you are putting in to protecting and building me a good platform I need much guidance and and also a little warning more about trickery thank you I don't know what is Google platform of showing me when they pop in how do I stop them popping in or how do I know what is trickery and what ain't 172.58.99.242 (talk) 06:29, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

adding names to list of ProveIt users might be broken
I don't feel any need to be included in the category of ProveIt users, but I thought I'd let someone know that I've had the template on my user page for years and for whatever reason the code never picked up my name, which makes me wonder how many other users there might be, in addition to those who were listed in the category? I love the tool! Wish more people used it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)


 * @NewsAndEventsGuy Hi! The issue is that your user page redirects to your talk page, and the ProveIt userbox, like all other userboxes, only categorizes user pages. If you look, you'll notice that your other userboxes aren't categorizing you either. You can either create a user page distinct from your talk page, or keep your user page as a redirect but move your userboxes there, or forget all about this. Cheers! Sophivorus (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah that makes sense. Glad its not broke.  I'll just leave things like they are, thanks for getting back to me. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Apostrophes in ref names
I frequently use the  feature, and for a while now I have been noticing that ProveIt has a problem with apostrophes in named references. Basically, if a ref name contains an apostrophe, for example , hitting  will inadvertently convert it to , omitting any text after the '. Does anyone know how to fix this? InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:53, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @InfiniteNexus Thanks for noticing, the problematic line is at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Gadget-ProveIt.js#L-1416 I can't find the right way to fix it yet, but maybe someone else does? Sophivorus (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This could be fixed using this regex:  but the match goes to the second group, so the other line has to be: , the explanation can be found here —Arthurfragoso (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Arthurfragoso Thanks! I tested your regex and it works fine except for cases where there's neither single nor double quotes, e.g.  which are valid and fairly common. I couldn't quite understand or fix your regex but if you're able to do so I'll be more than happy to deploy it, cheers! Sophivorus (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * First I found this solution:  It is short and clean, but it would not work for non-roman characters. Maybe there could be a way using conditionals in regex but I just ended up doing another way: , when it has apostrophes it will be in group 2, when it does not, it will be in group 3. (so you can use   This regex will also work nice with  , but not  . Also note that it will match with   and   but not with  . —Arthurfragoso (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Arthurfragoso I agree, the solution must be some kind of conditional, but for readability, I did it in JavaScript rather than regexes (see here). @InfiniteNexus This should solve the issue with names like "T'Challa". Thanks for the report! Sophivorus (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That is fantastic news, thank you both for fixing this! InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Update button not working
But add ref and normalize buttons still do. What is going on? Kailash29792 (talk)  06:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @Kailash29792 Just did a test and all works fine for me. Is this bug still happening to you, or was it a temporary thing? Cheers! Sophivorus (talk) 16:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Just tried and it worked. Maybe it was a temporary glitch. Kailash29792 (talk)  17:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope . Check this out. -- Kailash29792 (talk)  04:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Kailash29792 That's disturbing... however I tried to reproduce it and the ref name updated fine. Have you identified steps that will reproduce the issue?? Sophivorus (talk) 12:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Now the gadget's working absolutely fine, thank you Sophivorus. Kailash29792 (talk)  04:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Disable automatic summary
Is there a way to disable the automatic change to the edit summary? It breaks sometimes (It actually breaks a lot, I just missed it on this particular case). I've attempted to set the configuration option but that doesn't change anything, perhaps because it's a gadget now? ~ Matthewrb  Talk to me &middot;  Changes I've made 16:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @Matthewrb Hi, thanks for the report. Unfortunately disabling stuff from your common.js is not really possible right now because the gadget loads after your common.js. However, I simplified the logic of the gadget so that now it only adds a summary if there's no current summary. Hopefully, it shouldn't cause more trouble (the new version may take some minutes or hours to get through the cache). Cheers! Sophivorus (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Sophivorus Awesome, that will help a lot! Thank you so much. ~  Matthewrb  Talk to me &middot;  Changes I've made 18:51, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

PMC and last name/first name loading
Hi, first off just wanted to say thanks for making this awesome gadget. I noticed two things though that might be helpful. First off, if loading from doi, the PMC parameter will be filled with the correct PMC number but will have PMC appended to the front of it. So if PMC ID is 5687451, then loading by doi will fill the PMC parameter with PMC5687451 (which will cause a minor maintenance error and the PMC external link won't work). If loading by PMID, everything works fine. But if you try loading by PMC ID number alone, it'll load data from the paper with that PMID; so with the previous example where PMC is 5687451, if you try to load based off that, it'll actually populate with the data from the paper whose PMID is 5687451. But if you punch in "PMC5687451", it'll load everything correctly, including PMC lol.

The other thing is the first name and last name parameter. If filling in the last name and first name parameter, it'll fill last= and first=. I've seen some bots go about tidying that up by changing it to last1= and first1=. All the subsequent fields work fine so if I manually filled in Last Name 2 with "Smith" in ProveIt, it'll be entered in wikitext as last2=Smith. I'm not entirely sure if it's a problem or not but just wanted to bring it up. Thanks again!! Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 01:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Website error
Hello! Thanks for such a useful tool on this site. One site I frequently use with ProveIt is. The site errors out now with the tool and it requires manual edits. What is odd that the same network has a site called Pro-Football-Reference.com, which works fine. Just wanted to see if anything could be done. Thanks. Red Director (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2022 (UTC)