Wikipedia talk:RefToolbar/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

is refToolPlus broken?

One of my students tried installing Wikipedia:RefToolbar/1.0#refToolPlus, but we couldn't get it to work (yes, we disabled the regular toolbar in prefs, and CTRL+F5 reloaded pages). Perhaps it was the IE (it was the only browser in the lab :( ). (On a sidenote, how long before this very useful Google Book link to ref functionality is part of the regular toolbar?) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Which skin are they using? The advice on that page is to install to monobook.js, so presumably the gadget only works with that specific skin, and not another like Vector. Vector has been the default for all users registered since mid-2010, but there are several gadgets that still don't work with it. Does it work if at Preferences → Appearance they switch to monobook skin? --Redrose64 (talk) 10:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Good point, but I am not going to have my students use the old interface just to make one gadget work, so even if this is the case, the work-around is not helpful (but I do appreciate your id-ing of the likely problem). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@Piotrus: There is a new tool that might help, autofilling refs. It builds on the new mw:Citoid features for VisualEditor. It is still beta, not yet done. To make it easy to use on-wiki, there is one user script for VE

• User:Mvolz/veCiteFromURL

and one (alpha!) user script for wikitext

• User:Salix alba/Citoid

BTW, I have collected these and two dozen more citation tools at de:Benutzer:Atlasowa/ref citation tools (old / new / website / addons / bookmarklets / etc.) for comparison.

I really hope that we can have this citoid feature in the RefToolbar! Anybody knows how to integrate it? --Atlasowa (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions for citation tool

I've started using the "Cite" form in the RefToolbar more and more, in lieu of manually typing {{cite web|blablabla}}. I understand that clicking "Show/Hide Extra Fields" will show probably more fields than most people would use anyway, but there are still some fields that I wish it included. One is subscription=yes/no. I also wish that the format field in the GUI was a dropdown instead of free text, which included some of the most popular formats, such as PDF, DOC or XLS. Thank you everyone for your hard work in creating this citation reference tool. Lugevas (talk) 02:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

|subscription= just looks for a value; yeas and no give the same result. --  Gadget850 ^talk 02:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

That should probably be fixed; Module:Citation/CS1 shouldn't display the subscription message when |subscription=no.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 03:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

|registration= as well. --  Gadget850 ^talk 10:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I've tweaked Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox so that |subscription= and |registration= display the appropriate link note only when set to yes, true, or y.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Seconded: I've just come here to suggest "subscription" and "registration" tickboxes too. (I've made a couple of recent links to the online OED). PamD 11:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Adding embedded file: "thumb" or "thumbnail"?

When I add a file using the "embedded file" button on the toolbar, the default size option added is "thumbnail". An editor has just changed that to "thumb" in an article I've edited. Looking at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Image_syntax, "thumb" is used, though I see that Wikipedia:Extended_image_syntax, after initially showing "thumb" as the word to use, then refers to ""thumb" (or "thumbnail"...". It looks as if the RefToolbar is offering the less preferred word here: could it be changed so it adds "thumb", please? PamD 09:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

RefToolbar is the citation part of the Edit toolbar; see Help:Edit toolbar. Best to ask this at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). --  Gadget850 ^talk 09:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Gadget850: Thanks - see Help_talk:Edit_toolbar#Thumb_or_Thumbnail.3F. PamD 09:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Toolbar generating date errors

Can this be fixed? I just generated this now, from the PMID:

Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes been getting it a few days to. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The tool hasn't changed, it's just that the errors used to be "silent" and I think eventually fixed by a bot, but on the 11th I think they turned the error messages to visible. See (if you have time on your hands) Help talk:Citation Style 1, especially this section Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Error_messages_across_the_entire_project Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I think I recreated the circumstances. Select Cite → Templates → cite journal. Enter 22592847 in the PMID field and click on the autofill icon (magnifying glass). The date is autofilled as 2012 May 16. This is how the date in the source is formatted, and a sampling shows that all of the NCBI dates are in that format. This format does not comply with MOS:DATEFORMAT which is the guideline the CS1 templates use in date checking. Also per MOS:DATEFORMAT, publication dates in an article's citations should all use the same format and RefToolbar is not going to apply that, thus the date can be in whatever format the source uses. RefToolbar autofill grabs the date in whatever format the source uses with no formatting or checking and no regard for the current date format in an article. QED. --  Gadget850 ^talk 14:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

So the suggested fix is to eliminate the PMID autofill? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Certainly not. It is to get the tool to convert the date to an approved format (or change the MOS). Wiki CRUK John (talk) 14:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

See Gadget850's last two sentences. Per that, "an approved format" is not good enough. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

A possible solution would be for the autofill to display the source date as protected text to the right of the "Date" input field. The user could then look at that date and enter it in the correct format for that article. It's far from an ideal solution, but it's perhaps better than any alternative, and something to consider. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Which date is "wrong", the access data or the "|date=2012 May 16"? Breaking the tool is silly. Just accept whatever data format is entered.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The |date=2012 May 16 is wrong because that is not a valid date format per MOS. The accessdate error was created by the user, by entering an accessdate without a url, and that error has nothing to do with this issue. The following shows what is created by the PMID autofill, without any user changes.

‑‑Mandruss (talk) 16:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

There's an access date error? How do I know that? I just hit the calendar icon. There's no URL because one is not needed with the PMID link. Should I not add any access date? If so, how am I supposed to know that? Wiki CRUK John (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

In your example above, I see two errors. The first is the date error, the second is "|accessdate= requires |url= (help)". If you're not seeing that, I don't know why. CS1 rules say that accessdate without url is an error condition, because accessdate by definition applies to a web page. You'll find this in the doc for accessdate in {{Cite journal}}. And thanks for illustrating the need for the error messages. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 17:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Help:CS1 errors#Controlling error message display.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Now I'm confused, as I thought those error messages were enabled for everyone now. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The RfC that caused us to turn off date errors also required us to turn off several other errors because of the way the RfC was worded. One of those that got turned off, and perhaps the one that caused the most furor, was the accessdate error. With the 11 October 2014 update, the only error message that was re-enabled was the date error message.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, this is only an "error" because "we" (ha!) have chosen to make it so. The PMID link is certainly a URL. I can see the argument that as it is permanent there is no need for an access date, but there is certainly no harm, and in fact there is considerable utility in having one, as it shows you the date at which a previous editor thought this particlar PMID the best reference - a very important point in medical articles. It seems that even the left hand doersn't know what the left hand is doing here. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, but that's outside the scope of this discussion as it has nothing to do with RefToolbar. Your beef is with CS1. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The change is to the core functionality of the CS1 templates. The templates have a system of error checking that ensure the quality of the citations. The date checking has been enabled for some time but the errors were only visible to those who enabled them. This allowed bots to run through and fix thousands of errors. The last update made the errors visible to all. With this report, we now understand how many of these dates with invalid formats have been inserted into citations. --  Gadget850 ^talk 16:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It would seem to me that any 'fix' to the RefToolbar should default to a MOS compliant date format. It would also seem that users should be able specify a preferred format so that new citations are in keeping with the format chosen for the article. I would also suggest that the accessdate field be disabled until the url field has a value.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

All good ideas. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 17:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a gentle reminder that editors are responsible for checking their edits, even when using automated or semi-automated tools like Reftoolbar or Reflinks. If a semi-automated tool suggests the addition of a date deemed unacceptable by the MOS, it is the responsibility of the editor to fix that date. That said, BattyBot, which runs about once a month, will fix PMID-style dates for you if you are willing to wait for it to come around, and making the Reftoolbar more sophisticated as suggested above would be a positive development. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll gently disagree with your gentle reminder, based on two or three decades of designing and developing user interface software. It's just good practice to take all reasonable measures to make user errors impossible. I wouldn't want to have to explain to an editor why a mainstream Wikipedia tool is introducing data that is unacceptable to Wikipedia, and then expecting them to fix it. We should be designing for the inexperienced editor who, with all the other learning required, hasn't yet memorized the valid date formats per MOS. I fully support what you said after your final comma. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 01:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

RefToolbar should check and properly format the dates. Who is taking on this task? --  Gadget850 ^talk 17:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Since I'm basically the only one actually maintaining it, I guess I am. By "properly format", it will default to the format set in MediaWiki:RefToolbarConfig.js, which is the type "18 October 2014". Users can change it for themselves by following the directions here. Setting a specific format for each article would be difficult to do in a user-friendly way. Mr.Z-man 19:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Just an idea for consideration. The dialog box could have a date-format control, either a group of radio buttons or a dropdown menu. The settings you mentioned would determine the initial or default state of the the control. The control would determine the format produced by the PMID autofill and the accessdate calendar icon. For that matter, you could even take it further and automatically reformat any date entered manually, based on the date-format setting. I can't speak to the technical considerations. Your work is appreciated. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 20:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

If the article already has either {{use dmy dates}} or {{use mdy dates}}, that could be detected by the javascript to determine the preferred format, so the other format should not be offered. --Redrose64 (talk) 06:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Now that I read MOS:DATEUNIFY more closely, it seems that it's ok to use different formats for |date= and |accessdate= in the same article. That would kill my suggestion above. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 08:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Why? two radio buttons, a checkbox, and a bit of text along the horizontal rule that separates the control buttons from the data entry fields:

Date formats: () dmy () mdy – [] Use ymd for access and archive dates

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Not bad, but MOS:DATEUNIFY explicitly allows ymd for |date=, too. Wouldn't you need something like this?

Date as () dmy () mdy () ymd             Access date and Archive date as () dmy () mdy () ymd

‑‑Mandruss (talk) 11:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

That works too. I understand MOS:DATEUNIFY to say that archive and access date formats are to be the same as the publication date format or ymd. So I suggested a checkbox that would override the selected publication date format. I didn't include a ymd radio button because, for the most part, editors don't choose that format for publication dates.

Archive date (and url) fields are available on three of the four RefToolbar cite pages. I wonder about the appropriateness of archive date and url on the cite book page. I think it should be the same as the cite journal page. Archive date is not auto filled.

Autofilled dates as: () dmy () mdy () ymd             [] Access date as ymd

There may be a need for another version of this date format selector stuff. Autofilled dates are associated with DOI, ISBN, and PMID. DOI and PMID are journal article identifiers. Currently, the cite web RefToolbar has a field for DOI. I don't think that it belongs there. If it is removed, only the access date field is autofilled so for the cite web RefToolbar page, the date format selector might be:

Autofilled access date as: () dmy () mdy () ymd

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems this isn't as simple as we thought (that happens a lot). Do you think it's wise to decide important questions like this between two or three people on a talk page? You're getting into areas where I have no experience. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 22:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

There are always things that we have not thought about. Sometimes more brains thinking about things is good; often, though, too many brains is just too many brains and whatever discussion and progress there was falters to a halt. Parkinson's law of triviality? I'm quite content to leave what is, for the most part, a technical discussion here. Were we discussing matters of style or policy, then, yeah, a broader participation by the community would be required. But not for this issue. Matters of date style are settled. I suspect that most editors just want it to work, and work correctly. I think that the only person whose voice hasn't been heard, and whose voice should be heard is Editor @Mr.Z-man:.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The main complicating factor is that I've generally made an effort to make the tool as "generic" as possible so that it can be used on other wikis with minimal configuration. If their template system is based on ours, they can just copy and paste it, and translate the messages. But what the preferred date formats are on the English Wikipedia might not be the same on the Chinese or Turkish Wikipedias. I know the default setting on zhwiki is "2014-10-19", which is allowed here, but is probably less common. A set of radio buttons wouldn't be too hard; it could just be set not to display if the wiki only has one date setting. But it would still be a bit clunky as it would still rely on the user to manually choose the correct format for each article. Automatically detecting the format, based on something like {{use dmy dates}} would be a little more enwiki-specific. So it would need some sort of site-specific "extension" that it's not currently designed for. None of this is impossible, but all of it will probably take a while as long as I'm the only maintainer. The fix for PMID dates though should be done in a day or so, since it's mostly just a few minor changes to the lookup program to get it to output the same format as DOI. Mr.Z-man 02:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mr.Z-man:. This tool is absolutely fundamental for editors. What would you think of a community effort to try to get the WMF to formally start updating and maintaining Reftoolbar? Seems to me that for a small fraction of the cost and effort they have spent on the Visual Editor, they could have improved Reftoolbar and WikiEditor. Dollar per dollar this would have been a far better investment. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I've been asking for more maintainers - paid or volunteer - for years. I'd be all for it. An actual WMF employee/contractor, or even just someone funded by a grant to give it a one-time overhaul would be a major help. Mr.Z-man 02:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do a lot of training new editors in the medical and scientific areas. Already I can never get the DOI filler to work myself, and now I have to explain that most top-quality medical references will generate one or more error messages (which they may or may not be able to see) that they are supposed to fix? It would be great if it can be fixed, and certainly the WMF should invest more in this. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd recommend and RfC on whether WMF should dedicate more resources to it. I am pretty sure it would generate a lot of support, and thus force WMF to help out (which I am very surprised to learn they are not doing). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Belatedly adding support for any proposal for WMF to put some more support into RefToolBar - so useful for basic day to day editing, so important to so many editors. PamD 09:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

url vs. website

Please see this discusion of an issue with RefToolbar 2. Please can we change the tool's wording, so that the label "website" becomes "website name", to avoid confusion with the |url= parameter? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• MediaWiki:RefToolbarMessages-en.js:
  • 'cite-website-label' : 'Website', → 'cite-website-label' : 'Name of website (not URL)',

--  Gadget850 ^talk 01:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done -- Gadget850 ^talk 16:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Sajax

Discussion: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 135#User scripts using the old Sajax framework

MediaWiki:RefToolbarLegacy.js will probably stop working by the end of the year unless it isupdated. -- Gadget850 ^talk 16:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Appearance/font size changed

I don't know if I'm asking in the right place, but has RefToolbar's appearance and font size changed for anyone recently? It went from being size 16 or so to about size 20 or more, and the buttons have become quite large and are now grey. I've checked in both Chrome and Firefox and it's the same. I can't find anything about these changes. Have I missed something? How can I restore its previous appearance? Thanks, Melonkelon (talk) 21:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I've got the same - reassuring to know it's not just my computer. PamD 22:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Seems to be all dialogs; for example, → . -- Gadget850 ^talk 23:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

It's back to normal for me, which is good. Melonkelon (talk) 01:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

This was due to phab:T93050 —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Errors with pipes in titles

Please see WP:VPT#Errors with pipes in titles; this toolbar seems to be one of the culprits. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Now archived: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 110#Errors with pipes in titles; but still a problem. Can anyone help, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

This is still an active issue. Has anyone recognized this as an official issue yet? Interference 541 (talk) 05:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Show parsed preview by default?

Every single time I click "Preview" I then need to click "Show parsed preview" to see what I really want to see, which is "What does this reference look like?". It's irritating. I'm sure I'm not alone. I prefer to check my refs before hitting "Insert", especially as when I'm editing a section I don't see them when I hit "Show preview" for the whole edit, and the system makes me click on what seems an unnecessary link every time.

Could I suggest one of the following:

• Show the parsed reference by default (what problems would this cause, if any?)
• Have two separate buttons: "Preview" and "Preview code", where the first one shows the Parsed version as well as the code, and the second shows the current setup
• Have a preference or similar whereby I can opt to see the Parsed version automatically
• Have a preference or similar whereby anyone who doesn't want to see the Parsed version automatically can switch it off and remain with the current version, but the editors who want to see the Parsed version (possibly the vast majority?) are shown it by default.

Any thoughts? PamD 12:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

No replies, so no objections (well, not many people watching this page, I guess). Is there anyone technical out there who could implement this change (by any one of the four routes suggested above, or any other means to the same end)? PamD 09:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: this is now also asked at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RefToolbar: Show parsed preview by default.3F.

Fwiw, I agree with the request. I don't know anything about implementing it. Quiddity (talk) 19:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Format is now ALL CAPs

As of the past week or so, all of the |format= fields I have populated are all now ALL CAPS. I understand that the usage of the |format= field is for PDF and XLS, etc. But I also think it is a great place to add other possible formats, like audio interview, podcast, etc. I know this is not its original intention (the format field), but I think a little flexibility for this field would be responsive to the completeness and current existence of various types of resources online that are really great citations. I would like to suggest the ALL CAPS forced format be removed and leave it at whatever no format default it was before the last few weeks. Especially for other formats like PowerPoint, Google Docs, etc., which don't need to be ALL CAPS; if they were ALL CAPS I think they would be harder to read and would be jarring and a bit "scream-y."

Instead of the suggestion above, I was told I should be using the |type= parameter instead; however, it is not on the four options under Cite, Templates. Would it be possible to add the |type= parameter to these forms?

Thanks so much! BrillLyle (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

"Date" field not in default display for Cite web

Publication dates are a crucial part of all citations, especially on websites, but this tool inconsistently hides the "Date" field under the "extra fields" for Cite web. Dates should not be an "extra field"; they are crucial information, and should be part of the default fields presented on all citation types. Can this oversight be addressed, please? ViperSnake151  Talk  01:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Not working

When I click on the Cite option in the menu bar the options "templates", "names references" and "error check" appear. However, when I click on "templates" and select one of the option (eg "cite web") the pop-up has no options to fill in, only the bottom buttons ("insert" etc). Is this just a problem for me? Or is the RefToolbar having problems? Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 15:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes my favorite tool is giving me nothing. Am using another version here [1] but not integrated with the edit box. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Likewise, same issue for me as well since yesterday (August 20) at least. It has occurred both at home (Windows 10 with Firefox or Chrome) or at work (Linux/Chrome). If I can provide any additional information for the sake of troubleshooting, please let me know. Caidh (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

It's now working for me! Thank you to whoever fixed it. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 22:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Likewise. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Drag&drop

When you press the "Search and replace" button in Toolbar there opens a subordinate window, which allows a user to simply drag the text from the background text editing area & drop into the window of gadget. Is it possible to copy this feature in the gadget? --Vladis13 (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

News Citation parameters

Is it possible to add a couple more extra fields in the News Citation box? The parameters are 'via' and 'subscription' (per Template:Cite news) and are required by Wikipedia:BNA#Citation. Thanks. Derek Andrews (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Adding the OCLC number to the citation generation template in the source editor editing bar

We're at the Wikiconference USA session on OCLC, and there's a request to add the OCLC number to the citation generation template in the source editor editing bar. One person here thinks this task might be part of the Citoid team's portfolio, and says if it's not, you'd know who does this.

We're all really enthusiastic about how the ISBN can generate quick citations, and hoping the OCLC number could be made to do the same thing. --Djembayz (talk) 15:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Autofill not initiating in absence of incrementables

Hello, I've just tried to make autofills work on Czech Wikipedia, but in spite of probably correct modifications to the config, the magnifying glass button does not get any onclick event set on it. Upon detailed code inspection of MediaWiki:Gadget-refToolbarBase.js, I see that since the 1 June 2014 major update, autofill buttons are only initiated (set an onclick event) if at least one incrementable field has been detected (via the "needsetup" variable). I do not understand this dependency and because there are no incrementable fields in my forms, the autofill button is never initialized and clicking on it does not do any action. If I remove the check for needsetup, the button starts working. Is that check a feature or a bug? If a feature, what shall I do to get my button working? --Blahma (talk) 11:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Blahma: This should be fixed now. Mr.Z-man 04:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Turning on autoparse

Recently, a RefToolbar user filed a bug in Phabricator (T115694) requesting that RefToolbar show parsed previews by default, so that you don't have to click 2 links in order to see it ("Preview" and then "Show parsed preview"). This seemed like a sensible request, and after poking around in the code a bit, I discovered that there's actually a RefToolbar config setting to do just that. All you have to do is set autoparse to true in MediaWiki:RefToolbarConfig.js. Per the original request, I would like to suggest that we turn this feature on. It may be a tiny bit slower than showing only the WikiText preview, but I imagine that in 90% of cases, people want to actually see the parsed preview when they click "Preview" and thus have to click two links to get to it. Kaldari (talk) 00:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kaldari: That sounds a great solution. It looks as if no-one knows about the existing option: no reply to my post here in January. I wouldn't know how to find and change my RefToolbarConfig.js myself and I imagine I'm not alone there. Thanks for this suggestion. I strongly support it. PamD 06:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC) (corrected filename 08:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC))

P. S. Where should I have been able to find out that this option already existed? Did I miss some documentation, or is the knowledge only available to techies? PamD 06:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@PamD: I don't think it's documented anywhere other than in the code. I also don't think that you can override it personally. It looks like it's configured per wiki in the gadget code. Kaldari (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kaldari: Ah, I misunderstood your "All you have to do is ..." above! You meant "All a helpful techie has to do, for the whole or the English Wikipedia, is ....". Thanks for being that helpfu techie. PamD 19:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kaldari: It doesn't look as if anyone else who cares about this has got this page on their watchlist - too busy building the encyclopedia. Can you just go ahead and fix it, in the absence of any dissenting views (and of any objections to my original plea at #Show_parsed_preview_by_default.3F above in January 2015)? PamD 23:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@PamD: Sure. I'll go ahead and change it. It can always be changed back if someone objects. Kaldari (talk) 22:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kaldari: It's looking good - I was inputting a complicated ref, clicked preview, was about to move the mouse to click "Show parsed preview" and lo and behold it was there for me already. Just what I wanted. Thanks! PamD 17:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

DOI lookup bug

@Ryan Kaldari (WMF): I'm loving the new URL/DOI lookup feature! I've been waiting for this for quite a while. :) I noticed a bug, though: if you enter "10.1000/182" into the DOI field and then click the magnifying glass icon, the Date field is populated with the value "NaN" (and no other fields are populated). This only seems to happen for DOIs which are properly formed but for which no data was found. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Mr. Stradivarius: Thanks for the bug report. I'll get it fixed shortly. Ryan Kaldari (WMF) (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

For some reason that particular DOI doesn't return any information. At least now, though, it won't put "NaN" in the date field. Kaldari (talk) 04:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! For what it's worth, I was looking for any old DOI to test, and I chose that one because it was the example DOI in our Digital object identifier article. I'm not sure how many DOIs have the same problem. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Localized month-names

See wgMonthNames and wgMonthNamesShort are localized Mediawiki variables. Merry Christmas!^[mw] → User: Perhelion  23:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Enhanced toolbar drop down templates

Would it be a big deal to get cite magazine template added to the drop down templates on the Enhanced toolbar? — Maile (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

How to install it?

It says on the page that all English users should have this as default (and I used to too) but for some reason I seem to have lost the "cite" option on my toolbar, though I don't seem to be using the "RefToolbar 2.0a" either because I have no {{}} icon. Could anyone tell me how I can get it back?! Many thanks! ----Brigade Piron (talk) 10:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Try logging out and logging in. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 10:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

This was a bug introduced from a recent edit. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Cite_toolbar_not_working:_admin_needed for more information. It should work now. If not you may have to clear your browser's cache. See Wikipedia:Bypass your cache for instructions on how to do this. Jason Quinn (talk) 02:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to install RefToolBar 2.0b on a mediawiki installation? Documentation leads one to Wikipedia Project Page for RefToolBar/2.0. However, since Wikipedia has already installed this feature, their Installation Section only states:

No installation required

---

RefToolbar 2.0 is now turned on by default for all users on English Wikipedia. You don't have to do anything to install it.

So... there is this big gap in the use of RefToolBar because mediawiki points to Wikipedia for installation and Wikipedia doesn't offer anything. It seems straightfoward, but gathering and creating all the necessary .js pages does not result in a successful installation.

I realize I may draw fire for asking this on Wikipedia but this is the only talk going on about the RefToolbar. It is apparently stable and currently in use on Wikipedia, but other mediawiki installations have no where to go to understand the installation steps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justgivemeausernamealready (talk • contribs) 17:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Autofill not working

After a few weeks when the very useful autofill facility was available on citation templates, it is now not working. Two other editors also report this - see WP:Help desk#Autofill not working on Cite template toolbar. Are there any comments?: Noyster (talk), 00:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

(permalink for the above link: [2]) ―Mandruss ☎ 11:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Tech Talk on Zotero and citations

Some of you may be interested in this:

There is a Tech Talk next Monday, 29 February at 20:00 UTC (12 Noon Pacific Time) about Zotero and the mw:citoid service.

The main subject is how to extract accurate, automated bibliographic citations from websites. This talk is mostly about Zotero, which is a free and open-source citation management tool. Zotero is used on the Wikipedias through the automagic citoid service. Citoid is currently an option in the visual editor and will (eventually) be used for automated citations in the wikitext editor at some Wikipedias. Zotero is also used by many academics and researchers, and most of the information presented will be useful to people outside of Wikipedia as well.

Please share this invitation with anyone that you believe will be interested. If you have questions, then please leave a note on my talk page. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 03:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Displays redlink to empty template in references section

When I use this script on my wiki, it just shows a redlink to a template (called Template:Cite Web) and doesn't display the reference at all. An example can be seen here.

Is there something I did wrong with porting the script over? --Greds6 (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Citation Barnstar
	Many thanks to all those who have worked hard to improve this tool. I really love the new autofill feature for urls for books :-) This tool greater increases my productivity. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Loss of Cite:Template functionality in WikiMarkup

I put in a ticket over at Phabricator and have had zero luck fixing this problem?
Using WikiMarkup, I am not able to use the dropdown menu to select one of the four Templates in the Cite toolbar when I edit. It is driving me bonkers. The problem does not seem to appear in Firefox but is happening on both my Mac and PC on Chrome. Please advise. It is driving me bonkers. I love the RefToolbar! -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 13:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Try clicking on Beta (at the top of your WP window) and disabling any beta tools you have selected, then click Save. If that doesn't work, a more drastic step is to click "Restore all default settings" within Preferences. You may want to take screen shots of your settings first. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

None of these things worked. I also tried turning it on and turning it off again. This seems to be a bigger issue than just my user profile. Is anyone else having this problem? -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@BrillLyle and Jonesey95:It's a problem I meet occasionally and unpredictably (using Firefox) and seems to relate to any of the controls across the top of the edit box: you can have only one of "Advanced", "Special characters", "Help" and "Cite", and sometimes you're stuck with whichever of these happens to be activated when you start to edit the page: Noyster (talk), 18:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

It appears that other users have this problem as well -- that there's a conflict with the syntax highlighter tool. I freaking love the syntax highlighter -- it saves my bacon and makes editing enjoyable. I would prefer not to turn it off but I guess I have to do get my Cite back the way it needs to be. Just thought I would mention this is probably the fix. Best, and thanks for the help & feedback! :-) -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 10:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for the feedback. I try to not make major changes to this script, but about a week ago I put in a workaround to improve behavior on Firefox without realizing that it would break the ref toolbar on Chrome. Sorry for the trouble, I will make sure to test the ref toolbar on both browsers before making any further changes to that part of the script. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 06:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Title format inconsistent between templates

I notice that {{Cite book}} puts the title in italics, whereas other cite templates enclose the title in quote marks.

• {{Cite web}} Surname, Forename (1 October 2016). "Title in quotes". Website name.
• {{Cite news}} Surname, Forename (1 October 2016). "Title in quotes". News outlet.
• {{Cite book}} Surname, Forename (1 October 2016). Title in italics. p. 33. ISBN 978-0-230-54704-9.
• {{Cite journal}} Surname, Forename (1 October 2016). "Title in quotes". Journal name. 57 (2): 333.

Could this inconsistency be remedied, for the sake of neatening the visual appearance of reference lists?: Noyster (talk), 09:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Not an inconsistency; an intentional style choice. See MOS:TITLE.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Support for |vauthors=?

One disadvantage of RefToolbar is that it currently only supports the default CS1 author format (|first1=, |last1=, ...). Many science related articles in contrast use Vancouver system formatted authors. These were previously specified by the deprecated |author(s)= parameter that is systematically being replaced with |vauthors= (currently used in 35,898 articles). If RefToolbar is used to insert citations into an article that already uses |vauthors=, an inconsistent citation style is introduced which is contrary to WP:CITEVAR. Hence I would like to request that an vauthors option be added to RefToolbar. This should be straight forward to implement if the PMID is used for autofilling as RefToolbar is already returning Vancouver style first name initials from the PubMed database. Boghog (talk) 08:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I must say it was a little annoying having people going around and converting entire articles to vauthor without any discussion with the editors who work on them. I would request that those who are pushing hard for vauthors make sure it works in all languages of Wikipedia (it did not last time I checked). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, for Authority control as it relates to authors this Vancouver system approach is seriously non-ideal. Although I understand it's use in one industry like this for the rest of the reference universe this is very unwelcome. Agree with Doc James here. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 13:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• It is also annoying that editors go around changing the author style without prior discussion in violation of WP:CITEVAR and RefToolbar is encouraging this behavior. Furthermore |vauthors= can easily to be changed to |authors= with a single global search and replace for translation into other languages.
• WP:Authority control in Wikipedia is only used at the article level and not in individual citations. Furthermore |vauthors= is only used in individual style 1 citation templates like {{cite journal}} and not in templates like {{Authority control}}. Boghog (talk) 08:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Autofill 2

Would be great if we could have autofill add a url from Internet Archives so it is already there before whomever moves content around without a forwarding url. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Autofill appears to be down :-( Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I added a followup here at the MediaWiki page. pmid autofill doesn't work. Jytdog (talk) 21:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Cite magazine

I enjoy using reftoolbar, and I believe that Cite magazine should be included in the built in templates for RefToolbar. This template is the only one that I use that requires me to go outside the toolbar to use. Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

refToolbar issues on other wikis

Hello, we're having a problem on the Czech Wikipedia where refToolabr runs as a site-wide script. I thought the issue was at our site only but I've experienced the same thing on TestWiki and Portuguese Wikipedia (refToolbar is a gadget there). Outside en.wiki, refToolbar apparently tends to overwrite users' choice of editing interface. If I disable the wizards or even the whole "enhanced" editor, the enhanced editor still loads and opens its "Cite" toolbar. It allows me to choose a citation template but no dialog opens when I click one. After disabling refToolbar, everything runs as intended. This doesn't happen here on en.wiki but it probably happens on other wikis using MediaWiki:Gadget-refToolbarBase.js and Wikipedia:RefToolbar/2.0/porting from here. Does anyone have any idea how to fix this? --Michal Bělka (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Date format installation

It says under the automatic date formatting section that I am to insert some code somewhere, but it doesn't exactly say where. Can someone please tell me where? I want to do MDY formatting as my default. Thanks. Please ping me. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 18:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Autofill based on google books url

For a url like this https://books.google.ca/books?id=K4vaMVeoQooC&pg=PA257

Would be nice if it could add the date of publication and the page number?

Possible? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I have fixed returning of the date (was a bug). Unfortunately Citoid (or rather Zotero) is unable to retrieve the page selected. That request will initially have to be made all the way up with Zotero. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Many many thanks for that one fix :-) It allows me to edit faster. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Page ranges should use en-dash, not hyphen

I personally DGAF about hyphens/en-dashes/em-dashes, but since genfixes include making page and range dates use en-dashes (Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/General fixes#Fix dates (FixDates) per MOS:NUM) I don't see why this tool should use hyphens for page ranges. I tried briefly to find out where this change could be made but I'm way out of my depth. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 08:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Salvidrim!:You couldn't find it because it doesn't particularly care about it. :) It just uses whatever the user entered or what was in the original autofilled value, leaving it up to the user to correct. Are you suggestion adding logic to correct users ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

This is unacceptable. You people should fix the users. Allowing me to use a hyphen then complain about the tool using hyphens makes you all bad dudes. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I insert en-dashes using the insert toolbar below the edit window. A snag is that this isn't accessible when inserting a reference. Could an "insert en-dash" button be added (or you may well have a better suggestion). Thincat (talk) 07:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Autofile with PMIDs

When we do an autofill from a PMID can we get the DOI added and vise versa? Pubmed lists DOIs now such as seen here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Pinging again. User:TheDJ? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry i don't know anything about this. Maybe user:kaldari does. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Doc James: It's definitely possible for us to add DOI from a PMID lookup. I'll add that today. I'm not sure about the reverse. Kaldari (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Doc James: DOI from PMID is now working. Kaldari (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. That IMO is the more important of the two directions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Feature request: deadurl

The references form is absolutely great, but the one thing that slows me down is the need to manually insert deadurl=no when I have added a web archive link. Please could this be added? A checkbox format is all that is needed - maybe labelled URL still live and default is un-checked, until the editor clicks it. Thanks! Cnbrb (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Cnbrb: can you clarify a bit more ? Are you editing an existing reference ? Since this is an optional parameter of cite web, and since both cases are common, I suspect this will be hard to optimise without annoying the 'opposite' party. Please describe how you use this, what you expect, etc as extensive as possible. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh duh, sorry, this is the reftoolbar page, I thought i was on the VE page. So basically you are reporting that Reftoolbar is missing the edit field for the deadlink parameter of the cite web template, correct ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

No worries - sorry if I wasn't clear. In the Web Citation popover, I click Show/hide Extra Fields and fill in Archive URL and Archive Date, and here it would be really helpful for me to have maybe a checkbox or a select menu to specify deadurl=yes/no. At the moment I have to go in and type that bit manually after I have inserted the reference, which is a bit fiddly. Do you think this is possible? Cnbrb (talk) 10:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Feature request: Transliterate curly quotes

Here's a minor request: In imported article titles (and elsewhere), please transliterate ‘ and ’ into ', and “ and ” into " to conform with MOS:CURLY. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Insertion not working when syntaxhighlighting is activated

Hello. The insertion of the completed citation form into the article recently stopped working in case of activated syntaxhighlighting beta feature. Without syntaxhighlighting the insertion works as expected. With syntaxhighlighting the insertion fails (the citation form disappears, nothing else happens), and I am getting this error in the console (Firefox ESR 52.6.0):

NS_ERROR_FAILURE:   load.php:5
	$.fn.wikiEditor/context.fn.restoreSelection              https://en.wikipedia.org/w/load.php:5:938
	$.wikiEditor.modules.dialogs.fn.reallyCreate/<           https://en.wikipedia.org/w/load.php:45:222
	jQuery.event.dispatch                                    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/load.php:69:502
	jQuery.event.add/elemData.handle                         https://en.wikipedia.org/w/load.php:66:229
	.trigger                                                 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/load.php:112:483
	.trigger/<                                               https://en.wikipedia.org/w/load.php:113:282
	.each                                                    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/load.php:4:930
	jQuery.prototype.each                                    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/load.php:2:498
	.trigger                                                 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/load.php:113:261
	$.Widget.prototype._trigger                              https://en.wikipedia.org/w/load.php:96:667
	.close                                                   https://en.wikipedia.org/w/load.php:22:394
	$.widget/</prototype[prop]</<                            https://en.wikipedia.org/w/load.php:89:573
	$.widget.bridge/$.fn[name]/<                             https://en.wikipedia.org/w/load.php:91:401
	.each                                                    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/load.php:4:930
	jQuery.prototype.each                                    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/load.php:2:498
	$.widget.bridge/$.fn[name]                               https://en.wikipedia.org/w/load.php:91:50
	<anonymní>                                               https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php:96:13
	._createButtons/</props.click                            https://en.wikipedia.org/w/load.php:24:209
	jQuery.event.dispatch                                    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/load.php:69:502
	jQuery.event.add/elemData.handle                         https://en.wikipedia.org/w/load.php:66:229

I am reasonably sure it worked a month back. This is a very annoying bug which currently prevents me from using the syntaxhighlighting beta feature everywhere (disclaimer: I am editing almost exlusively the Czech wikipedia, but the behaviour is the same regardless of project, tested here on English wikipedia). Could it be some unexpected consequence of patches implemented in phab:T179287? --Vachovec1 (talk) 13:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The Guardian

When using {{Cite news}} to expand a ref to a webpage from The Guardian, the output shows work as the Guardian (small t). Could this be amended please?: Noyster (talk), 18:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Put spaces to the left of pipes

Currently, the default output of the ref toolbar when you provide it with a doi like doi:10.1016/j.nima.2003.07.067 is something like this

{{cite journal|last1=Arnaboldi|first1=C|last2=Avignone III|first2=FT|last3=Beeman|first3=J|last4=Barucci|first4=M|last5=Balata|first5=M|last6=Brofferio|first6=C|last7=Bucci|first7=C|last8=Cebrian|first8=S|last9=Creswick|first9=RJ|last10=Capelli|first10=S|last11=Carbone|first11=L|last12=Cremonesi|first12=O|last13=de Ward|first13=A|last14=Fiorini|first14=E|last15=Farach|first15=HA|last16=Frossati|first16=G|last17=Giuliani|first17=A|last18=Giugni|first18=D|last19=Gorla|first19=P|last20=Haller|first20=EE|last21=Irastorza|first21=IG|last22=McDonald|first22=RJ|last23=Morales|first23=A|last24=Norman|first24=EB|last25=Negri|first25=P|last26=Nucciotti|first26=A|last27=Pedretti|first27=M|last28=Pobes|first28=C|last29=Palmieri|first29=V|last30=Pavan|first30=M|last31=Pessina|first31=G|last32=Pirro|first32=S|last33=Previtali|first33=E|last34=Rosenfeld|first34=C|last35=Smith|first35=AR|last36=Sisti|first36=M|last37=Ventura|first37=G|last38=Vanzini|first38=M|last39=Zanotti|first39=L|title=CUORE: a cryogenic underground observatory for rare events|journal=Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment|date=February 2004|volume=518|issue=3|pages=775–798|doi=10.1016/j.nima.2003.07.067}}</ref>

This wraps very badly in the edit window because there barely are any spaces in that output. A major improvement would be to put spaces to the left of the pipes, so there are natural break points. It's also easier to distinguish individual parameters.

{{cite journal |last1=Arnaboldi |first1=C |last2=Avignone III |first2=FT |last3=Beeman |first3=J |last4=Barucci |first4=M |last5=Balata |first5=M |last6=Brofferio |first6=C |last7=Bucci |first7=C |last8=Cebrian |first8=S |last9=Creswick |first9=RJ |last10=Capelli |first10=S |last11=Carbone |first11=L |last12=Cremonesi |first12=O |last13=de Ward |first13=A |last14=Fiorini |first14=E |last15=Farach |first15=HA |last16=Frossati |first16=G |last17=Giuliani |first17=A |last18=Giugni |first18=D |last19=Gorla |first19=P |last20=Haller |first20=EE |last21=Irastorza |first21=IG |last22=McDonald |first22=RJ |last23=Morales |first23=A |last24=Norman |first24=EB |last25=Negri |first25=P |last26=Nucciotti |first26=A |last27=Pedretti |first27=M |last28=Pobes |first28=C |last29=Palmieri |first29=V |last30=Pavan |first30=M |last31=Pessina |first31=G |last32=Pirro |first32=S |last33=Previtali |first33=E |last34=Rosenfeld |first34=C |last35=Smith |first35=AR |last36=Sisti |first36=M |last37=Ventura |first37=G |last38=Vanzini |first38=M |last39=Zanotti |first39=L |title=CUORE: a cryogenic underground observatory for rare events |journal=Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment |date=February 2004 |volume=518 |issue=3 |pages=775–798 |doi=10.1016/j.nima.2003.07.067}}</ref>

I'm picking a fairly extreme example here, but this will happen to 'shorter' citations as well, especially if you stack multiple ones in a row

<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Heintz|first1=W. D.|title=Astrometric study of four visual binaries.|journal=The Astronomical Journal|date=July 1974|volume=79|pages=819|doi=10.1086/111614}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Eddington|first1=A. S.|title=On the Relation between the Masses and Luminosities of the Stars.: (Plate 8.)|journal=Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society|date=14 March 1924|volume=84|issue=5|pages=308–333|doi=10.1093/mnras/84.5.308}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Kemp|first1=James C.|last2=Swedlund|first2=John B.|last3=Landstreet|first3=J. D.|last4=Angel|first4=J. R. P.|title=Discovery of Circularly Polarized Light from a White Dwarf|journal=The Astrophysical Journal|date=August 1970|volume=161|pages=L77|doi=10.1086/180574}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Mukherjee|first1=M.|last2=Kellerbauer|first2=A.|last3=Beck|first3=D.|last4=Blaum|first4=K.|last5=Bollen|first5=G.|last6=Carrel|first6=F.|last7=Delahaye|first7=P.|last8=Dilling|first8=J.|last9=George|first9=S.|last10=Guénaut|first10=C.|last11=Herfurth|first11=F.|last12=Herlert|first12=A.|last13=Kluge|first13=H.-J.|last14=Köster|first14=U.|last15=Lunney|first15=D.|last16=Schwarz|first16=S.|last17=Schweikhard|first17=L.|last18=Yazidjian|first18=C.|title=The Mass of|journal=Physical Review Letters|date=8 October 2004|volume=93|issue=15|doi=10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.150801}}</ref>

compared to

<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Heintz |first1=W. D. |title=Astrometric study of four visual binaries. |journal=The Astronomical Journal |date=July 1974 |volume=79 |pages=819 |doi=10.1086/111614}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Eddington |first1=A. S. |title=On the Relation between the Masses and Luminosities of the Stars.: (Plate 8.) |journal=Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society |date=14 March 1924 |volume=84 |issue=5 |pages=308–333 |doi=10.1093/mnras/84.5.308}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Kemp |first1=James C. |last2=Swedlund |first2=John B. |last3=Landstreet |first3=J. D. |last4=Angel |first4=J. R. P. |title=Discovery of Circularly Polarized Light from a White Dwarf |journal=The Astrophysical Journal |date=August 1970 |volume=161 |pages=L77 |doi=10.1086/180574}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Mukherjee |first1=M. |last2=Kellerbauer |first2=A. |last3=Beck |first3=D. |last4=Blaum |first4=K. |last5=Bollen |first5=G. |last6=Carrel |first6=F. |last7=Delahaye |first7=P. |last8=Dilling |first8=J. |last9=George |first9=S. |last10=Guénaut |first10=C. |last11=Herfurth |first11=F. |last12=Herlert |first12=A. |last13=Kluge |first13=H.-J. |last14=Köster |first14=U. |last15=Lunney |first15=D. |last16=Schwarz |first16=S. |last17=Schweikhard |first17=L. |last18=Yazidjian |first18=C. |title=The Mass of |journal=Physical Review Letters |date=8 October 2004 |volume=93 |issue=15 |doi=10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.150801}}</ref>

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

done

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Support bibcode

There should be a field to put the bibcode identifier in there (e.g. Bibcode:1970ApJ...161L..77K and do a bibcode lookup. Things work pretty fine if you feed the RefToolbar a bibcode URL (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1970ApJ...161L..77K), so this shouldn't be too hard to adapt. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)