Please do not remove the coauthors field until the auto-filling function is updated to support multiple authors. Otherwise this will completely break auto-filling from a DOI/ISBN for works that have multiple authors. Mr.Z-man18:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Protected edit request on 8 April 2014
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
@Snaevar: Done (though technically, you're missing a comma that needs to be added in your edit request). The tooltip could probably stand to be expanded upon though; it's not super descriptive as is. Writ Keeper⚇♔14:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
normalize parameter names
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
cs1|2 is (slowly) moving to deprecate and remove all-run-together multiword parameter names with hyphenated parameter names. WP:RefToolbar should not create cs1 templates that include parameters that will be deprecated and their support withdrawn. Switching to the hyphenated forms now will ease the cleanup requirements later. To that end, I propose that RefToolbarConfig.js shall be changed by replacing the code at certain line numbers with the code as listed in the table.
I have only sufficient js skills to have figured out how to prevent this tool from emitting cs1|2 citation templates that use to-be-deprecated parameters. But, if I had to guess, I would guess at these changes:
guesses
line #
new code
67
'cite-access-date-label':'Access date',
69
'cite-author-link-label':"Author's article",
70†
'cite-url-status-label':'URL status',
71
'cite-archive-url-label':'Archive URL',
72
'cite-archive-date-label':'Archive date',
†|coauthors= is not a supported cs1|2 parameter
It may be that lines 87–90 and 93–95 can be deleted because, apparently, the label does not change for each successive click of the add-another button.
Re-opening as |authorlink= and its enumerated versions are still being generated, rather than the desired |author-link=. --NSH001 (talk) 07:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? If I create a {{cite book}} from isbn 978-0-679-60168-5 and add Jane Austen as author's article I get:
<ref>{{cite book |last1=Austen |first1=Jane |author1-link=Jane Austen |title=Pride and prejudice |date=1995 |publisher=Modern Library |location=New York |isbn=978-0-679-60168-5}}</ref>
Yes, I'm sure. I haven't tried letting it generate the details from an ISBN, but if you just type in all the details manually, it generates "authorlink", or its enumerated variants if you type in more than one author. That's why the "authorlink" count is going up, while the other three biggies are going down. --NSH001 (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where the tool gets the data to fill in the form should not matter. But, to try it, I just hand entered:
Last name: Austen
First name: Jane
Title: Pride and Prejudice
Author's article: Jane Austen
and from that I get:
<ref>{{cite book |last1=Austen |first1=Jane |author1-link=Jane Austen |title=Pride and Prejudice}}</ref>
Here's what I get when I enter those exact same details (I hate the horizontal format)
<ref>{{cite book
|last=Austen
|first=Jane
|authorlink=Jane Austen
|title=Pride and Prejudice}}</ref>
BTW, I don't see any field labeled "Author's article", instead I see "Authorlink:" I suspect the difference may be because we are using different versions of the wiki editor. I believe I'm using some old version (can't be sure, as I use an external editor for most of my editing). --NSH001 (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, tried typing in ISBN. Doesn't generate anything other than what I've already typed manually. But whatever it is that I'm using, it's almost certainly responsible for the count going up. --NSH001 (talk) 17:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I can see why no-one wants to maintain MediaWiki:RefToolbarLegacy.js. I stuck with the old toolbar because I like some of its buttons, and I never use the cite-generating tools. But (and I'm speculating here) I suspect the best solution will be to withdraw the old toolbar completely (after giving plenty of notice), as its small benefit isn't worth the trouble of maintaining obsolete code? --NSH001 (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like we may need an interface editor to modify this script to update many parameters at MediaWiki:RefToolbarLegacy.js, including accessdate, trans_title, and more. In order for such an editor to respond effectively, we need to identify which lines of the script need to be changed, as Trappist did above for this page. I have marked this edit request as answered, since it has technically been done. A new edit request, with proposed edits, should be opened at the other script's talk page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that would be good if someone's willing and able to do it. But I won't be too surprised or upset if they say, "Yuk, not worth the effort", in which case the best course is probably to withdraw the old toolbar. --NSH001 (talk) 05:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
