(Moved from [[en:Help_talk:Citation_Style_1]]) It seems that using Cite interview doesn't work as expected with visual editing: the output of the citation shows up as text rather than the usual structured list of fields, so it's not really possible to add an archiveurl for instance. At [[en:Peter_Bocage]], I ended up deleting the citation, adding it again as a Cite web, filling in the changes I wanted (worked fine), saving, and then opening source editing to rename the updated template back to Cite interview. This is unnecessarily complicated and seems kind of silly just to get the archiveurl in there..at first. Can it be fixedIt's then necessary to get it to work in visual editing like Cite web does?click the rendered citation and choose Edit to get the usual editing pop-up. Thanks!By contrast, ~~~~Cite web shows the pop-up with the structured list of fields immediately.
Web browser: Firefox 68.4.2esr (64-bit)
Operating system: GNU (Gentoo GNU/Linux)
Wikipedia skin: Minerva
Here is a broken one using Cite interview:
{F31849326}
Here is one using Cite web that works correctly:
{F31849325}
(The missing button icons are a separate issue resulting from using high contrast system theme, which turns off custom CSS backgrounds. I wouldn't mind that one getting looked at either so I don't have to hover over them to see what is what, now I think about it...)
They are editable with a workaround: Click the reference, click edit in the small pop-up, it opens a brokenthe unexpected large modal pop-up, click the displayed reference text in the large modal, it shows another pop-up with an edit button, click that edit button, then the normal edit modal pop-up appears.
I don't think it's intentional to have to edit the reference and the citation as separate steps when it's using a template citation, since Cite web doesn't require those two steps. Rather, clicking the ref and then editing it opens the template editing directly. It's also not obvious (to me anyway!) that clicking the citation in the first popup will allow opening the the second; I thought the first was all I could get until some trial-and-erroring. If all citations worked that way, I'd not call it broken — but since Cite web can be edited without an intermediate step, this looks like a glitch.