I need to change the title of this task to make it more clear.
Say you add a Google book reference with Citoid, and then you want to add other information to the Cite book template you're generating. The template inspector will list all the parameters which have already been filled, but it won't list empty "suggested" fields.
When you add a Cite book template manually, everything works as expected.
Oh, I see. This is nothing to do with Citoid; this is about parameter prompting behaviour when editing templates, which we don't do the way you suggest we should.
I think this could be quite irritating for users (open a template, change nothing, be complained at), but maybe we should change to do it.
- A Citoid generated reference is a new reference
- Suggested markers in TemplateData indicate that if at all possible you will probably want to fill these fields when creating a new reference
- Citoid inserter does nothing with suggested flag of TemplateData
- New reference has fewer information than a human might have been able to supply and the user was not educated that there might be more data that should be supplied.
- Even if he does learn and wants to provide more data, the edit dialog will never help him anymore, and he needs to know these params by name.
I think this could be quite irritating for users (open a template, change nothing, be complained at), but maybe we should change to do it
I agree, but that's why people probably added Citoid to this.. The point is not that people want to edit an existing reference, they want to insert a new reference, but they have to resort to edit, because the Citoid inserter isn't serving their needs. That sounds like a broken use case to me.
How about the following idea:
After automatic's Generate, but before clicking the Insert-button, have a line below the preview noting: This template advices you to enter information for # more optional fields. If you click enter, it opens the editor in 'new reference'-mode (instead of edit mode), with the Citoid retrieved information prefilled and the suggested fields visible.
P.S. I just noted how terribly narrow and short (height) the reference edit-dialog is on a big screen... /me wanted to instantly resize (and actually my unconscious response was to resize the window, which didn't work of course...).
I agree it could irritate users (I'm one of them). Every time I edit a "Cite web" or "Cite news" template on en.wikipedia.org, I find the diff added first= and last= and many other empty parameters. You can manually delete them, and verify through "Review my changes" before saving, but other than through wikitext diff preview, it is hard to verify because even within the same session, re-opening the template dialog shows them again (and require re-removing again).
The issues with this behaviour is being discussed at T101075. Closing this task because (somehow) between last year and now, it did end up implemented the way this task suggests.