Wikipedia talk:RefToolbar/2.0/Archive 1

"Numerical date"
Might want to clarify what is meant by "The numerical date" for " ". ISO 8601 I presume? --Cyber cobra (talk) 06:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Mr.Z-man 06:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

2.0
Am I doing it correctly? User:Suede67/monobook.js. I have the gadgets option checked. Will this add extra fields when I choose the "web" option (when it goes online?). Sorry this may be a silly question, I am not very knowledgeable at programming/code. Suede67 (talk) 07:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The new script isn't avilable yet, trying to use it now will probably just break other things. Mr.Z-man 17:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that you'll also have to switch from the "classic" toolbar to the "enhanced" one when its available to use the new script. It may also require switching to the Vector skin, I'm not sure about that though. Mr.Z-man 17:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see. Thnaks. Suede67 (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Accessdate
I and several others have suggested elsewhere that "accessdate" should be left blank by default, at any rate for "cite news" (but probably not for "cite web"). For a news article, it is the publication date that is far more important, and the inclusion of an access date by default evidently gives people the false impression that this field is obligatory. Also, some people are not realising that access date applies only to items on the web. I am finding people citing news items in paper publications and including an "access date", which of course is a nonsense.

One person disagreed and said that typing it in is too much hassle (!). Now that the tool is to be individually configurable, why not leave the field blank in the sitewide version, but allow people to include "today's date" by default in their own invididually customisable version, if they so wish. -- Alarics (talk) 08:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps leave it blank but provide a button to fill it in. Then again, the decision whether to use cite web or cite news for online news sources is not entirely straightforward; perhaps separate Online News and Offline News options? Just throwing it out there. --Cyber cobra (talk) 08:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Online news" should still be "cite news" anyway, not "cite web", which is for websites that are not news organs. Maybe this needs to be made clearer somehow. -- Alarics (talk) 08:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Right that's what I'm suggesting. --Cyber cobra (talk) 09:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Field labels in "cite news"
Many people using "cite news" have no experience of citing news items, and plainly most do not read the documentation at Template:Cite news. To help them, I wonder if the field labels could be made clearer in the following ways:

(1) "Newspaper etc." instead of "Work". Many people are putting the name of the publication under "Publisher" instead, which is wrong because it doesn't render in italics. ("Publisher" is only for the company that publishes the news source, not needed in most cases.) Evidently the meaning of "Work" is insufficiently clear.

I include "etc." in my suggested label because it might be a magazine or an online-only news service such as BBC News, rather than an actual newspaper.

(2) Similarly, "Title of article" would make clear that "Title" does not mean title of the publication.

(3) We really need to clarify that some parameters are much more important than others. In particular, "title" (of article), "newspaper" and "date of publication" are essential. Large numbers of editors are not including this information in their news citations. Is it possible to mark these three fields as "required"?

Thank you for all your work on this project. -- Alarics (talk) 08:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "News source" instead of "Newspaper". I think leaving out the Publisher field for news would probably be a net gain. --Cyber cobra (talk) 09:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The labels used on the form fields can be customized and extended explanations can be done in tooltips. You could also have multiple versions of the same template, such as one for newspapers and one for TV news, etc. I'll look into adding a "required" option. Mr.Z-man 17:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Journal citations
Could the journal citation part of the refToolbar include the DOI field? It's better practice to state an article's DOI instead of a URL in case the latter changes as a later date. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Checkbox to add reflist
Would it be possible to add next to the "add citation" button a checkbox that, when checked, will produce:

==References==

after the body of text? Not a big deal, but would be very handy when trying to churn through tens of thousands of completely unreferenced articles.

Many thanks for your work, I love the current tool and can't wait for 2.0 to be up and running. Feel free to let me know if you need beta testers. Wine Guy  Talk  11:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That would have to be set up not to display (or just be grayed out) when editing an individual section of an article, otherwise the script would have to do extra work determining whether the article already has a references section, and if not, it would have to make a second edit (or request the entire article's source for editing) to add it much of the time. The detection itself would be very straightforward though, simply checking to see if "&section=" or "?section=" (for really weird hand-typed URLs) is in the URL. -- as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 07:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Error
Error code:  (line 244) This isn't letting the cite tab show. (I'm using Chrome on Win7) Manish Earth Talk • Stalk 03:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you should change the code from:

to:

Manish Earth Talk • Stalk 03:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This should be fixed now. The problem was that Safari and Chrome load scripts differently than Firefox and Opera, so it was trying to setup the toolbar before loaded important things. Mr.Z-man 04:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Works, but clicking on the items in the template submenu give empty dialog boxes (They have buttons, but nothing else, and only the "cancel" and "insert" buttons do anything). Btw, how did you make those dialogs. I know its thru jquery, and beta already uses them, but could you give me some code? They would be useful for something I'm developing. Thx, Manish Earth Talk •  Stalk 12:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What version of Chrome are you using? I can't seem to replicate this on 4.1.249.1042. Mr.Z-man 14:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Was using beta, Switched to (Still not working): Google Chrome	4.1.249.1042 (Official Build 42199) WebKit	532.5 V8	1.3.18.22 User Agent	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US) AppleWebKit/532.5 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/4.1.249.1042 Safari/532.5

Manish Earth Talk • Stalk 15:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm getting an error code :
 * It's an error due to my configuration. I'd created two new prototype methods for the Array class which were breaking ht forin loop. Sorry for the trouble, Manish Earth Talk •  Stalk 16:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And it works!. Somehow forin loops count functions as Array elements (probably because functions in js are variables). That's probably the only reason to use the longform of for loops... Manish Earth Talk •  Stalk 16:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Screenshot?
Could someone add a screenshot of the script? I'm using version 1 of the script, and am using customized buttons, so I'm curious to see what's different before I dismantle my house of cards of scripts to install this new script.  Gary King ( talk ) 00:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Note that the transparent black background can be disabled. Mr.Z-man 23:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Very awesome, thanks.  Gary King ( talk ) 02:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Trivial unimportant visual bug
When I click on the "Special characters" or "Help" menu buttons, and then click on the "Cite" button (Without collapsing the previous menu), the "Cite" menu does show up, but the previous menu leaves behind its placeholder box. In other words, there's a big blank space underneath the cite menu which used to contain the "Special character"/"Help" menus, and is now hogging up the editbox. Could you fix this? Thanks, Manish Earth Talk •  Stalk
 * This is probably a bug in the usability initiative code (it works fine in Firefox). I'll try to isolate it and report it to Bugzilla. Mr.Z-man 03:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thx. But don't waste your time on it. Most people don't use the Special Character and Help menus. Manish Earth Talk •  Stalk 06:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Icons
The new toolbar uses the Gnome Desktop icons and not the KDE icons, the icons should be something like instead, that could look better. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hover over text
Currently work and authors article have stars next to them that show what they do. It's hard to have the mouse exactly over them so can't it be changed that the whole word shows the hover over text when the mouse is over it?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So that is what the asterisks are for! Great intention, although, I was pulling my hair out looking at the bottom of the page looking for the text that would go with an asterisk!  No kidding. And even below, someone else who is not a newbie did not know what the asterisk was for either.  I would just make all fields, not a select few, have some hover to explain, or right click for explanation or hyperlink or something. TCO (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

More templates needed
The new RefToolbar works nicely. Great job! The only thing additional I would like to see is the usage of additional templates such as cite journal, cite press release, and cite encyclopedia. It is currently limited to cite web, cite book, and cite news. It would be perfect if these additional templates were implemented. Thanks! ~ Nerdy Science Dude  (✉ message • changes) 14:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The new script is designed so that users can add their own templates and admins can add them sitewide. See the documentation. Mr.Z-man 02:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Firefox/Vector compatibility?
I have Firefox 3.5.7, and am running Vector. I added the code to my my vector.js page, but it won't show up in the toolbar. I have the enhanced toolbar checked in my Prefs, why won't these two work with each other? A p 3 rson ‽   20:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you bypass your cache? ~ Nerdy Science Dude  (✉ message • changes) 00:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Oddly, after restarting my computer, it now works. Apparently, since I run Steam, which uses some of the JavaScript functions, I had to restart it. KTHXBAI A p 3 rson  ‽   22:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Another wiki
Hello! I integrated this script to another wiki (MW 1.16b2, english lang) but I get a warning message in Firebug: mw.usability is undefined, and doesn't work the refToolbar. (Usability initiative extension is on). Outesticide (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What version or revision of the UsabilityInitiative are you using, and what UsabilityInitiative config options are you using? Mr.Z-man 17:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Usability ver: 0.1.1, revision: 654xx. Use only the wikiEditor with navigableToc.

$wgWikiEditorModules = array(	'highlight' => array( 'global' => false, 'user' => true ),	'preview' => array( 'global' => true, 'user' => true ),	'toc' => array( 'global' => true, 'user' => true ),	'toolbar' => array( 'global' => true, 'user' => true ), ); $wgDefaultUserOptions['usenavigabletoc'] = 1; Thanks Outesticide (talk) 17:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why it wouldn't work. How did you install the script on the other wiki? Mr.Z-man 19:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I tried to import the main script (refToolbar 2.0.js)* and copied MediaWiki:RefToolbarLocal.js, and also I copied both.

document.write(' ');

Outesticide (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Try using  Mr.Z-man 21:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't work:( The error message is same. Something missing from the wiki? Outesticide (talk) 22:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * How are you installing it? In your User:Username/vector.js page? Check that the file extensions/UsabilityInitiative/js/usability.js exists and looks something like this. Mr.Z-man 22:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I tried to copy in gadget js, User:/Username/myskin.js (I use own skin, wich is based on monobook.) and commmon.js . - In wikipedia the refToolbar is work correctly with monobook. The usability.js file is good. Outesticide (talk) 09:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So what do you suggest for me? Outesticide (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know. If the skin is based on monobook and the new toolbar itself works, I don't know why it wouldn't work. Mr.Z-man 20:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok:( Thank for your help. Outesticide (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey! It's works great with new function in the last line in reftoolbarlocal.js. Thanks! Outesticide (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Page number bug
When I make a book citation the result comes out like this: Theleftorium (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, can a URL box be added to the book menu? Regards, Theleftorium (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Should be fixed now (both). You might need to WP:BYPASS. Mr.Z-man 20:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :) Theleftorium (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you think you could add a "chapter" option too? Theleftorium (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

"Templates" menu needs update
For cohesiveness, could you replace the "Templates" menu wording with "Cite a website" instead of "cite web" (and all the others)? It would make it easier for newer users and make more sense.-- m o  ɳ  o  00:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand your point about being clearer for new editors, but "cite web" and "cite book", etc., are the real (true) names of those particular templates (which might be better to use, and less confusing), and the shorter names would use up less kBs also. In formatting many a ref that an IP has added, for example, they usually just add the bare links between two ref tags, or just add the ref as an inline external link. Believe me, I'd be happier if they actually figured out how to use the new drop-down cite menu on the enhanced toolbar! --Funandtrvl (talk) 01:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Compatibility with IE8
Hi-I was wondering if the script for v2.0 is compatible now with IE8? I noticed that when the approval was gotten, that it was noted that IE was not included. Also, when I run the enhanced toolbar with the script added for ref 2.0, I still get the yellow "!" icon showing script errors in the bottom left corner, when I'm running WP in IE8 compatibility mode. I use that mode because it fixes some other WP bugs (like odd scrolling down the pages). Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It should work in IE8 now. I just fixed a couple bugs that prevented it from working in compatibility mode (compatibility mode seems to be more strict in JS parsing ironically). There's been an intermittent bug in IE though, that I might have fixed (I can't reliably reproduce it, and any fix I've tried doesn't seem to work for long) where the script loads with no errors, but for some reason the toolbar doesn't get changed. Reloading the edit page fixes it. Mr.Z-man 21:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm.... it's not working for me either, I guess I'll have to use Firefox with the new reftool bar. It won't work with or without compatibility mode. --- The Taerkasten ( talk ) 14:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Capitalize ISBN
What can I do, or what do I do, to get ISBN to be capitalized? Aslo what is Ref group for? kcylsnavS (kalt) 12:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Errror
Using Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.20) Gecko/20081217 Firefox/2.0.0.20 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729), just after checking the gadget and updating vector.js and CTRL-SHIFT-Ring, I saw the City link and went to test it and it seemed fine. Then I removed it from vector.js to see if it really was needed there given I had the gadget checked and learned that it was. So I put it back, refreshed and so on, and went to test it again to write the question about ISBN and Ref group above. THEN I clicked Cite, which turned the cite bar off, said, "Oops!" and turned it back and. . . and learned to my horror that clicking the templates drop-down brought up the drop-down underneath the edit box. I had to go back to a non-edit page and return to get access to it. I just thot you'd like to know. kcylsnavS (kalt) 12:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * First, can you see what the error is when you try to use just the gadget? It should not be required to have anything in vector.js. For the dropdown, does the "Heading" dropdown in the "Advanced" section do the same thing? Mr.Z-man 16:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Same problem occurs when clicking the "Advanced" link - I don't think I - now - have anything in vector.js to enable this tool. kcylsnavS {screech} 17:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Next Enhancement
OK so I think you have nothing to do. Sorry, but I'm pretty good at making work for other people when it doesn't involve Excel (then I steal the work). Ahem. I will probably be using several references all the time. Would it be possible to have a CSV file on my local computer or in my vector.js or somewhere to bring up a list of frequently-cited works? kcylsnavS (kalt) 13:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Upcoming?
I appear to have it already. I already had RefToolbar 1.0 enabled in my Preferences but the button vanished after the change over. I disabled the Beta features and got the old Toolbar back. I decided today that I would give the Beta stuff a chance (with or without refToolbar) and re-enabled it all... only to find what appears to be RefToolbar 2.0 on my Toolbar! Great! One less annoyance to take to the developers of Wikipedia: the Next Generation --Jubilee♫ clipman 22:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Bug and problem
The "cite news" option gives the date twice in the completed reference. Also, why isn't there an "access date" box in the "cite news" option? Theleftorium (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Missing options in new version
Question for you at Village_pump_(technical)  — Rlevse • Talk  • 17:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Error on toolbar
Hi, I'm using the monobook skin, and get the following errors:


 * Under IE8:


 * Under Firefox 3.6.3:


 * Under Safari 5.0:


 * Under Google Chrome 5.0:

Any ideas? -- Phantom Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 07:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * $j is most definitely the jQuery object, so maybe the jQuery scripts aren't loaded normally, but loaded during edit mode. This is what I did:


 * Now the script only loads when you edit a page, and not when you view a page. The error should disappear. Cheers, — MC10 ( T • C • GB •L)  19:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Help
Hello I am an administrator of the Basque Wikipedia and we want to implement the refToolbar 2.0. We have the original one (that worked with the old skin), but it doesn't work with the new vector skin. I have tried copying some pages in our wiki, but I thing something is missing, could somebody check it?


 * Copied pages


 * eu:MediaWiki:RefToolbarLocal.js
 * eu:MediaWiki:Gadget-refToolbar.js‎
 * eu:MediaWiki:Gadget-refToolbar‎

--An13sa (talk) 13:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like the problem is in eu:MediaWiki:Gadget-refToolbar.js‎; you need to use the full URL for the imports. You can copy RefToolbar 2.0/porting. Mr.Z-man 22:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Know it works, but in english even if I translated eu:MediaWiki:RefToolbarLocal.js into Basque. How could I fix it?--An13sa (talk) 10:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Cite Web
Re this diff, who's right? kcylsnavS 20:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Autofilling details from PMID and ISBN
Would it be possible to automatically fill in all details after entering a PMID or an ISBN using this tool? That would make adding references a lot easier. --WS (talk) 08:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's something that I plan to work on. Mr.Z-man 21:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Looking forward to it. If you have it working or need testers, be sure to notify WP:MED. --WS (talk) 11:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I see you have implemented it! Thanks! I have put a notice on WT:MED. --WS (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Bug report
I'm getting the following error when I try to select any of the template options from the dropdown menu: Error: $dialog.dialog is not a function Source File: http://bits.wikimedia.org/w/extensions/UsabilityInitiative/js/plugins.combined.min.js?283l Line: 259 The dialog box into which the parameters for the citation would be entered does not appear, making the gadget unusable. I'm running Firefox 3.6.6 on XP SP3, and I am using the Vector skin. --<font color="#115566">G <font color="#496636">W … 12:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have the enhanced toolbar and dialogs enabled? (Preferences -> Editing -> "Enable enhanced editing toolbar"/"Enable dialogs for inserting links, tables and more") Mr.Z-man 00:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I did at the time, although I have since noticed that some of the other dialogs weren't working either, and consequently I have gone back to Monobook, which is working well. --<font color="#115566">G <font color="#496636">W … 14:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Make input boxes wider and perhaps taller please
Hi Mr.Z-man,

Thanks for all your Wikipedia work, and especially for RefToolbar. It makes it much more convenient to insert references. Some requests:


 * Please make each of the &lt;input&gt; boxes wider.
 * Please consider making them taller too, so they can hold even more text. For example, for users making cite web citations, please make "Title", "URL", "Work", "Publisher", and "Ref name" taller, and "Quote" many times taller.
 * If you want, you can use one of the many &lt;textarea&gt; auto-grow and auto-shrink scripts available online to make textareas automatically adjust their height according to how much the user types. I tried the demos of a few, and http://www.unwrongest.com/projects/elastic/#demo looks like a good one.

Kind regards, --Unforgettableid (talk) 04:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Error
I got this error: Error: $target.wikiEditor is not a function Source File: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mr.Z-man/refToolbar_2.0.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript Line: 127 Helder (talk) 22:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Compatibility with the old toolbar
Hi. Do you plan to support the old/classic toolbar? --Nux (talk) 08:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the way the old toolbar works is entirely different. You can use RefToolbar 1.0 for the old toolbar. Mr.Z-man 22:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

List of commonly used references
Hi!!

I was wondering if the script currently has some option to let each user save a list of references he/she uses while contributing at wikipedia. This way he wouldn't need to fill the fields of a citation template which was previously filled. The personal references saved could be accessible by a list (like that used for named references).

It could be similar to this (but integrated to your script). Helder 13:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There are lots of reference management software; I use Zotero. You can also share your bibliographies like I do at User:Gadget850/Scouting bibliography; these can be copy/pasted and are shared through WikiProject Scouting/Resources using refshare. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 15:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your valuable suggestion. =) Helder 18:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

problems
1. Why do my inserted citations go in the wrong spot in text? Same spot always in the edit window and not where I want it. BTW, I am using the most common software (Windows IE).

2. Could you make some popup for definitions of the fields? It's frustrating to have these fields and not know what they really mean. i suppose I could tab back and forth to some page over here (where?) but it is a hassle. Like WTH is work* and why does it have an asterix?

TCO (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * One problem with item 2 is that citation templates are not all the same as each other (if they were, we'd only need one), so each has its own documentation. For example, the documentation for is at Template:Cite book/doc. In addition to this, there are summaries of the documentation at WP:CITET, and in a few other places. Every time the template changes, all copies of the documentation should be updated to match. Sometimes people forget. Often they remember to do the template's own /doc page, but forget to update WP:CITET (and any others) as well. For every additional copy of the documentation, it's one more place which needs to be updated. If you want the best (albeit not necessarily 100% accurate) documentation for any template, the template's own /doc page should be the place to go. In virtually every case, this /doc page is shown automatically, on a pale green background, whenever you view the parent template.
 * In the case of "work*", I suspect you are dealing with the template. This has a parameter work, which is explained in that template's documentation as
 * work: If this item is part of a larger "work", such as a book, periodical or website, write the name of that work. Do not italicize; the software will do so automatically.
 * I don't know what the asterisk (note spelling) is for, sorry. -- Red rose64 (talk) 09:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help on work. I just double-checked and I don't get any kind of pale-green background, or otherwise, link back to the template page, when using the toolbar.  Just a bunch of fields where I can enter data.  Having that link back, would be very helpful.  some of the fields are obvious, but then every now and then I have a peculiar situation where I need to use more of the uncommon fields and in that case, don't really know what the definitions are for the field entry blocks.TCO (talk) 15:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The dialog for RefToolbar 1.0 has a link to the template documentation, RefToolbar 2.0 does not. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 15:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it should be put back! ;)  I know you all are on the same team and not getting paid for any of this, but it gets frustrating.  I DO appreciate the toolbar and am using it.  Sometimes, I wonder if it would be faster, just to learn a specific (MLA or whatever) format for citations and do them all manually. TCO (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The pale green background I mentioned earlier is on the template page itself, follow this link to see an example: Template:Cite web. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I added it to IE favorites, so I can open it fast. I do think there should be a little hyperlink on each data entry sheet, so that page could be popped open as well, by users. TCO (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * 1. Because IE and the new toolbar are unfriendly to developers. Things that work correctly in every other browser don't work in IE. But at the same time, there's no documentation for any of the JS in the new toolbar. Microsoft has been getting a little better lately, maybe it'll work in IE9.
 * 2. The asterisk is a definition of the field; you can mouseover it and it should give a tooltop with an extended explanation. If there are things that need explanations or better explanations, let me know.

-- Mr.Z-man 16:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Page ranges and HTML
I've at last caught up with Vector, (I may have changed from v1.0 to v2.0 at the same time) but after changing I noticed that the script now inserts HTML for n-dashes, or even hyphens, when a page range is used. It's always inserted HTML for ampersands and apostrophes in the titles of works. Not huge; it just looks a bit odd if you forget to change it in the output text. Still wouldn't be without it! --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

comments from usage
1. First, totally appreciate the help, having the bar, yada yada!

2. Text is extremely small. Would think even for a young person, the size would be akward, but especially for someone older than about 30, it is hard to use.

3. Also would be nice if entire window was bigger, or could be made quickly bigger with a click (see Magnus refmaker for comparison on points 2 and 3).

4. There was some glitch where it was inserting the ref into the wrong part of text, but that got fixed just recently! TY.

5. The "author's article" field (in cite book) is confusing. I kept wondering why the authorlink was getting filled in. Finally realized you mean the Wikipedia article on the author! But it's right down in the section where you have editor and all that...and I kept thinking you mean the article title that an author had put in, for an edited book that combines several papers! BTW, I use "chapter" field for this now.

6. Is there some way to automate pages so that if a single page is put in, we don't get the pp. ?  (I realize there is another field, but it is hidden).

7. Also can you make the thing automatically convert hyphens to ndashes in page ranges? The more we can automate things like that the better. Darned ndash thing is a lot of clerical work for tiny appearance, when I could be reading sources and writing prose. But if it were all automated would be much more friendly to the ndash (actually I wish we just made the default ndash and hyphen the same, made the hyphen non-breaking (when I write in word, I don't WANT to break at hyphenations anyhow. In the few cases, I want to actually break (like a long word in a caption or something, I could select that, but I wander...)

8. Maybe a little more thought on what fields go where while filling out the template? IOW, as I scan down the page, I come to url, title, name, etc. IOW the ergonomic most easy way to fill these things out. As is, I feel like I kind of have to hunt and peck in both the doc and the tool, to fill out fields. That said, the "simple version" is a nice help. But seriously, would urge thinking about how to make the order easy (like sometimes I have to jump left and right columns, versus kind of an obvious straight down the list order.)

TCO (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 2. On Firefox at least, it looks to be the same size as the rest of the text on Wikipedia.
 * 3. You can resize the window using the little thingy in the bottom left corner, though that doesn't expand the actual form that much
 * 6. This is something (along with automatically using year/month instead of date) that I plan to do in the future
 * 7. Would probably happen with 6
 * 8. Right now it is just somewhat random, ideas for improvement would be very helpful. Mr.Z-man 01:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Extra space
Hi. I recently posted a section on the help desk about this issue. The extra space IMHO is completely unnecessary, as I would never need a space either before or after a ref cite tag, and certainly not before the section header or in the middle of another cite tag that I would need to use "show changes" to locate. Although the ability to place a cite in the correct location is now useful, the extra space that could fall anywhere in the article is not. Thanks. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 16:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you explain in more detail what you did? I tested the change fairly extensively and never saw any problems like that. Mr.Z-man 21:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For instance, I place my mouse and click on the area where I want to place a citation, then go to the cite function in my toolbar and type in the necessary parameters. When I click "insert", the citation is in the correct spot about 90% of the time, but about half of the time a space erroneously appears somewhere in the edit window. Often it occurs before the section header, causing the entire section to become null and effectively part of another section, so that I have to fix it again. Other times, the space hits the middle of some template, or cuts an internal link so that it goes redlinked. I asked this question on the help desk previously, and they noted the extra space should go at the end of a reference, when in fact it never does and is never needed. I will test the function twice, and see where the space ends up  . ~ A  H  1 (TCU) 00:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Remove the superflous space NOW!
Hi. When using the cite templates, an extra space is often added at random within the existing text, as if a space is somehow needed before or after a ref and cite tag. However, this space jumps to a random location, often making it difficult to locate, thus breaking links, words, other references, templates, and even entire section headers. I previously brought this problem up on the help desk (see here), but the problem still persists, and no explanation is available for the purpose of this wiki-destructing extra space, and as a result, problems such as this collateral atrocity (the second section) could have been avoided, but were not; please address this problem when possible. Thanks. ~ AH1 (discuss!) 18:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm not actually sure where this extra space gets added from. I looked through MediaWiki:RefToolbar.js, but didn't see anything obvious. Perhaps Mr.Z-man will know. Kaldari (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In the meantime, a potentially sensible solution is to open another editing window such as the sandbox, then copy-paste the ref/cite tag from there. ~ AH1 (discuss!) 19:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I remember hearing that the jumping space was specifically happening in Internet Explorer, maybe an older version. Any idea if that's accurate? Any debugging information would be appreciated. Kaldari (talk) 19:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I confirm the extra space appearing regularly in Internet Explorer 7 when using cite news from RefToolbar 2.0. I haven't spotted any pattern in where it appears. – Fayenatic (talk) 07:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

How to Debug?
I've got a port set up on an internal site (sorry, can't give access) and it's only partly working. I can have the –  button (version 2, I guess, of RefToolbar 2.0), but the Cite dropdown menu won't show up. When I use the –  dropdown, it doesn't insert anything into the edit box. Specific problem aside (which isn't the purpose of this page), the real question is this: '''How can I debug this? I'm not sure how to check if the scripts are loading correctly, or what is breaking?''' Joel Frederico (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Can this be used without enabling the edit toolbar?
I don't like the edit toolbar... Too many options that are quicker to type then to move my mouse to the button, and takes up a portion of my screen with too much clutter. However, I believe that I don't have Reftools because I have this toolbar disabled... Is it possible to use reftools without the edit toolbar? -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  15:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, see Wikipedia talk:RefToolbar 2.0. Kaldari (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Why does this tool give different output ever few days
Some does it adds a bunch of, some days there is an added space before the ref, some days it deletes the text that follows your cursor, some days it works perfectly. What is with this? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've heard there are some issues with Internet Explorer specifically, but I haven't isolated it yet. Can you provide any details about your set-up? Kaldari (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure I am running google chrome on a windows 7 machine.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Bug in "cite web"
I have noticed that as of today, when using the "site web" tool, it inserts "Title=" instead of "title=", which comes up as an error in the references section as having no "title=". Not sure if this is something I can fix myself or need to have a guru do it! Thanks--UnQuébécois (talk) 13:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I checked and don't see that. All of the parameters are lower case— are any others changing? ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 13:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No just Title. If you look at, I used the cite web tool and got this for ref #72. The text in question is at the end of: "After Kim Jong-il's death". --UnQuébécois (talk) 14:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I checked all three JS files and don't see it; see RefToolbar. Can you reproduce the issue?

DOI lookup problem
I have noticed a problem with the DOI look-up of identifiers with the form 10.xxxx/12.xxxxxx (10.1117/12.858011). Look-up of identifiers with the form 10.xxxx/xxxxxx works fine (10.1086/512825). Please fix if this is a bug. Thanks. --Thetrick (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Citation errors due to "cite web" template
I've been correcting citation syntax and doing a lot of changing of "work=" to "title=". The asterisk on "work" in the "cite web" template on the toolbar is confusing people. When you order something online or register for classes, * means required field. In this case the "title" is the required field (look at all the citation errors that get labeled), but nothing on the pop-up template tells the user that. I recommend moving the * from "work" to "title", making a note that title is required (on all the templates), and using something else to indicate that very useful note on "work". StarryGrandma (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC) A fixed question mark, that brings up the floating question mark and explanation when hovered over, could be helpful, but the current explanation "What larger work this is part of" is still confusing, as it doesn't infer that this is an optional field or the hierarchy with title - could this be "if part of a larger work" or "if "Title" is part of a larger work" ? Arjayay (talk) 09:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC) In my preferences, I have both "Enable enhanced editing toolbar" and "Enable dialogs for inserting links, tables and more" checked. I've had trouble with this toolbar before. - Arjayay (talk) 12:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fully agree - it initially confused me, and I have since had to correct a number of other editor's syntax. The * only appears in cite web, (not cite news, book, or journal) can another description be found for "work"? - I can't think of a short one, but it needs to explain the purpose e.g. "In - if title appears in a collection".
 * I think User:StarryGrandma has a very good point about the * normally indicating required fields. An alternative solution might be to asterisk "Title", "URL", "Publisher" and "Access date" - not all citations have Authors, and many will not need Ref Name or Ref Group so the asterisks will indicate the required fields and reduce the chances of link-rot. In an ideal world, the template should only close when the four fields have entries - although I suspect that is far more complex. Arjayay (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've changed it from an asterisk to a super-scripted question mark. Hope that helps! Kaldari (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Still appears as an asterisk in Vector (XP IE8)
 * Which version are you using? See RefToolbar. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 11:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The nearest is 2.0b - except the book symbol (? or whatever that is) shown in the diagrams in RefToolbar doesn't appear between the "link" symbol and the "Advanced" option - or anywhere else.
 * The version with the "?" is working fine for me. Thanks. Still seeing some new (March '12) references coming in with "work=" instead of "title=", but this should help. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Named references
When I click Named references, I get a dialog with "loading data" and it does nothing else. Firefox 10 and IE9 on Windows 7. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 16:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

default values for fields in citeTemplate?
I just installed this as a gadget on my own MediaWiki installation. I added a new template for a specific news site in the config using "new citeTemplate(..." - it calls "cite news" but has a couple of things removed from the basic fields. I wanted to have it fill in a default value for the "newspaper" field, but there didn't seem to be a mechanism for this.

Just for fun, I made a couple of simple patches to my local copy of the refToolbar_2.0/base.js script. They check for a property named "default" of the field objects passed to "makeFormInner", and add a 'value=' attribute to the tag created. This lets you do something like

{"field": "newspaper", "default":"CBC.ca"},

as part of creating fields in a citeTemplate object. It seems to work.

I'm new to the whole MediaWiki editing/RefToolbar world, and I suspect there is some good reason this sort of capability doesn't exist already in citeTemplate? I guess the other option would be to create a cloned "cite news" wiki template to pass to citeTemplate and modify that to fill in a default? NorthernRaven (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Preferences default for cite templates
Is it possible to have a default selection under Preferences, for American style or European style for the access date inserted with any citation template on the Edit toolbar? Currently, "Insert Date" brings up only the European style, which is inconsistent if the article text contains American style dates. If this is the wrong place to put this request, please provide a link to the appropriate place. Thank you. Maile66 (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

ISBN and URL no-go on RefToolbar 1.0
The ISBN and URL lookup is not working again (still?) on RefToolbar 1.0 (Wikipedia talk:RefToolbar 1.0 might be stale?) I prefer RefToolbar 1.0 and I use ISBNs a lot. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I don't think anyone is still maintaining the old RefToolbar 1.0 code so it may be flakey. Kaldari (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

cite features lost from 1.0->2.0
As near as I can tell, looking at RefToolbar 2.0b vs. 1.0, 2.0 drops a pair of really convenient short cuts--filling in many fields for most nytimes.com URLs (for cite news) and from Google Books URLs (for cite books). Do I have that right, and is that something that could/should be fixed? --joe deckertalk to me 05:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Gadget installation
I am unable to install RefToolbar2.0 as a gadget on my WikiMedia 1.18.2 following the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RefToolbar_2.0#Porting_to_another_wiki guidelines. The cite tab doesn't show up during Editing. Am I missing some scripts Atishayjain25 (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Where did you port it? We've just ported it to Norwegian Wikipedia and it worked fine (after we discovered that we had to copy MediaWiki:RefToolbarMessages-en.js as well. The docs didn't mention that a few days ago, but I added it.) – Danmichaelo (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I just added it to my own little MediaWiki (1.18.1) installation - I'm not sure if I did it right, but it seems to be working as a gadget. You should check the MediaWiki:Gadget-refToolbar.js bit - I copied this from Wikipedia and it imports scripts from Wikipedia user space (like "User:Mr.Z-man/refToolbar 2.0.js").  Since those doesn't exist on my own wiki, I had to copy those scripts and change the "importScript" calls to refer to my local copies.  The other alternative would seem to be to change the calls to importScriptURI and load the live versions from Wikipedia. NorthernRaven (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I am having the same problem. I have followed the steps but the Cite option does not appear among the options of the editing toolbar. Can you halp me, please? --Toliño (talk) 09:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That porting code was ancient. I've updated it to something that might actually work. Lemme know if you have any luck with it. Cheers! Kaldari (talk) 06:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It now works only if you force the page refreshing by clicking Ctrl+F5. Something is still wrong, I guess. --Toliño (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Ref placement
On RefToolbar 2.0a, when I try to cite something, it places it at the beginning of the section I was working on. How can I fix this to get it in the right place? <b style="color:#9c9e9c; font-family:segoe script;">Brambleberry of RiverClan</b> Chat ♠ Watch 23:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you placing the cursor where you'd like the insertion to happen before pressing on the Cite button? --j⚛e deckertalk 00:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)