I really like ProveIt, but I very often find the result fails validation in the cite template with

 {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

The ProveIt tool inserts a date like 2009-01, cite flunks it, so I have to manually edit to 2009-01-01.

Can ProveIt just put a valid date in? I always us DOI inputs, so the date is whatever the publisher offered, typically only a month not a day. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the date that ProveIt gets in the case of DOI load is from the Wikipedia Citoid service and that date is in YYYY-MM-DD format per https://forums.zotero.org/discussion/69241/date-format-mangling-on-import-of-doi

The Template:Citation#Dates and Help:Citation_Style_1#Dates suggest that YYYY-MM-DD would be acceptable.

Therefore the problem seems to be that many sources only provide YYYY-MM which is not acceptable to cite template or the MOS:

• the format expected in the citation style being used (but all-numeric date formats other than yyyy-mm-dd must still be avoided).

So any sources with a monthly publication model will result in a cite template error when added via the DOI feature in ProveIt.

When the Citoid data is moved from the JSON API result to the proveit template data here:

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/plugins/gitiles/mediawiki/gadgets/ProveIt/+/refs/heads/master/proveit.js#542

the date values in YYYY-MM format could be patched up. The simplest patch would be YYYY-MM -> YYYY-MM-01; the best patch would be to convert the MM to a month, Month YYYY. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The simplest patch would be YYYY-MM -> YYYY-MM-01. Don't do that. Earlier versions of citoid and/or its predecessors did that but, thankfully, they no longer do. Making up a day-specific date to avoid the cs1|2 error resulting from the MOS restriction is a bad practice that should not be restored.

It was once proposed that citoid use the Library of Congress EDTF format (subsequently made part of ISO 8601-2019) YYYY-MM-XX (T132308) and support for that was provided in Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation. The cs1|2 module auto-translated EDTF dates to Month YYYY. Ultimately, the the proposal was abandoned.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Trappist the monk What do you think Proveit should do? Sophivorus (talk) 13:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got access to the MediaWiki #time parser? If yes, perhaps fetch the date from it:

{{#time:F Y|YYYY-MM|<local language tag>}} → {{#time:F Y|2001-02|en}} → February 2001

That should return the proper date for most wikipedias which you can then insert in to the cs1|2 template's |date= parameter. You may need to use {{#time:xg Y|YYYY-MM|<local language tag>}} for those languages that distinguish genitive from nominative (whatever that is – grammar in my own language is difficult enough for me so I don't even try to understand grammar in other languages).

The above not being possible, I suppose that you could create some sort of data array that maps language tag and month number to month name for that language.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to have a "don't show me again" button when using the normalize feature to skip the WP:COSMETIC warning? I imagine most times that button is clicked, the editor is fully aware of the potential issues and policy, and is operating responsibly. Remsense留 17:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please add {{Cite Rotten Tomatoes}} and {{Cite Metacritic}}. Gonnym (talk) 10:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym Done, sorry for the delay. Sophivorus (talk) 14:32, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the new "archiving" feature. (The one that puts an "Archive" button in the URL field and searches the Internet Archive for archived revisions). I noticed, however, that the button also appears in the Archive-URL field, which seems a but odd. Was this deliberate? 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 14:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cremastra Hi! No, it's not deliberate, but a side effect of the fact that Proveit adds the Archive button to every field of type "url" (as defined by the template data of each citation template). I can't think of a fix that works cross-wiki yet. Sophivorus (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some sort of config option could be added to make it opt-in, but it would be useful to be able to use ProveIt on template pages like Template:2024MERep. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Unknown-Tree Done, see Special:Diff/1212427273, cheers! Sophivorus (talk) 20:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know how ProveIt could have gotten this idea? It's taken OCLC 922086108 (A.C. Fox-Davies, A Complete Guide to Heraldry), and mapped it to DOI 10.1016/0006-8993(79)90456-6 (Palacios, Niehoff, Kuhar, "Ontogeny of GABA and benzodiazepine receptors: Effects of Triton X-100, bromide and muscimol"). Aware this error is almost two years old at this point, but thought I'd bring it here just in case. Folly Mox (talk) 12:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed to see that this bug I raised in 2022 has not yet been fully resolved. Sdkb ^talk 19:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another related issue: In the reference

<ref>{{cite news |last1=Parsa |first1=Julia |last2=Harper |first2=Sage |last3=Tambellini-Smith |first3=Unity |last4=Evans |first4=Jaya |title=Sexual Assault Campus Climate: A summary of student demographics |url=https://tsl.news/sexual-assault-campus-climate-a-summary-of-student-demographics/ |url-status=live |access-date=5 February 2024 |language=en |work=[[The Student Life]] |date=2 February 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240204072328/https://tsl.news/sexual-assault-campus-climate-a-summary-of-student-demographics/ |archive-date=February 4, 2024}}</ref>

ProveIt changed |last1= and |first1= to |last= and |first=, despite there being additional authors. Sdkb ^talk 20:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surprised this hasn't been brought up before, but ProveIt's interface is coming up unreadable for me with the site's appearance selector set to Dark mode; all of the text is white-on-near-white. The main issue seems to be that many of ProveIt's styles don't follow the Recommendations for night mode compatibility on Wikimedia wikis, which say:

Always define color when defining background

When defining a background color, it may be tempting not to define the color if it is the same as the article text color. However, when different themes e.g. night mode are applied, this could have unintended consequences (e.g. white text on a yellow background). It is thus recommended that you always define the two together.

The main ProveIt styles all set a light background-color while leaving color defaulted. FeRDNYC (talk) 05:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone who needs it, here's my bodge you can stick in your common.css or what have you:

@media (prefers-color-scheme:dark) {
	#proveit, #proveit-body, .proveit-item:nth-child(odd) {
		color: unset!important
		background-color: var(--background-color-base)!important
	}
	#proveit-footer {
		background-color: var(--border-color-muted)!important
	}
	#proveit-header {
		background-color: var(--color-inverted)!important
	}
	#proveit-list .proveit-item:hover {
		background-color: var(--border-color-progressive--hover)!important
	}
	#proveit input, #proveit select, #proveit textarea {
		background-color: var(--background-color-interactive-subtle)!important
	}
}

Remsense ‥ 论 18:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Special:Diff/1242637481, this script mangled a reference containing |editor3-first=Deyuan <!--|year=1994 onwards--> by reordering the parameters so |year=1994 onwards--> came before |editor3-first=Deyuan <!--, leaving the reference with an unclosed comment and breaking display of that and all subsequent refs in the article. It also seems to have somehow duplicated some of the other parameters. Anomie⚔ 13:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And that is why normalizing references should be done carefully and double-checked. Nobody (talk) 05:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be feasible to automate in normalization, per Help:Citation Style 1#Work and publisher, the removal of redundant locations e.g. publisher=Cambridge University Press |location=Cambridge? Of course, the one hang-up I can immediately imagine is when multiple locations are specified, but that seems easy to consistently check for. Remsense ‥ 论 18:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm a fan user of ProveIt. Thanks to maintain it. I come here to say that there is a bug : in the article option, the periodic is no longer mentioned; instead, it is indicated "CrossRef". Is it possible to fix it ? Thanks in advance. Abalg (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abalg Hi! I'm afraid I can't understand what you mean. If you can explain a bit more clearly, I'd be happy to help. Sophivorus (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sophivorus. For example :

{{Article |langue=en |prénom1=Thomas |nom1=Læssøe |prénom2=Brian |nom2=Spooner |titre=The uses of ‘Gasteromycetes’ |périodique=CrossRef |volume=8 |numéro=4 |pages=154–159 |date=1994-11 |doi=10.1016/S0269-915X(09)80179-1 |lire en ligne=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0269915X09801791 |consulté le=2025-02-27}}

CrossRef is used instead of the real periodic/journal --> Mycologist.

By the way, I use ProveIt in French. --Abalg (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abalg Hi again! I went to frwiki, copied your wikitext, opened the reference with Proveit, looked around, previewed the changes, normalized the reference, etc. but I can't find anything wrong. I also tried generating the reference automatically out of the URL and the periodic loaded correctly (apparently it's "ScienceDirect" rather than "Mycologist"). What exactly do you do, what do you expect and what happens instead? Also, if you can share a screenshot pointing to the problem that will probably help a lot. Thanks! Sophivorus (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sophivorus. No. ScienceDirect is not the correct periodic, it's the internet site of the editor Elsevier. Mycologist is the correct one, I'm 100 % sure. As I said, in the week I've been using ProveIt with dozens of DOIs, the problem is the same: the article option comes every times with the wrong periodical answer ‘CrossRef’. In your test, did you really use the ‘article’ option ? Because the option 'Lien web' will give you the internet website in answer, not the periodic. Here an other example with the issue :

{{Article |langue=en |prénom1=Charly |nom1=Géron |prénom2=Ross N. |nom2=Cuthbert |prénom3=Hoël |nom3=Hotte |prénom4=David |nom4=Renault |titre=Density-dependent predatory impacts of an invasive beetle across a subantarctic archipelago |périodique=CrossRef |volume=13 |numéro=1 |date=2023-09-02 |issn=2045-2322 |doi=10.1038/s41598-023-41089-2 |lire en ligne=https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-41089-2 |consulté le=2025-03-01}}

As you can see, Crossref is used instead of Scientific Reports. --Abalg (talk) 15:29, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the issue is still there. I'm afraid it's a major source of error in our Wikipedia articles, as few contributors will check whether ProveIt gives a correct answer or not. --Abalg (talk) 10:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you load it using the doi instead of the url it works correctly. Nobody (talk) 13:12, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1AmNobody24, I had never used the url, always the doi. The issue is still there this morning with 10.47446/OSMIA13.1 . --Abalg (talk) 13:20, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I load the reference with that doi I get <ref>{{Cite journal |last=Ropars |first=Lise |last2=Aubert |first2=Matthieu |last3=Genoud |first3=David |last4=Le Divelec |first4=Romain |last5=Dufrêne |first5=Éric |last6=Cornuel-Willermoz |first6=Alexandre |last7=Dorchin |first7=Achik |last8=Flacher |first8=Floriane |last9=Flaminio |first9=Simone |last10=Gadoum |first10=Serge |last11=Ghisbain |first11=Guillaume |last12=Kasparek |first12=Max |last13=Kuhlmann |first13=Michael |last14=Leclercq |first14=Vincent |last15=Le Féon |first15=Violette |date=2025-02-12 |title=Mise à jour de la liste des abeilles de France métropolitaine (Hymenoptera : Apocrita : Apoidea) |url=https://www.osmia-journal-hymenoptera.com/osmia-13-1.html |journal=Osmia |volume=13 |pages=1–48 |doi=10.47446/OSMIA13.1 |issn=2727-3806}}</ref> which looks good to me. Nobody (talk) 13:25, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1AmNobody24. Yes, your result is good. Mine is not: {{Article |prénom1=Lise |nom1=Ropars |prénom2=Matthieu |nom2=Aubert |prénom3=David |nom3=Genoud |prénom4=Romain |nom4=Le Divelec |titre=Mise à jour de la liste des abeilles de France métropolitaine (Hymenoptera : Apocrita : Apoidea) |périodique=CrossRef |volume=13 |pages=1–48 |date=2025-02-12 |issn=2727-3806 |doi=10.47446/OSMIA13.1 |lire en ligne=https://www.osmia-journal-hymenoptera.com/osmia-13-1.html |consulté le=2025-03-05}}. --Abalg (talk) 13:29, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abalg @1AmNobody24 Looking into it, will be back soon with updates or a fix. Sophivorus (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sophivorus. --Abalg (talk) 13:54, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abalg @1AmNobody24 Hi again! I was able to track down the cause to a questionable mapping of Citoid parameters to template parameters. See what I did here and please add the /doc page to your watchlist in case someone reverts or comments. I just tested the change and it seems to work, but do test it out too and let me know! Sophivorus (talk) 14:12, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's worked!!! Issue fixed! Thank you a lot Sophivorus. Have a great day. --Abalg (talk) 14:23, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm thinking on requesting a rapid grant to improve the Proveit gadget. In the past I requested two other grants (first, second) which were a great success. Sometimes I do updates and fixes as a volunteer, but reality is that big updates and improvements require more time that I'm willing to put in for free. Thus, I'd like to request a third grant to do several things, some of which you've requested in this talk page, others are listed at the Phabricator project and others I list below:

• Add support for the "extends" parameter
• Add a button to "convert" a reference that is just a URL, into a full reference (similar to the button in the visual editor)
• Make the gadget compatible with dark-mode
• Update the code to more current standards (for example, get rid of deprecated libraries like OOUI and jQuery UI)

Would you support such a grant? What other features and bugs would you like me to tackle? Thanks! Sophivorus (talk) 14:55, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Would the convert button function the same as the load one? Given that this would make it a bit more automated, would you be open to create something like WP:AWBRULES for ProveIt?
• Could you consider adding a button that checks if the input in the website, journal, publisher, magazine, etc. parameter exists on Wikipedia for easier wikilinking?
• Could you investigate if it's possible for ProveIt to stay open when reloading the realtimepreview?
• Could you investigate if it's possible for ProveIt to easily respect/set date formatting (dmy/mdy)? (Edit: Might be the same idea as T248050)

Either way you have my support. Nobody (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support and the ideas. Yes I'll do my best to implement them! Sophivorus (talk) 12:53, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]