Wikipedia talk:RefToolbar/Archive 3

support Template:cite arXiv
Every dump I have to cleanup 40 or so citations that were added via cite web / cite journal When really they should be making use of cite arXiv Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Autofill citation for CNKI
Dear developers,

Can you add the autofill function for CNKI? CNKI contains most journals in China Mainland. As I know, zotero (RefToolbar uses its scripts) already supports CNKI. Why I still cannot use it in Wikipedia? If there is anything I can help, I will.--The Master (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Broken?
RefToolbar no longer seems to be working. I'm getting ""Use of "mw.toolbar" is deprecated" and "title=User:Apoc2400/refToolbarPlus.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:1 You installed the userscript User:Apoc2400/refToolbarPlus.js It is no longer working and you should uninstall it." when I use debug mode. Any idea? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

QID support
Please make clear that QIDs can be used to fetch data from Wikidata, as discussed at https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Topic:Updg9d8bh3xhy6g7 - a simple change to the relevant label should suffice. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the the fields in refToolBar match to fields in the citation template. But there is not field in the listed citation templates for QIDs. I actually think first we need to go to CS1 page and ask for a new parameter, QID, which will link to the wikidata item. Only then could we ask for refToolBar support for it. Currently if you add a qid parameter to a citation template it will show an error "unknown parameter." Mvolz (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * As we discussed at the page I linked to, using QIDs to fetch data is already supported; it's just that the dialogue does not inform editors of that. I am saying that it should. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Configuration: Individual users
How do you configure this for yourself as an individual user?

The Configuration section says "... this version is highly customizable sitewide and on a per-user basis."

Its Individual users subsection says "No customization is required, the script will use the sitewide defaults "out of the box". All user configuration options override the sitewide options."

Do you just copy MediaWiki:RefToolbarConfig.js to your user space and edit? TJRC (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Autofill of citations
Do not appear to be working the last couple of days? Are people aware of this? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , the tool maintainers listed are and . I also pinged kaldari on IRC, but —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 09:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks appreciate it. This tool is essential. We have this as a backup thankfully. But I find it does not do books as well. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 09:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noting this, I didn't know if it was just me. And for the alternative, will try that until it is fixed.. cygnis insignis 15:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Kaldari (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for the prompt reply and fix! I really appreciate the convenience and time saved when it not there. cygnis insignis 18:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

ScienceDirect not correctly formatted by cite tool
Noted this on Huaynaputina: RefToolbar isn't interpreting ScienceDirect links correctly. For example, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1125786504700090 isn't being resolved or resolved to a "cite web" template when it should make "cite journal". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Request for Wikipedia to add the "cite magazine" citation template to RefToolbar
By default, there is "cite web", "cite news", "cite book", and "cite journal" under the cite tab on RefToolbar 2.0. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ylevental/sandbox&action=edit

However, magazines are a popular medium of information, so "cite magazine" should be added to the options. Ylevental (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Cite magazine is not frequently used compared to the other citation templates:
 * Cite web: 3,145,608 transclusions
 * Cite book: 1,085,068 transclusions
 * Cite news: 968,0918 transclusions
 * Cite journal: 589,732 transclusions
 * Cite magazine: 59,401 transclusions
 * Besides, I don't actually have rights to edit RefToolbar anymore (due to the new 2-factor auth requirement) so I couldn't add it even if I wanted to! As for my opinion, I'll just remark that it takes a lot of work to set up a new template in RefToolbar. You have to configure every parameter, you have to set up a lookup service for the autofill feature, and you have to add any new parameters to the translation pages. I'm not sure if it would be worth it for Cite magazine, but I wouldn't oppose someone adding it if they wanted to take it on. Kaldari (talk) 01:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Slapping whatever code you there is for cite journal but having cite magazine instead should be fine as a first step. The only two main changes needed would be changing 'cite journal' to 'cite magazine' and journal to magazine. Perhaps removing the presentation of identifier field by default as well, since magazines tend to not have bibcodes/pmids/dois and the like. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

More APIs
Hi. I have a few questions that maybe User:Kaldari or others could answer.


 * 1) How come https://tools.wmflabs.org/reftoolbar/lookup.php?isbn=0299197700&template=book returns a result but http://xisbn.worldcat.org/webservices/xid/isbn/0299197700?method=getMetadata&format=json&fl=year,ed,title,author,publisher,city does not? Isn't it true the the former (per its source code here) depends on the latter?
 * 2) What is the CitoidLookup, and how is it called?
 * 3) It seems like the sole source of data for ISBN is worldcat; is there any desire to add other fall-back sources? In particlar, for Persian Wikipedia we would want to use additional sources that might return data for ISBN of books written in Persian (not available on worldcat).

Thanks huji— TALK 22:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Worldcat's ISBN API seems to have been broken since last year, which is why your 2nd link doesn't return anything. I patched the code to bypass that API back in September. It now uses the Citoid API for ISBN lookups (in addition to URL lookups). For documentation on how to call Citoid see https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/#/Citation/getCitation and https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Citoid/API. For example https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/data/citation/mediawiki-basefields/0299197700 gives you basically the same data as https://tools.wmflabs.org/reftoolbar/lookup.php?isbn=0299197700&template=book. And to answer the obvious question: I have no idea where Citoid gets its ISBN data from. If you have any examples of ISBNs that don't currently return results from RefToolbar, that would be good evidence that we need to expand our sources. If you run across any, please let me know. Kaldari (talk) 03:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response, Kaldari! In looking at the source code of Citoid (and specifically, CitoidService.js) it seems like it is using Zotero to fetch the information. I am going to install and test Citoid myself to get a better understanding of it, but for now, here are some ISBNs that don't seem to work (properly, or at all): 9789643123635, for which only title and publisher is returned (author and other details is not), and 0299197700 and 1934283010 which have a similar problem.
 * Also, the result returned for those is transliterated into English, which is great for English Wikipedia but not for Persian Wikipedia (in which we record the citations in Persian). I doubt that Zoreto or any other service has i18n/l10n support though. I am in search of a free service that would provide that information for books in Persian, and as soon as I find one I will let you know.
 * Let me know if there is anything else you need. huji— TALK 13:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Auto-fill based on PMID is down
Wondering were this problem is from? I can try to reach out to the NIH if the problem is on there end. User:Kaldari you know? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:19, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Found one by User:Nephron on his site that still works. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * A bug report has been filed. Apparently the Wikimedia tool server which hosts many of these citations tools has been blocked from accessing the PubMed name server. Wikimedia Cloud Services has contacted the NIH with a request to lift the block. Boghog (talk) 02:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The SysOp team fixed it! Cheers! :) —Arthurfragoso (talk) 22:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Feature request (again): Deadurl checkbox
I requested this in 2017 but got no reply: in the Web Citation popover, can we please have a checkbox (or a select menu) to specify deadurl=yes/no? I can fill in Archive URL and Archive Date in the form, but after I have inserted the reference into the article, I have to go in and type the "deadurl" bit manually, which is a bit fiddly. Can someone please add this? Thanks. Cnbrb (talk) 09:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello?? Anyone there?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnbrb (talk • contribs) 01:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

QID support
Please make clear that QIDs can be used to fetch data from Wikidata, as discussed at https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Topic:Updg9d8bh3xhy6g7 - a simple change to the relevant label should suffice. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the the fields in refToolBar match to fields in the citation template. But there is not field in the listed citation templates for QIDs. I actually think first we need to go to CS1 page and ask for a new parameter, QID, which will link to the wikidata item. Only then could we ask for refToolBar support for it. Currently if you add a qid parameter to a citation template it will show an error "unknown parameter." Mvolz (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * As we discussed at the page I linked to, using QIDs to fetch data is already supported; it's just that the dialogue does not inform editors of that. I am saying that it should. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I've restored the above from the archive, as it's unresolved. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Cite web, have should have date= support
It's pretty mad that cite web doesn't have date in the options. Please add it. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Seconded: it's tedious to have to use the "other fields" button to add date. Pam  D  07:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * +1. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

URL-status checkbox request
I found out by chance that the citation template has changed and now uses  instead of. Could we possibly now have a checkbox added to the reftoolbar popup checkbox to specify ? It would be very helpful. Thank you. Cnbrb (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Have it "Always load"
This is one of the most important tools on Wikipedia. However for larger pages simple does not load when I am on a slow connection. I than need to open a small section to get the tool. Generate the citation and copy and paste it into place on the larger page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess I could switch to the new "New wikitext mode" but I do not like the color coding as much as WikEd... Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

More cite templates
It would be great if RefToolbar included more cite templates such as cite podcast, cite AV media notes, cite magazine and anything listed under Citation Style 1. Though cite tweet is not listed in the CS1 page, I'd like that too included in RefToolbar. -- Kailash29792 (talk)  04:25, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

field should be defined for  and
The  field is defined for   and   (when "show extra fields" is selected), therefore these should also include the   field. I.e. if you are setting, then it's pretty likely that you should also be setting   and. Fabrickator (talk) 04:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Indian sources mis-read
1. When attempting to cite The Times of India articles like this, the following ref fields are incorrect: This is actually a reprint of a wire story (I think; pretty common, along with PTI), so we should instead have TNN with last1 and first1 unfilled. The actual date of the article is "Apr 2, 2018", which should fill 2 April 2018 (since most articles citing Indian sources are likely dmy, unless we can look for the Use * dates template in the edit window and set the date appropriately, which would be great). The " - Times of India" should be removed. The Times of India should preferably be wikilinked.
 * last1=Apr 2
 * first1=TNN |
 * title=Revenue department takes over Munnar homestay | Kochi News - Times of India
 * website=The Times of India

2. Also, at some point, as evidenced by 1173 articles that have the problem, it was doing this instead: Is there a bot available that can fix these?
 * last=Apr 2
 * first=TNN | Updated:
 * last2=2018
 * last3=Ist
 * first3=7:35

3. India Today cites have similar problems, e.g. this. These are included in the 1173 articles in the search in #2 above:
 * last1=DelhiMay 31
 * first1=India Today Web Desk New
 * last2=May 31
 * first2=India Today Web Desk New
 * last3=Ist
 * first3=India Today Web Desk New
 * website=India Today

—[ Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 22:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a great example of editors not paying attention and assuming that the tool, because it is an 'approved' tool, always does the right thing. But, it isn't just this tool (sampled from the results of your search link):
 * reFill 2 made
 * ve made this
 * RefToobar doesn't tag articles that were edited with it so it is not possible to know for sure how Ist got into the cs1|2 templates. Clearly there is a commonality which, though I don't know for absolute certain, I suspect to be citoid.  If that is true, then the better place for this bug report is at phabricator.
 * In the html of the Times of India article you link in 1, you can find this .  It would not surprise me to learn that citoid sees that byline class and attempts to convert the content of the  tag to authors' names.
 * If we are going to complain about auto-filling, Times of India is a newspaper so is the proper template; India Today is a news magazine so either  or .  Don't know if I'd hold my breath for that fix.
 * Dates? Were it me, tools like RefToolbar, reFill 2, ve, would all render dates in a standardized form of ymd and let Module:Citation/CS1 convert them according to .  But, it isn't up to me and editors somehow think it important that dates written in template parameters must be in the form chosen for the article (when it makes absolutely no difference to our readers ...) ok,
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Did I forget to send flowers or something? I'm pointing out a pervasive problem in the way people are using the tool (and perhaps other related? tools), in the hopes that we can discuss a solution other than the incredibly tedious "fix it by hand when you see it" and "tell the users to fix the results before saving" (which clearly is not working well). It's not about fault, and there's more involved than fixing any one tool. If the tools could handle a couple of often-cited sources better, that would be great. If there is a way that the existing misuses, which follow a common pattern, can be fixed, I'm asking what that might be. I didn't see any difference in Cite web vs. Cite news in this issue. As far as dates, I understood that the dates are already converted if the  templates are present, but it was pointed out to me that editors might still wish to have the dates appear in source in the format they are used to, and as a reminder of the correct form to use in prose, all of which makes sense to me, so I thought I'd mention it. —[  Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 02:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have submitted this problem as a bug on Phabricator. It might not be exactly the right place to get the problem fixed, but it's worth a try. Here's the bug report: ., if you're feeling especially quixotic, you could write to those Indian news sites and ask them to fix their web sites so that they emit proper metadata. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've certainly done my fair share of tilting, with occasional, surprising success. Is there a definition of "proper metadata" to which I can point them? —[ Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 03:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but most news web sites work fine with Citoid-based tools and other tools like reFill (I don't know if it uses Citoid or not), so whatever they do, the Indian news sites should do. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You think that I'm attacking you? I am not.  Editor assumptions that the tool is always correct allow nonsense parameter values to go unnoticed and unreported.  Were I to write a bot that made low-quality edits like these, it would have been blocked long since.  Tools are treated differently because there is the assumption on the community's part that editors will monitor the quality of the edits that the tools suggest.  I do not disagree with you that editor responsibility for correct edits has proven to be a flawed mechanism.  Removing that responsibility from the editors then puts the burden of correctness and accuracy solely onto the shoulders of the tool authors who may or may not be responsive to the reported failings of their tools.  Why?  Because this community does not have a mechanism like WP:BRFA to approve and monitor tool operation, we are left with tool authors who are not held to account for their tools.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * My experience is not that most sites work well with the toolbar "Templates" listbox dialogs. Two examples: the date is not retrieved from this USA Today article and the author is not retrieved from this Los Angeles Times article. It happens with at least some other articles from those two sources, IIRC. I really do have to manually fill in and/or correct dates and authors a lot. —[ Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 09:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You think that I'm attacking you? I am not.  Editor assumptions that the tool is always correct allow nonsense parameter values to go unnoticed and unreported.  Were I to write a bot that made low-quality edits like these, it would have been blocked long since.  Tools are treated differently because there is the assumption on the community's part that editors will monitor the quality of the edits that the tools suggest.  I do not disagree with you that editor responsibility for correct edits has proven to be a flawed mechanism.  Removing that responsibility from the editors then puts the burden of correctness and accuracy solely onto the shoulders of the tool authors who may or may not be responsive to the reported failings of their tools.  Why?  Because this community does not have a mechanism like WP:BRFA to approve and monitor tool operation, we are left with tool authors who are not held to account for their tools.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * My experience is not that most sites work well with the toolbar "Templates" listbox dialogs. Two examples: the date is not retrieved from this USA Today article and the author is not retrieved from this Los Angeles Times article. It happens with at least some other articles from those two sources, IIRC. I really do have to manually fill in and/or correct dates and authors a lot. —[ Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 09:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Changes in the ref parameter
The CS1/2 template family has recently been changed so that it no longer needs ref=harv specified, but it now throws a maintenance message if no Harv references are used. I figure that one solution would be to pre-fill the Ref inputbox with "none" (so that spurious maintenance messages don't occur), the other to create a toggle between Harv mode (output without ?) and ref tag mode (with tags as using both Harv and ref tags with the same reference is not common, but that's a slightly different issue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a maintenance category: that holds articles with cs1|2 templates that explicitly use harv.  There is an error category  that holds articles where Module:Footnotes (the engine that renders the  and  families of short-cite templates) when it cannot find an anchor ID that matches the anchor link that the short-cite templates need to function properly.  This category also holds articles where more than one anchor ID matches the short-cite link.
 * The available scripts do not categorize.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Responding to : Please don't add none as any sort of default or pre-filled option. That would defeat the whole purpose of the change to the CS1 templates to enable automatic support of short citations without editors having to fiddle with the ref parameter. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Responding to : Please don't add none as any sort of default or pre-filled option. That would defeat the whole purpose of the change to the CS1 templates to enable automatic support of short citations without editors having to fiddle with the ref parameter. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Et al
When one uses "Cite" and then "cite journal" (as I often do) one gets a pop-up box in which one can put the author, title, et cetera. But if there are a lot of authors, then I want to use "display-authors=etal". It would be very nice if there were an option in that pop-up box to tell it to include "display-authors=etal"! Can someone add that? Otherwise I have to type it in manually. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 12:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would oppose adding this. Several reasons:
 * This is a relatively unimportant parameter There are many more (and more important) parameters, not all can be reasonably supported without causing bloat to the UI.
 * Adding this would make it too easy for editors to skip adding the authors of a work. Common courtesy dictates to mention all authors of a work, not just the first few (also for proper meta-data generation). Occasionally, this can result in long lists, but this doesn't harm because WP:NOTPAPER. Also, in those few cases, where it is actually necessary for space reasons, adding the parameter manually isn't much work.
 * --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources § "Work" versus "agency" versus "publisher"
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources § "Work" versus "agency" versus "publisher". &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 21:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Porting to another wiki
Hello, I have had refToolbar installed on my wiki but recently it hasn't worked, I think since an upgrade to 1.34. I have tried following the instructions on this page, plus just copying it over from Wikipedia, and neither work. Is there something I'm missing? Thanks NemesisAT (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If anyone was in the same boat as me, it turned out the MediaWiki "LinkSuggest" would break the Cite gadget when enabled. So I have disabled LinkSuggest for the time being and Cite is working. NemesisAT (talk) 21:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

RfC announce: Citation tools
There is an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources regarding whetyer citation tools should allowed. Your input on this question is welcome. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Technical help requested
Could someone help us out with implementation at MediaWiki_talk:RefToolbarMessages-en.js? Thanks, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 21:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Autofill access-date button not there
Hi, when I do Cite web or Cite book, etc., the little date photo that one clicks on to autofill in today's access-date is not there. Is this function down, or am I doing something wrong? Funandtrvl (talk) 00:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I noticed that too. Strange and annoying. Sadly, getting a response here is highly unlikely, so you'll probably have to get used to typing it manually from now on. Cnbrb (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, maybe I'll post at VP too. Funandtrvl (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed that, too. Looking into it, this edit seems the most probable cause. Pinging . I'm also going to turn this into an edit request since we don't want this issue sitting around. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 01:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps line 33 should be "autodate fields" : ['access-date'],
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 02:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Please confirm that has fixed it, otherwise I will revert all &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's back! Thanks Funandtrvl (talk) 20:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Adding one parameter
I've been in the practice of adding Newspapers.com for times I get sources from Newspapers.com, but via isn't one of the default options for. Is there a way for me to add it on my end?

On a related note, a dropdown menu that can be turned on (off by default) that can add the open/free/closed access templates would be great. –Fredddie™ 17:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , interesting thoughts! If we do add via, we'll certainly want to have a tooltip, since it's not self-explanatory. There's also the question of whether it should be in the "show/hide extra fields" section or the main section. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 23:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Porting
RefToolbar has been ported into Burmese Wikipedia (my.wiki) including MediaWiki:RefToolbarMessages-en.js and MediaWiki:RefToolbarMessages-de.js. I made localized messages on my:MediaWiki:RefToolbarMessages-my.js, but the Burmese translation didn't work while en & de look fine. Any suggestion to work Burmese localization? Thanks. Ninja ✮ Strikers «☎» 03:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * @Ninjastrikers: The problem is that this script manually handles de as a special case, and otherwise defaults to en. No other languages are supported without a code change. I haven't done a deep dive on the code, but I'd guess you would want to add a case handling your language to the switch statement that starts on line 266 of MediaWiki:RefToolbar.js. Something like:  Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 04:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Now, the localization works. Thank you. Ninja ✮ Strikers  «☎» 10:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Lost it, Help!
I have somehow lost both the RefToolbar and Wikedit, which makes things difficult to say the very least. All help appreciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 19:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

What regex syntax for search?
The Search icon for Advanced allows entry of a regular expression. Which regex syntax does it use, e.g., Perl, POSIX RE. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 07:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

accessdate renamed to access-date
The calendar icon beside the "Access date" field disappeared some weeks ago. I stumbled upon the fix, which is to change, in my common.js, the fieldname in  from   to. Before changing it in the RefToolbar/2.0 documentation, I wanted to mention it here first in case there's something more to it. —[ Alan M 1  (talk) ]— 04:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Request to better support archived URLs in Cite web
I often find myself using for archived URLs. I love using the GUI to generate a web citation, especially with the Autofill button once I provide a URL. However, there is no Autofill button for the archived URL—I would like to request that one be added.

Currently, as a workaround, I will place the archived URL in the URL field and press the autofill button, then replace it with the original URL later. Autofill is almost always imperfect anyway, but this approach has several other problems: The date filled in the date field is always the archive date instead of the publication date (when using Wayback Machine at least) and the website name often ends up as "web.archive.org" if the autofill cannot otherwise find it. Since the autofill is obviously capable of retrieving the archive date, it would be great if having an autofill button next to the archive URL would mean that it would put the archive date into the correct field. -- Snorlax Monster  00:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Request for Wikipedia to add the "cite magazine" citation template to RefToolbar, 2021
regarding Wikipedia talk:RefToolbar/Archive 3, please reconsider this. Every day, I see, and  all being misused when the work being cited is a magazine. has been in existence for several years, and since the request two years ago its usage has more than doubled to 127,423 transclusions (as I write this). Note: this is follow-up to User talk:Redrose64. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Like I said in the previous discussion, due to the security changes that have been enacted, I no longer have permission to edit any of the RefToolbar scripts. I have no objections to your suggestion. You'll just have to find someone with  rights to implement it. Kaldari (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * A choice of 15, including bots. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Swap Archive URL and Archive date fields
Could the "Archive URL" and "Archive date" fields be swapped? See this screenshot. Most date fields are on the left, and the top URL field is on the right, so I find myself frequently typing the archive date in the archive URL field and vice-versa when I'm trying to add archived links. – Srđan (talk) 10:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ This layout inconsistency had been tripping me up for literally years. Good luck in getting a response. Cnbrb (talk) 13:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Interface-protected edit request on 25 March 2021
Change to

which is a more reliable way of disabling refToolbar on pages where it's uncalled-for. Nardog (talk) 13:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not so sure if the second line is necessary. Surely one occasionally needs to cite something in the User or Wikipedia namespace when crafting a draft or comment. Nardog (talk) 13:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Ping me if that broke things and I'll be happy to revert or implement a correction. Izno (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Interface-protected edit request on 19 April 2021
Insert at line 586 of MediaWiki:RefToolbar.js. Kaldari (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Since this bug is actively causing errors to be inserted into citations, can you make this change ASAP? I don't have permissions. Kaldari (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Won't this insert an invalid date into cite templates? It seems like it would be better to convert dates into "Month YYYY" format within this tool, i.e. convert "2010-11-XX" into "November 2010" instead of delivering the invalid and ambiguous "2010-11". There are only twelve possible months, so conversion should not be onerous. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see this as a fix, largely per comments already made at the related task. Jonesey is correct that this will cause errors in the current templates if RefToolbar preserves this format all the way to output (I haven't looked at the rest of the gadget to see how much work if any it does putting something from ISO into English). Izno (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * How does this fix anything? RefToolbar creates cs1|2 templates.  cs1|2 templates accept and understand the edtf format:
 * If I understand this 'fix', it strips the  to produce   which, because MOS:DATES does not allow that format will cause:
 * The first example does not have errors; the second example does.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it won't cause errors. RefToolbar fully localizes the date before it gets inserted. In other words, it converts '2021-02' into 'February 2021' before insertion. Kaldari (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Really? Here is a  template that I created with RefToolbar:
 * To create that, I selected  from the Templates dropdown, entered 'Title' in the Title field, entered '2021-04' in the Date field, and clicked Insert.  I don't see 'April 2021' in that citation.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm sure. I mean "before insertion into the dialog box". Note that the current code without this fix is inserting "undefined NaN" into the citations, so I don't understand why y'all are being so protective of it. Kaldari (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Implemented after looking at where you requested addition. Please verify it works on a page of your choice. Izno (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Looks like it fixed the "undefined NaN" bug. Tested with DOI lookup '10.1016/S0305-0491(98)00022-4'. The date gets set to '1 May 1998' which is the same as what it used to be. Next we should fix RefToolbar to only output the day when it is specified. Kaldari (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm sure. I mean "before insertion into the dialog box". Note that the current code without this fix is inserting "undefined NaN" into the citations, so I don't understand why y'all are being so protective of it. Kaldari (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Implemented after looking at where you requested addition. Please verify it works on a page of your choice. Izno (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Looks like it fixed the "undefined NaN" bug. Tested with DOI lookup '10.1016/S0305-0491(98)00022-4'. The date gets set to '1 May 1998' which is the same as what it used to be. Next we should fix RefToolbar to only output the day when it is specified. Kaldari (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

This needs to be in a try catch block as well, because citoid doesn't guarantee valid input. Zotero is a web scraper and it just puts whatever in the date field without checking it at all. Citoid only does weak validation (because we could never agree on a standard in order to make validation stricter), so this undefined error will continue to happen even with this fix, just more infrequently. Mvolz (WMF) (talk) 09:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's a live example: Returns the date as NaN because the date is returned 1988/00/00 https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ571302. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvolz (WMF) (talk • contribs) 10:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

URL-status for ,
It would be really helpful if it was possible to set the  template parameter for the cite news amd  cite book templates using the tool. It is already possible for the template cite web and essentially this feature would be very helpful for the the two latter templates as well. The trouble is, if you add  and   to either template without setting the   parameter, the template assumes that the original URL is dead. I set  manually after inserting using RefToolbar, but less experienced users might be overlook this detail. The issue has been brought up before, without being discussed or resolved. Let me know if I there is anything I can do to help make this happen. askeuhd (talk) 13:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Gernerates bad DOIs
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/phoc/25/5/1520-0485_1995_025_0855_ieodc_2_0_co_2.xml this reference generates: instead of the correct I have seen a bunch of these showing up recently in the broken doi category. I have been fixing them by hand, but now I know that this gadget is to blame. Lots of DOIs missing " " in the middle. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm. Looks like https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/#/Citation/getCitation might be the source. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T283101 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * After six years of this bug existing, they are working on it.  Tester https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/data/citation/mediawiki/https%3A%2F%2Fjournals.ametsoc.org%2Fview%2Fjournals%2Fphoc%2F25%2F5%2F1520-0485_1995_025_0855_ieodc_2_0_co_2.xml AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

try catch blocks for new Date
Does replacing this block look okay to everyone? If so I can add it myself as I do have the interface right but thought I'd check first in case anyone has any objections. It's needed because otherwise if a date is invalid, NaN will get inserted. This simply adds two try catch blocks around two places that use a Date. This code just doesn't add the date if it is invalid, but alternatively we could add it anyway in the catch block and let the user fix any errors. Mvolz (WMF) (talk) 10:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * On further examination, I have found a few more bugs. Currently if you are searching by ISBN in the Cite book template, there is no validation so YYYY-MM gets inserted. However, if searching by URL in the Cite book template, partial dates don't get added at all, because the code tries to strip out the month and put it in the year field, which was removed in this diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki%3ARefToolbarConfig.js&type=revision&diff=594697871&oldid=594696161.


 * Consequently I've amended the proposed change to fix it so that partial dates are both validated and inserted into the book template. To replaces lines 585 - 639. Please let me know if there are any objections. Mvolz (WMF) (talk) 12:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * This is now done; please let me know if there any issues with it. Mvolz (WMF) (talk) 10:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @Mvolz (WMF) I don't know if it is related to this change but now when I use the toolbar access-date displays in my local preference format (in my case dd mmmm yyyy) but the date field is always yyyy-mmmm-dd. Previously this would display in my preferred format. Nthep (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @Nthep You're correct, this should be fixed now. Thanks for catching this! Please let me know if you any further problems (I've now enabled email notifications for mentions so hopefully a better response time next time!)

Date formats
In the last couple of weeks, I think, Reftoolbar has started to format most but not all of my dates (ref date and access-date) as "2021-06-02" rather than "2 June 2021". Is there a setting I can tweak to get back to using my preferred date format? It's tedious having to correct it every time, and this is new. Pam D  07:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * For articles that you are working on, you can add or  at the top of the article so that all cs1|2 templates in that article will render dates (those that our readers see) in the chosen format regardless of how the date is set in the RefToolbar date fields.  User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates can be used to normalize an article's dates to a common format in the wikitext.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That is true but it is irritating to see mixed date formats in Ref toolbar. What recent change to ref toolbar has introduced this behaviour and why? Nthep (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't say what it is that you do to get RefToolbar to show different date formats. I suspect, but don't know, that citoid is the tool that places the dates in the RefToolbar forms when editors click the quizzing-glass icon.  If that is correct, citoid is the source of your irritation, not RefToolbar.  Of course, I could be wrong because whatever change was made, I did not do it, so if you are blaming me, your anger is misdirected.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not blaming you as I question whether it's the edits made by last month to RefToolbar.js that have caused the issue and RefToolbar is returning dates in different formats in different fields.  Access-date displays in my local preference format (in my case dd mmmm yyyy) but the date field is always yyyy-mmmm-dd. Nthep (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Examples: I used the "news" option, added the URL https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-57350650 and clicked the magnifying-glass icon, and the date which appeared in "Date" was 2021-06-04. Same with https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/how-edward-colstons-statue-displayed-5487946. So Reftoolbar is producing non-MOS-compliant references, as all-numeric dates are not allowed in the date field of a reference. (The "access date" field formatted correctly as 4 June 2021). In some other instances, the non-compliant date has been added to a "date" field which isn't immediately visible (in a "below the fold" field only visible with "display additional fields" button), probably when using "cite web" - when I next find an example I'll return with details. Please fix this. Pam  D  07:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What you describe does look like something that should be fixed, but YYYY-MM-DD dates are allowed in references, per MOS:DATEFORMAT. To ensure that dates are displayed consistently, it's a good idea to add to the top of an article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this was my mistake. Sorry it took so long to respond... I've enabled email notifs now. Fixed in this diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki%3ARefToolbar.js&type=revision&diff=1031408439&oldid=1023982855 Mvolz (WMF) (talk) 12:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * @Mvolz (WMF) Thank you. Nthep (talk) 12:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Bug: Repeated autofill with multiple authors adds blank authors
When using autofill, if there is more than 1 author, new entries get added for the additional authors. For instance, if there are 4 authors, the first entry gets the first author's information, and 3 new entries get added for the remaining 3 authors. However, if the autofill button is clicked a second time, blank entries are added that never get used (the first entries still get replaced as expected). This happens if you autofill with the same field multiple times, or if you try to autofill with multiple fields (I initially ran into this when first auto-filling with a DOI (10.1016/s0042-6989(03)00121-4) and then with a PMID (12742109)). These blank entries don't end up in the generated citation, which is good, but it's still odd behavior. --Pokechu22 (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Request: Open Access tickbox
Would it be possible to add a tickbox to RefToolbar (or just it's 'journal citation' section) to mark references as being open access? Scientific articles mostly use academic journals as references and >90% of these are pay-walled, however many editors focus on finding the 10% which are Open Access. Papers which are open access are clearly shown as such on the publisher website - so we know what we're adding. Template:Cite journal includes parameters for displaying a reference as being open access, so hopefully adding this feature should be easy (?). Currently you either have to add |doi-access=free manually (few editors do this) or run 'Citation bot' (resource heavy). --Project Osprey (talk) 09:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Autofill failure
If I try to use the autofill option from any of the templates I end up at a broken tab, and have to back out of editting. I believe it only happens if the result was successful, as entering something deliberately designed to fail doesn't reproduce the same result. I'm using Chrome on Android while using the desktop site, if any of that is relevant. Has something changed recently? LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 20:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Ignore me. After playing around, and just about to write another comment it's started working again. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 21:16, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Option to allow mdy automatic date insertion/formatting?
Is there a way to use  format when automatically inserting dates, or at least an option/button to format default   to   and vice versa? It is very tedious to manually change the date from the defualt  to   each time a new reference is added. —Sanglahi86 (talk) 11:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If the article that you are editing has, the cs1|2 template created by RefToolbar will render dates in mdy format. If you  have the wikitext dates all-in-one-format then there is a user script that will do that for you.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Edge compatibility issues?
Is it just me or do the actual fields not show up when using Microsoft Edge? Maybe I'm being dumb or something but when I open cite, and select any one of the templates, it's the actual parameters to fill in are blank. -- Tærkast (Discuss) 17:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC) -- Tærkast (Discuss) 14:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there anyone able to help me? Tærkast  (Discuss) 19:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm going to assume nobody is able to? Shame. -- Tærkast (Discuss) 14:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

feature enhancement to RefToolbar: www.youtube.com/watch: dateText
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpiRWKRn1tE has ,"dateText":{"simpleText":"Jun 1, 2022"}}},

using source code editor citation template please parse for :

  .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 04:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Add OCLC parameter to Template:Cite book?
Template:Cite book has an "OCLC" parameter that mimics the functionality of Template:OCLC, adding a link to Worldcat. Would it be possible to add this parameter to the "Extra fields" section of the menu in the toolbar? Right now I have to go back and add the parameter by hand after closing the toolbar. OCLC is very useful for citing books from before 1967, since OCLC numbers have been retroactively assigned to these books but ISBNs haven't. Thanks! blameless 02:21, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Autofill improperly stuffing corporate authors into the firstname and lastname params?
Hi, I've had a user report to me that when using RefToolbar to cite https://www.ptv.vic.gov.au/route/timetable/11/pakenham/ the autofill from URL is coming up with Victoria Public Transport, which is a fault by the CS1 guidance. I've confirmed the behaviour with that URL myself. Is this a flaw in the toolbar or something to do with how the website is configured? Thanks. XAM2175 (T) 12:17, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

To edit refs already on the page?
Is there any way to use the RefToolbar tool to load refs already on the page, for editing. Rob Kam (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

ISBN autofill broken
See Village pump (technical). Nothing happens when you click the autofill icon. I suggest we let users know. Remove the icon if possible. If  is supported in MediaWiki:RefToolbarMessages-en.js then create a message with something like "The ISBN autofill feature is currently unavailable for technical reasons". Othwerwise add something briefer like "(no autofill)" to. The purpose is to avoid users wasting time trying to get it to work or report it's broken. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)


 * As per this request, I've now removed the icon in this diff. -Mvolz (WMF) (talk) 09:35, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I've reverted the edit as ISBNs are partially restored by T336727, however, if the failure rate is too high feel free to ping me and I can re-revert. (Or someone else can, obviously!) Mvolz (WMF) (talk) 08:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

unable to create citation for website showing "Secure site not available"
Unable to create citation on en & te wiki for http website. If i visit website on browser, shows error Secure site not available. Is this limitation? రుద్రుడు చెచ్క్వికి (talk) 13:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Edit request
(Posting here since MediaWiki talk:RefToolbar.js is a redirect to this page.)

The autoMsg function in the WikiEditor extension, which is used by this script, is about to be deprecated. In order for this script to stay up-to-date, please replace the content of MediaWiki:RefToolbar.js with what I put in P49563. Feel free to preview the diff to see what is changed. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 09:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Here's a diff, for convenience of the reviewing interface administrator. – Novem Linguae (talk) 09:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Izno (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Request: make ref tags optional?
Thanks for this extremely useful tool, which makes editing much easier for me. I'm wondering whether it might be possible to add a checkmark so that the user can choose whether the outputted citation will be surrounded by  tags or not. This would be useful when using the tool to fill out the bibliography/further reading sections of articles; it is a mild pain when entering large numbers of new books/articles to manually delete the ref tags from each one. Furius (talk) 14:13, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Title handling in URL autofill
I've been fixing citations in Category:CS1 maintenance, and I found that in citations that seem to have been inserted using autofill from a URL, the name of the publication is often appended to the title. Sometimes it turns out that the page has both a  tag and a title   tag, and the   tag contains the actual title whereas the   tag has the name of the publication appended. For instance, this page has  and. The autofill uses the  tag, resulting in titles that need to be truncated by hand.

So I think the autofill should compare the contents of the two tags, and if one of them is a prefix of the other it should use the shorter one. I tried looking into this myself, but after finding my way from MediaWiki:RefToolbar.js to reftoolbar at toolforge to Citoid I gave up trying to find the code that actually does this. Perhaps someone more familiar with the code could do this, or tell me where to find it. Joriki (talk) 09:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Call graph out of date
The Call graph is outdated. It says "as of 30 April 2014", and the tools have moved to toolforge.org in the meantime. I'm not familiar enough with the code to update it reliably, but if someone tells me what to change I'd be happy to do the graphics. Joriki (talk) 10:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Wrong date preview
The preview in this tool shows dates in a different format than they end up appearing in the article. As far as I can tell, what happens is: In the "Wikitext" preview, the date is displayed as entered; in the "Parsed wikitext" preview, the date is formatted according to the article's preferred style (as specified e.g. by Use dmy dates); the wikitext is inserted into the article as previewed; but the article isn't automatically displayed with dates formatted in its preferred style.

This is confusing. It's a nice feature that the date automatically appears appropriately formated in the preview; but if that doesn't also happen when the article is displayed, it just gives the editor the wrong impression that the date format will be automatically handled, so they don't have to worry about it, when it actually isn't. Joriki (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The problem is apparently more limited than I thought. The preview is usually consistent with the display on the page – it's just that it doesn't take edits into account, so if you add or remove a template like Use dmy dates in the edit, that's not reflected in the preview. Since one shouldn't usually make those two changes in one go, that's not that much of a problem. Joriki (talk) 09:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I realize now how the problem originally arose. When you edit a section, the section preview (both the live one and when you click "Show Preview) doesn't take into account date format templates that aren't within the section. But RefToolbar does – apparently it queries the page as a whole to find out how to format the preview. So actually the RefToolbar preview is correct (unless you've added or removed a date format template), and it's the section preview that's wrong. Joriki (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

503 Service Unavailable
see https://reftoolbar.toolforge.org/lookup.php?doi=10.2305/IUCN.UK.2019-3.RLTS.T8789A17963505.en&template=journal Shizhao (talk) 02:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)