Wikipedia talk:RefToolbar
|
Old 1.0 page (2008–12) Old 2.0 page (2009–12) Before talk centralization:
Current archives: |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
page and pages parameter info
The |page= and |pages= parameter info icons are both very small and also give incorrect documentation. Yes, HELP:CS1 is confusing as all hell on this, but |pages= is basically exclusively for citing a journal article or book chapter where the bibliographic info says that the entire piece is located within the publication under the range of these pages. Wheres |page= is used when one wants to cite, in the article, a specific page or pages within the source to support a given piece of prose. These are semantically entirely different things (and you'd think as such that CS1 would allow both to be used in the same template call, and have clear aliases, but no).
RefTemplate's current documentation makes virtually universal mistake (imo entirely the fault of CS1 documentation) of asserting that |page= is for citing one page and |pages= is for citing a range or multiple pages. Unfortunately, bots cannot correct this. But you can at least change the information popup (and make it slightly bigger, and allow both hover and click for ease of mobile use). SamuelRiv (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Update the available fields
Two requests:
- Is it possible to add the "URL status" field that is present in "cite web" into the "cite news" window?
Cite news already has the "Archive URL" and "Archive date" fields available, but without the "URL status" field, it always defaults to showing the archived page vice the live page once the citation is generated unless "url-status=live" is manually added. (This seems like it might the be easier of the requests since this field is already present in cite web.) - Is it possible to add a "Via" field to both "cite web" and "cite news" to generate a "via=" parameter in the generated citation?
This one does not appear to be present in any of the RefToolbar options, so it might be more labor intensive and a lower need. I can always use the "Agency" field (or any other field) and change|agency=to|via=manually.
Pinging @MusikAnimal: as the only semi-active maintainer left listed on https://toolsadmin.wikimedia.org/tools/id/reftoolbar, and @Izno: as the last editor to update the tool per Special:History/MediaWiki:RefToolbar.js. -2pou (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Add different templates
Is it possible to add other cite templates like Template:cite report? Traumnovelle (talk) 02:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Book citation (RefToolbar) - request change in order of parameters
Currently using the RefTool for citing a book produces a citation with this order:
{{cite book |last1= |first1= |author1-link= |editor1-last= |editor1-first= |editor1-link= |title= |date= |publisher= |location= |isbn= |pages= |edition= |url= |access-date= |archive-url= |archive-date= |language= |chapter= }}
At Template:Cite book the order of the parameters is listed this way:
{{cite book |last1= |first1= |author-link1= |editor-last1= |editor-first1= |editor-link1= |year= |chapter= |title= |url= |language= |edition= |location= |publisher= |pages= |isbn= |archive-url= |archive-date= |access-date= }}
The order of the parameters shown at the template more closely matches how they are displayed in a reference. Is there a reason for the citations of books to not follow the same order as at found at the page about the cite book template? If it is not a big deal to change it, I think having the order be standardized would be an improvement in the readability of the wikicode produced by the RefToolbar. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 19:36, 31 August 2024 (UTC)