Anyone have add-on ideas?

Could you (or somebody else) please update the Automatic Basic to Cloze addon so that it correctly changes the textbox to red if it’s about to add a duplicate? Right now it only does so for basic cards, not for clozes. Thank you!

An addon that checks a field where you are pasting to remove any  

Everytime you type a space and then paste, a   is added to the card. This is a known bug that has been going on forever in anki. Just try googling &nbsp anki to read about dozen of threads of people suffering this in several forums. This is a related thread explaining the issue

The issue wasn’t that it’s hard, rather too easy to justify publishing an add-on for it. But here you go: nbspRemover - AnkiWeb

2 Likes

@dae can we just build this into Anki? Seems silly to require an addon for this but it is definitely annoying, especially on the mobile platform

2 Likes

The problem is that some people do actually use  , so an automatic find and replace action might be destructive. Someone explained their use case in the forum once, but I couldn’t find the thread.

What wouldn’t be destructive is dealing with the   that are automatically appended by CodeMirror. If there’s a reliable method to differentiate that from actual user input, I’d be all for it.

First, thank you very much @kleinerpirat This addon is awesome and i predict many people installing it :slight_smile:

This probably ends my battle with anki adding this and me removing them

Second, Im not sure all the cases where this nbsp is added, but i found out that is always added when you type a space at the end and then paste

Not sure if you can detect when somebody paste text, but thats the moment where you could check if the previous character is nbsp and remove it if thats the case

Addon idea: an editor button that inserts ruby annotations!

Integration with Zotero, especially a way to quickly or even automatically insert citations.

Compare its word processor plugins.

3 Likes

I use non-breaking spaces so that clozes don’t get split across lines. I can restore them with a script but I’m sure some users would be furious if Anki replaced them all without asking. Perhaps what should be considered is a variation of the ‘remove formatting’ button that’s a bit more aggressive. The current one leaves other stuff behind sometimes as well.

I’m using Anki to study Spanish verb conjugations. My notes include all possible conjugations for a given tense. But, there are a few regionalisms that I am electing not to study at the present time (e.g. Spanish “vosotros”, Argentinian “vos”). So, I have been using conditional replacement fields to not create cards for these. The problem is that this necessitates adding content to a specific field on every single note.

I could, of course, just remove those card templates. But I would like to make changing these decisions possible without editing every note, and/or enable other users to make a different choice if they wished.

My idea is to allow the user to define – on a deck level – “switches” that can be queried in a card to trigger conditional replacement. This would allow a user to “fine tune” what they study in a way that tags cannot.

Can this be done with an add-on? If so, is there anyone who would be willing to implement this?

I’ll second this suggestion. It would be useful to have other ways of triggering card generation, and to perhaps make them more discoverable, rather than being based on whether the card is empty or not which is the only way to do it now. Rather than in the deck settings, I would have thought the card template dialog would be the place for this - perhaps a box to put a JS snippet for each card which evaluates each note to determine whether to create the card.

My Chinese vocabulary notes have a simplified card, and if the traditional characters are different, they also have a traditional card. That’s handled by a third field which is automatically filled by a spreadsheet before importing, but it would be nice if I could tell Anki to generate traditional cards based on whether the content of the simplified and traditional fields were the same or different.