mic_none

MediaWiki talk:RefToolbarMessages-en.js Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:RefToolbarMessages-en.js

Update the available fields

[edit]

Two requests:

  1. 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.)
  2. 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)[reply]

Came here to say the same thing. "Cite News" has a spot for archive links but not URL status, so I have to add it manually. Re-pinging @Musikanimal & @Izno. Thank you in advance. TheSavageNorwegian 15:33, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't ping me for random updates. If you know the edit you want to make, please make an edit request per the usual process. If you don't, please seek assistance at WP:VPT or other reasonably central technical forum. Izno (talk) 01:18, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not actually clear what "the usual process" is. I first posted a similar feature request in 2017 and made multiple requests on this talk page, on the Village Pump technical and on Phabricator and was simply ignored. It doesn't seem unreasonable for editors to assume that a request for change on the RefToolbar should be posted on the RefToolbar talk page. If this is incorrect, maybe a talk page notice guiding editors to the correct place would be more helpful. Cnbrb (talk) 12:24, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the ping, I'm at a loss about where to ask for this fix. Here's a phabricator ticket asking for the same thing in 2019. The admin there closed the ticket as invalid and redirected any feature requests to this page. In the talk page archives here, I see seven requests for this fix, to no avail. I really don't know where I'm supposed to go. To clarify, I'm asking for the "url-status=" field to be made available within the "cite news," "cite book," and "cite journal" part of the refToolbar, just like it is with "cite web." Nobody uses the "Archive-URL" field without also using "url-status"(or they shouldn't, anyway), so you then have to go back and fix it manually. I can take this back to phabricator if that's indeed the right place for it. I just don't know how to proceed further. TheSavageNorwegian 14:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be pedantic re: Nobody uses the "Archive-URL" field without also using "url-status"(or they shouldn't, anyway), dead urls do not need |url-status=dead. All cs1|2 templates assume that |url= is dead when |archive-url= is present.
I expect that 'the usual process' is for you to make changes to a sandbox copy of the toolbar code, test your changes, and then make an {{Edit interface-protected}} request.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:10, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, thank you so much. I'll give it my best shot and ask for help at WP:VPT if (if lol, when) I get stuck. And you're right, I suppose I'm only thinking of when I'm adding live urls and don't want the archive link to be the default. Thanks again. TheSavageNorwegian 15:45, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interface-protected edit request on 25 March 2025

[edit]

The purpose of this request is adding the "url-status" field to to cite-news, cite-book, and cite-journal, matching what is already present at cite-web.

Instructions:

Add a comma to the end of current lines 93, 124, and 163, and add a new row beneath each reading: {"field": "url-status", "tooltip":"cite-urlstatus-tooltip"}

Same instructions, line by line:

Line 93: change {"field": "quote"} to {"field": "quote"},

New added line beneath: {"field": "url-status", "tooltip":"cite-urlstatus-tooltip"}

Current line 124: change {"field": "quote"} to {"field": "quote"},

New added line beneath: {"field": "url-status", "tooltip":"cite-urlstatus-tooltip"}

Current line 163: change {"field": "postscript", "tooltip":"cite-postscript-tooltip"} to {"field": "postscript", "tooltip":"cite-postscript-tooltip"},

New added line beneath: {"field": "url-status", "tooltip":"cite-urlstatus-tooltip"}


Thank you for your time. I requested assistance with this at WP:VPT, but my post was not replied to and is now archived. Full disclosure, I do not know how to test this change. However, I can not see how adding these lines could mess it up. If the order of the parameters actually mattered, code-wise, the current order would not be so haphazard. Furthermore, all three of these templates have an odd number of parameters, so any added one should not increase the size of the popup. For these reasons, I do not believe my addition will break the RefToolbar. I've attempted to install a sandbox copy of this code, and nothing changed. Disabling RefToolbar in my preferences doesn't even make it go away in my editor, so I'm obviously missing something. Please do not take my ignorance for the nuances of javascript installation to mean that my proposed changes are invalid though. Thanks again. TheSavageNorwegian 20:20, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done * Pppery * it has begun... 17:10, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much! TheSavageNorwegian 17:17, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interface-protected edit request on 11 May 2025

[edit]

Please add a parameter for "volume" to cite news (specifically, beneath line 76 should be best). I checked {{Cite news}} and indeed there is a volume parameter.

I was quite surprised to see that cite news is missing this parameter. Like most periodicals, print newspapers typically have both volume and issue numbers assigned to them. Cite news already has "issue", but an issue number alone is meaningless when the volume number is not specified. Dreykop (talk) 03:18, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done * Pppery * it has begun... 00:57, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Dreykop (talk) 18:11, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for a "cite" feature in mos.wikipedia.org

[edit]

it's difficult for volunteers to reference due to lack of "cite" feature in mos.wikipedia.org. Volunteers have to struggle to toggle around source edit to use <ref>...</ref> before they can get statements referenced. We request that cite feature should be added to the visual edit to improve the site's user friendliness. We count on the developers to install the cite and reference feature on the site so it would improve volunteers contribution, makes referencing faster, easier and saves time. Volunteers do not get frustrated when referencing. Most volunteers are not conversant with source edit. Moreso, it makes training volunteers easy and reduces errors in referencing.Hasslaebetch (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]