![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
(del/undel) 21:12, 5 September 2011 (diff | hist) m The New England Journal of Medicine (Various citation cleanup. Report suggestoins and problems at User talk:CitationCleanerBot using AWB)
It removed the access date here, along with replacing the URL with |jstor=. Assuming this is intentional, what's the reasoning for this? Cúchullain t/ c 02:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
|url=
should usually be used for freely-accessibly version if possible. It's not wrong to link to a source behind a paywall, but in this case we have |jstor=
which will give the link to jstor and free |url=
in case a free version is found. It also explicitly tells the reader where they will land (aka, you're going to the JSTOR website when clicking on the JSTOR link). It also makes the jobs of bots easier, and cleans the appearance of citations in printed form. E.g. instead of seeing something like
The changes made to the 23 article on 2011-09-13 broke at least the first link. I did not check them all, but the changes appeared to be similar. Makyen ( talk) 23:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
The bot is removing spacing which improves the internal readability of citations. For example, on
this edit to D.B. Cooper, the vast majority of text changes are to remove spaces between <ref>
and {{
as in
<ref> {{cite whatever
<ref>{{cite whatever
Those spaces greatly enhance human maintainability:
<ref>
must be butted against preceding text for the resulting html to render correctly, the lack of space introduces a very long block of symbols: much beyond any readability guideline.If anything, citation cleaning should be going exactly the opposite direction, changing citations to multi-line indented elements:
some fact<ref name="CrimeLibrary2"> {{cite web | url = http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/scams/DB_Cooper/2.html | title = The D.B. Cooper Story: The Crime | last = Krajicek | first = David | work = [[Crime Library]] | accessdate = January 3, 2008 }} </ref>
It should also be arranging the elements into a standard, consistent order. I find the most effective order is a sort of top-to-bottom arrangement of URL, title, author, publisher, work, page, date, accessdate. Also note the spaces before and after the equal signs and the space after the |
delimiter. These conventions are to make reading the wikitext more friendly by humans. In the case of consecutive citations, join them like this to easily identify each citation:
some fact<ref name="refname"> {{cite x ... }} </ref><ref> {{cite x ... }} </ref><ref> {{cite x ... }} </ref>
I notice that AWB does similar transformations as CitationCleaner, and so does Yobot, all of which I revert if there were no valuable edits. — EncMstr ( talk) 18:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
this edit removed the title from a link which is not what I expect it should be doing. Keith D ( talk) 19:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I think your Bot fixed everything in this article pretty well, but I was wondering about "accessdate'. I thought that accessdate was an acceptable parameter on all citation templates, but the Bot removed them from "citation". Glad the Bot went in and cleaned up the cites, looking through its edits I have found an invalid link and am now trying to find the information in another source. Shearonink ( talk) 04:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
|accessdate=
should only be used when there's a given url (they aren't displayed if there is no url). It makes little sense to say "I checked this magazine on 26 April 2009" since the content of the magazine will not ever change following publication. So it's better to remove them if there's no url. It prevents bad accessdate to show up in the future, if someone adds a url but doesn't bother updating the accessdate. See
#Question above for more details on this.
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books}
04:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)This message was left in a footnote in Fermi-Dirac Statistics. "A bot will complete this citation soon. Click here to jump the queue" . The message didn't appear in the diff and seemed to remain by mistake. The only way I could remove it was by undoing the edit. How did you put the message in the footnote and not have it appear in the diff? -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 15:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
It is against policy, bot policy, and it is annoying. I like my blank lines in my citations, thank you. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Are we to no longer use the access date? Bettymnz4 ( talk) 13:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
The bot changed the heading "Early Life" to "Early life." The headings are no longer parallel in terms of capitalization.Henry Heater 16:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henryheater ( talk • contribs)
Your CitationCleanerBot bot needs to stop retitling references to conform to what WP would publish. WP is not publishing the references and therefore should not be deciding/declaring what the title of said reference should be. Date spans that are proper titles should not be reformatted to what would be used in the text of an article as titles of references are not subject to the WP Manual Of Style but that of the publisher of the reference. It is effectively faking/breaking the reference. Same with putting in a dash when the proper title has a hyphen. It would be like saying that CitationCleanerBot is misnamed and forcing this account to be renamed into three words rather than one. Editing of titles for references not from an html source is essentially a guess-work on the part of your bot and as such is fundamentally unreliable. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 01:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
See e.g. this edit; URL arguments are being left in the PMC parameter. Should be trivial to fix. {{ Nihiltres | talk | edits}} 16:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
See
here, not clear why pubmed URL would be removed when cite doesn't have PMID or PMC parameters set? (If it were converted to |pmid=
that would make sense.) Thanks
Rjwilmsi
21:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The bot introduced an error here. If you were going to go through and check them afterwards, sorry for jumping in early.
Also another error here, producing a duplicate parameter and also a PMID error. (A two-fer! Congrats.)
I suspect that most of the edits were fine, but you might want to run supervised until you get these sorts of kinks worked out. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 00:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I've seen ~10 articles today in which the bot removed a closing comment tag. An example is at
Jan Harold Brunvand. Towards the bottom, you will see |page=166<!-- |accessdate=16 December 2014 -->|
changed to |page=166<!--|
This causes part of the reference to go blank.
Can the bot work on external links such as [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18276894 18276894]
? This is a very useful bot. Thank you.
Bgwhite (
talk)
06:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite journal|pmc=12345}}
and then run
Citation bot (
talk ·
contribs) to complete the references.
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books}
12:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Please don't do things like this. Citation tags should be presented in the order in which the attributions are given in the text. This is decided based on the quality of the citations, not on mechanical considerations like alphabetical or numerical order. I've reverted that one. -- Stfg ( talk) 09:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't catch this earlier, but the bot
converted a URL to an invalid JSTOR value, and the |jstor=
parameter was already present. Two different bugs in one edit. –
Jonesey95 (
talk)
16:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi, the bot has removed the access date from the reference ( link) because it doesn't recognize the internet address in the template as a URL. This change is unwanted as the access date is required for the reference. There are over 10,000 species of birds alone, each with its own page, and that does not include all other taxa (flora and fauna) that use the same template. Please curb your bot until this is fixed. 'Cheers, Loopy30 ( talk) 01:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Here the bot has rempved an access date from a vaild url was given: [6]. TheMagikCow ( talk) 08:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
In
this edit, the bot made a hash of a citation which previously had two dois listed, replacing a validly formatted |id=
field with an invalidly formatted |doi=
field. It should only replace |id=
parameters where it can parse the whole parameter, rather than (as in this case) pattern matching something at the start of the |id=
and hoping the rest fits the pattern. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
02:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
This tool can format many ISBN's, but it is javascript and you have to manually do it. Could you add isbn formatting (adding dashes) as a task? https://de.wikipedia.org/?title=Benutzer:TMg/autoFormatter.js AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 04:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
This edit by CitationCleanerBot caused a Check |oclc= value error:
The problem appears to relate to the use of multiple OCLC numbers with {{ cite book}}. I have reverted the edit. Verbcatcher ( talk) 07:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Is
this really where you want {{
reflist}}
and the references heading to go?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 15:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
All of these oddities have been reverted now. Imzadi 1979 → 01:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
|format=
alone when there is no url, including templated ones.
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books}
02:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)The bot removed a link to a journal abstract for Marion Boyd. I checked the link and it is still OK. What is the issue here? EncyclopediaUpdaticus ( talk) 04:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I just made a series of edits to fix cases like this where CitationCleanerBot migrated a URL parameter to an equivalent PMC parameter but "ate" the pipe leading to the next parameter. This is an obvious bug; please fix it. :) {{ Nihiltres | talk | edits}} 21:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
[9] [10] Any idea what caused this? Sro23 ( talk) 01:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
[^ ]
. Also check "Regex" and "Check after". This should prevent page blanks. It means if the article after processing doesn't contain any text (ie. blank) then skip processing. --
Green
C
23:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)diff (last change). -- Green C 23:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't see an issue here. What was the bug? Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
|ssrn=
, it looked like a deleted URL in the diff. All is good. --
Green
C
23:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)This edit replaced a url with an ssrn. That's fine, but the citation now triggers two error messages: "Missing or empty |url=" and "|access-date= requires |url=".
Thanks. -- Worldbruce ( talk) 04:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
These articles directly use {{ citation/core}}. It seems to me that this would be best to convert to {{ cite}}. Do you agree, and are you or someone else the right bot AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 21:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
. Interestingly, the first few in that list all seem to have something to do with Germany so perhaps these originated at de.wiki.{{
citation/core}}
directly like this:
{{citation/core|Title=Stammtafeln des mediatisierten Hauses Stolberg |Year=1887|Date= 1887|language=German}}
{{
cite wikisource}}
be at issue here?The bot removed an article link url from this citation [11] as redundant with the PMC. I suggest the article link url link be retained, since a vast majority of readers (such as myself) do not realize that PMC is a Pub Med article link. Thanks. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
{{cite journal |last1=Schmaltz |first1=Rodney |last2=Lilienfeld |first2=Scott O. |title=Hauntings, homeopathy, and the Hopkinsville Goblins: using pseudoscience to teach scientific thinking |journal=Frontiers in Psychology |date=17 April 2014 |volume=5 |doi=10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00336 |pmc=4028994}}
gives
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 13:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello, there appears to be a problem with the bot removing a parameter name |website=
and leaving part of the value of the parameter in another field, for example in
this case the fragment was left in a |date=
field causing an invalid date error.
Keith D (
talk)
08:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
this is bad, clearly bibcode = bibcode is not a valid bibcode! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 15:52, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 21:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
{{cite web |url=http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011agufmdi13a2141s |last=Schlitzer |first=W. |last2=Harpp |first2=K.S. |last3=Mittelstaedt |first3=E.L. |last4=Kurz |first4=M.D. |last5=Geist |first5=D. |title=The Effect of Lithospheric Discontinuities on the Composition of Lavas From the Northern Galápagos Platform Extension |year= 2011 |accessdate= 24 November 2013}}
{{cite web |bibcode=2011agufmdi13a2141s |last=Schlitzer |first=W. |last2=Harpp |first2=K.S. |last3=Mittelstaedt |first3=E.L. |last4=Kurz |first4=M.D. |last5=Geist |first5=D. |title=The Effect of Lithospheric Discontinuities on the Composition of Lavas From the Northern Galápagos Platform Extension |year= 2011 |accessdate= 24 November 2013}}
{{
cite web}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Missing or empty |url=
(
help)|url=
, since {{
cite web}} requires |url=
. Thanks in advance. –
Jonesey95 (
talk)
06:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)Please see
this edit, in which |eprint=
was removed but its value was kept, resulting in multiple errors. Also half a dozen similar edits that I have reverted.
Also, please improve the bot's edit summary. "Cleanup" is not helpful. Please link to a description of the approved task that the bot is performing. Removing |eprint=
is not mentioned at
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CitationCleanerBot.
Please publish the bot's source code. The user page says that you will do so if asked. Thanks. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 06:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
In
this edit on 9 May 2018 the bot changed {{cite journal|last=Hamilton|first=Henry|year=1928|title=The Founding of Carron Ironworks|journal=Scottish Historical Review|publisher=Edinburgh University Press|volume=25|issue=99|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/25525835|url-access=subscription|via=JSTOR|pages=187-190}}
to {{cite journal|last=Hamilton|first=Henry|year=1928|title=The Founding of Carron Ironworks|journal=Scottish Historical Review|publisher=Edinburgh University Press|volume=25|issue=99|jstor=25525835|url-access=subscription|pages=187–190}}
which triggered a red "|url-access= requires |url=" warning on the article. I raised this at
Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#URL_and_JSTOR_access_parameters, suggesting that |jstor-access=subscription
should be permitted. A response pointed out that
Help:Citation_Style_1#Access_level_of_identifiers expects JSTOR etc to be unfree by default, so only exceptions expressed as |jstor-access=free
are supported. It could therefore be worth adjusting the Bot so that when it replaces |url=
with |jstor=
, etc.,it also erases any |url-access=subscription
? (That said, I am now adjusting my new references to use |jstor=
rather than |url=
so the Bot shouldn't need to adjust my future edits.)
AllyD (
talk)
16:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
A simple request, on CitationCleanerBot's user page please put a description of the bots actions. Not all of us are psychics.-- TomStonehunter ( talk) 13:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Today, this bot has accidentally blanked a few articles. Opinions may vary but that seems like a rather extreme way of cleaning up citations. ElKevbo ( talk) 12:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello, in
this edit the bot removed part of a |via=
field, leaving the remaining part in the adjacent date field. I have move it out to |quote=
for now. This is the second occurrence of this today.
Keith D (
talk)
Why is the bot removing |via=
, as
here?
Nikkimaria (
talk)
11:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
See This RFC. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 15:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
|via=
in the context of TWL has only ever been in accordance with
WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT (that I am aware of). How specifically that should look in various cases is a good and worthwhile discussion to have somewhere (an RFC on VPP would maybe not be my first suggestion, but…).Oh, and before someone goes thermonuclear over that too… TWL provides userboxes for editors who have access to a particular partner resource too. These are intended to help other editors locate someone with access to a source they lack, and not to advertise, promote, or acknowledge any access from that partner. Apart from the general purpose (or lack thereof) for userboxes, these are intended as an extension or supplement to
the resource exchange. There are lots of freindly people at
WP:TWL that will be more than happy to clarify or answer any questions you may have. --
Xover (
talk)
17:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
|via=
parameter is the instructions
here, which were
more explicit back when I received Project muse access.
Vanamonde (
talk)
04:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)In
this edit, the bot changes the reference quite significantly. I get changing https://www.jstor.org/stable/823202
to jstor=823202
, but what it seems to have done is changed url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/823202|deadurl=no|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20180226083106/http://www.jstor.org/stable/823202|archivedate=February 26, 2018|df=
to jstor=823202
instead, removing the link to the archive URL, and the archive date parameter. Is that intended?
Fish+
Karate
09:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: |archive-url=
requires |url=
(
help); Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
Hello and
welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to
Wikipedia are appreciated, but
a recent edit of yours has an
edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an
article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use
the sandbox to make test edits. Removing a citation's accessdate is NOT "cleanup", contrary to what you asserted.
Snuggums (
talk /
edits)
02:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
[16] (not
watching, please {{
ping}}
)
czar
13:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
When the bot is removing redundant URLs, like it did at Marble Bar, Western Australia, it should probably remove the accessdates as well. Graham 87 05:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
{{
ping}}
)
czar
13:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)I've never seen this tag before: [18] not sure what a "predatory open access journal" is, but it doesn't sound good. — Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs) 00:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
In this diff the bot changed three citations. The 2nd and 3rd changes make sense but not the first one, where it erroneously replaced an issue number adding a page number which then overrode the actual page number parameter. Kerry ( talk) 13:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Mistaking it for a deprecated magic link, CitationCleanerBot is inserting {{ PMID}} within quoted ref tags (see for example diff). This is mostly harmless, but nevertheless, an unnecessary edit. It would be better to replace "PMID xxxxxx" → "PMIDxxxxxx" if found within a ref tag. Boghog ( talk) 06:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi CCBot / Headbomb, I came across a ref on
Nano-threads where a |citeseerx=
means the |access-date=
shows up as an
error. Is that something the bot could help clear up in general - for this and any similar ID parameters like it? It might already be working on these, but the error's been there
2016 (well,
2012 but the format was id={{citeseerx}}
then), so I thought it was worth mentioning. I've left it unfixed for now in case it's useful as a test case. Discussion (
here) ›
Mortee
talk
12:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Here, on 27 June, the bot changed a jstor url into a jstor id, but there was already a JSTOR id in the citation. DferDaisy ( talk) 22:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
(del/undel) 21:12, 5 September 2011 (diff | hist) m The New England Journal of Medicine (Various citation cleanup. Report suggestoins and problems at User talk:CitationCleanerBot using AWB)
It removed the access date here, along with replacing the URL with |jstor=. Assuming this is intentional, what's the reasoning for this? Cúchullain t/ c 02:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
|url=
should usually be used for freely-accessibly version if possible. It's not wrong to link to a source behind a paywall, but in this case we have |jstor=
which will give the link to jstor and free |url=
in case a free version is found. It also explicitly tells the reader where they will land (aka, you're going to the JSTOR website when clicking on the JSTOR link). It also makes the jobs of bots easier, and cleans the appearance of citations in printed form. E.g. instead of seeing something like
The changes made to the 23 article on 2011-09-13 broke at least the first link. I did not check them all, but the changes appeared to be similar. Makyen ( talk) 23:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
The bot is removing spacing which improves the internal readability of citations. For example, on
this edit to D.B. Cooper, the vast majority of text changes are to remove spaces between <ref>
and {{
as in
<ref> {{cite whatever
<ref>{{cite whatever
Those spaces greatly enhance human maintainability:
<ref>
must be butted against preceding text for the resulting html to render correctly, the lack of space introduces a very long block of symbols: much beyond any readability guideline.If anything, citation cleaning should be going exactly the opposite direction, changing citations to multi-line indented elements:
some fact<ref name="CrimeLibrary2"> {{cite web | url = http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/scams/DB_Cooper/2.html | title = The D.B. Cooper Story: The Crime | last = Krajicek | first = David | work = [[Crime Library]] | accessdate = January 3, 2008 }} </ref>
It should also be arranging the elements into a standard, consistent order. I find the most effective order is a sort of top-to-bottom arrangement of URL, title, author, publisher, work, page, date, accessdate. Also note the spaces before and after the equal signs and the space after the |
delimiter. These conventions are to make reading the wikitext more friendly by humans. In the case of consecutive citations, join them like this to easily identify each citation:
some fact<ref name="refname"> {{cite x ... }} </ref><ref> {{cite x ... }} </ref><ref> {{cite x ... }} </ref>
I notice that AWB does similar transformations as CitationCleaner, and so does Yobot, all of which I revert if there were no valuable edits. — EncMstr ( talk) 18:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
this edit removed the title from a link which is not what I expect it should be doing. Keith D ( talk) 19:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I think your Bot fixed everything in this article pretty well, but I was wondering about "accessdate'. I thought that accessdate was an acceptable parameter on all citation templates, but the Bot removed them from "citation". Glad the Bot went in and cleaned up the cites, looking through its edits I have found an invalid link and am now trying to find the information in another source. Shearonink ( talk) 04:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
|accessdate=
should only be used when there's a given url (they aren't displayed if there is no url). It makes little sense to say "I checked this magazine on 26 April 2009" since the content of the magazine will not ever change following publication. So it's better to remove them if there's no url. It prevents bad accessdate to show up in the future, if someone adds a url but doesn't bother updating the accessdate. See
#Question above for more details on this.
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books}
04:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)This message was left in a footnote in Fermi-Dirac Statistics. "A bot will complete this citation soon. Click here to jump the queue" . The message didn't appear in the diff and seemed to remain by mistake. The only way I could remove it was by undoing the edit. How did you put the message in the footnote and not have it appear in the diff? -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 15:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
It is against policy, bot policy, and it is annoying. I like my blank lines in my citations, thank you. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Are we to no longer use the access date? Bettymnz4 ( talk) 13:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
The bot changed the heading "Early Life" to "Early life." The headings are no longer parallel in terms of capitalization.Henry Heater 16:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henryheater ( talk • contribs)
Your CitationCleanerBot bot needs to stop retitling references to conform to what WP would publish. WP is not publishing the references and therefore should not be deciding/declaring what the title of said reference should be. Date spans that are proper titles should not be reformatted to what would be used in the text of an article as titles of references are not subject to the WP Manual Of Style but that of the publisher of the reference. It is effectively faking/breaking the reference. Same with putting in a dash when the proper title has a hyphen. It would be like saying that CitationCleanerBot is misnamed and forcing this account to be renamed into three words rather than one. Editing of titles for references not from an html source is essentially a guess-work on the part of your bot and as such is fundamentally unreliable. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 01:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
See e.g. this edit; URL arguments are being left in the PMC parameter. Should be trivial to fix. {{ Nihiltres | talk | edits}} 16:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
See
here, not clear why pubmed URL would be removed when cite doesn't have PMID or PMC parameters set? (If it were converted to |pmid=
that would make sense.) Thanks
Rjwilmsi
21:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The bot introduced an error here. If you were going to go through and check them afterwards, sorry for jumping in early.
Also another error here, producing a duplicate parameter and also a PMID error. (A two-fer! Congrats.)
I suspect that most of the edits were fine, but you might want to run supervised until you get these sorts of kinks worked out. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 00:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I've seen ~10 articles today in which the bot removed a closing comment tag. An example is at
Jan Harold Brunvand. Towards the bottom, you will see |page=166<!-- |accessdate=16 December 2014 -->|
changed to |page=166<!--|
This causes part of the reference to go blank.
Can the bot work on external links such as [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18276894 18276894]
? This is a very useful bot. Thank you.
Bgwhite (
talk)
06:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite journal|pmc=12345}}
and then run
Citation bot (
talk ·
contribs) to complete the references.
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books}
12:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Please don't do things like this. Citation tags should be presented in the order in which the attributions are given in the text. This is decided based on the quality of the citations, not on mechanical considerations like alphabetical or numerical order. I've reverted that one. -- Stfg ( talk) 09:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't catch this earlier, but the bot
converted a URL to an invalid JSTOR value, and the |jstor=
parameter was already present. Two different bugs in one edit. –
Jonesey95 (
talk)
16:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi, the bot has removed the access date from the reference ( link) because it doesn't recognize the internet address in the template as a URL. This change is unwanted as the access date is required for the reference. There are over 10,000 species of birds alone, each with its own page, and that does not include all other taxa (flora and fauna) that use the same template. Please curb your bot until this is fixed. 'Cheers, Loopy30 ( talk) 01:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Here the bot has rempved an access date from a vaild url was given: [6]. TheMagikCow ( talk) 08:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
In
this edit, the bot made a hash of a citation which previously had two dois listed, replacing a validly formatted |id=
field with an invalidly formatted |doi=
field. It should only replace |id=
parameters where it can parse the whole parameter, rather than (as in this case) pattern matching something at the start of the |id=
and hoping the rest fits the pattern. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
02:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
This tool can format many ISBN's, but it is javascript and you have to manually do it. Could you add isbn formatting (adding dashes) as a task? https://de.wikipedia.org/?title=Benutzer:TMg/autoFormatter.js AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 04:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
This edit by CitationCleanerBot caused a Check |oclc= value error:
The problem appears to relate to the use of multiple OCLC numbers with {{ cite book}}. I have reverted the edit. Verbcatcher ( talk) 07:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Is
this really where you want {{
reflist}}
and the references heading to go?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 15:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
All of these oddities have been reverted now. Imzadi 1979 → 01:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
|format=
alone when there is no url, including templated ones.
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books}
02:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)The bot removed a link to a journal abstract for Marion Boyd. I checked the link and it is still OK. What is the issue here? EncyclopediaUpdaticus ( talk) 04:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I just made a series of edits to fix cases like this where CitationCleanerBot migrated a URL parameter to an equivalent PMC parameter but "ate" the pipe leading to the next parameter. This is an obvious bug; please fix it. :) {{ Nihiltres | talk | edits}} 21:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
[9] [10] Any idea what caused this? Sro23 ( talk) 01:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
[^ ]
. Also check "Regex" and "Check after". This should prevent page blanks. It means if the article after processing doesn't contain any text (ie. blank) then skip processing. --
Green
C
23:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)diff (last change). -- Green C 23:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't see an issue here. What was the bug? Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
|ssrn=
, it looked like a deleted URL in the diff. All is good. --
Green
C
23:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)This edit replaced a url with an ssrn. That's fine, but the citation now triggers two error messages: "Missing or empty |url=" and "|access-date= requires |url=".
Thanks. -- Worldbruce ( talk) 04:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
These articles directly use {{ citation/core}}. It seems to me that this would be best to convert to {{ cite}}. Do you agree, and are you or someone else the right bot AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 21:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
. Interestingly, the first few in that list all seem to have something to do with Germany so perhaps these originated at de.wiki.{{
citation/core}}
directly like this:
{{citation/core|Title=Stammtafeln des mediatisierten Hauses Stolberg |Year=1887|Date= 1887|language=German}}
{{
cite wikisource}}
be at issue here?The bot removed an article link url from this citation [11] as redundant with the PMC. I suggest the article link url link be retained, since a vast majority of readers (such as myself) do not realize that PMC is a Pub Med article link. Thanks. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
{{cite journal |last1=Schmaltz |first1=Rodney |last2=Lilienfeld |first2=Scott O. |title=Hauntings, homeopathy, and the Hopkinsville Goblins: using pseudoscience to teach scientific thinking |journal=Frontiers in Psychology |date=17 April 2014 |volume=5 |doi=10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00336 |pmc=4028994}}
gives
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 13:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello, there appears to be a problem with the bot removing a parameter name |website=
and leaving part of the value of the parameter in another field, for example in
this case the fragment was left in a |date=
field causing an invalid date error.
Keith D (
talk)
08:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
this is bad, clearly bibcode = bibcode is not a valid bibcode! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 15:52, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 21:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
{{cite web |url=http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011agufmdi13a2141s |last=Schlitzer |first=W. |last2=Harpp |first2=K.S. |last3=Mittelstaedt |first3=E.L. |last4=Kurz |first4=M.D. |last5=Geist |first5=D. |title=The Effect of Lithospheric Discontinuities on the Composition of Lavas From the Northern Galápagos Platform Extension |year= 2011 |accessdate= 24 November 2013}}
{{cite web |bibcode=2011agufmdi13a2141s |last=Schlitzer |first=W. |last2=Harpp |first2=K.S. |last3=Mittelstaedt |first3=E.L. |last4=Kurz |first4=M.D. |last5=Geist |first5=D. |title=The Effect of Lithospheric Discontinuities on the Composition of Lavas From the Northern Galápagos Platform Extension |year= 2011 |accessdate= 24 November 2013}}
{{
cite web}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Missing or empty |url=
(
help)|url=
, since {{
cite web}} requires |url=
. Thanks in advance. –
Jonesey95 (
talk)
06:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)Please see
this edit, in which |eprint=
was removed but its value was kept, resulting in multiple errors. Also half a dozen similar edits that I have reverted.
Also, please improve the bot's edit summary. "Cleanup" is not helpful. Please link to a description of the approved task that the bot is performing. Removing |eprint=
is not mentioned at
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CitationCleanerBot.
Please publish the bot's source code. The user page says that you will do so if asked. Thanks. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 06:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
In
this edit on 9 May 2018 the bot changed {{cite journal|last=Hamilton|first=Henry|year=1928|title=The Founding of Carron Ironworks|journal=Scottish Historical Review|publisher=Edinburgh University Press|volume=25|issue=99|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/25525835|url-access=subscription|via=JSTOR|pages=187-190}}
to {{cite journal|last=Hamilton|first=Henry|year=1928|title=The Founding of Carron Ironworks|journal=Scottish Historical Review|publisher=Edinburgh University Press|volume=25|issue=99|jstor=25525835|url-access=subscription|pages=187–190}}
which triggered a red "|url-access= requires |url=" warning on the article. I raised this at
Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#URL_and_JSTOR_access_parameters, suggesting that |jstor-access=subscription
should be permitted. A response pointed out that
Help:Citation_Style_1#Access_level_of_identifiers expects JSTOR etc to be unfree by default, so only exceptions expressed as |jstor-access=free
are supported. It could therefore be worth adjusting the Bot so that when it replaces |url=
with |jstor=
, etc.,it also erases any |url-access=subscription
? (That said, I am now adjusting my new references to use |jstor=
rather than |url=
so the Bot shouldn't need to adjust my future edits.)
AllyD (
talk)
16:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
A simple request, on CitationCleanerBot's user page please put a description of the bots actions. Not all of us are psychics.-- TomStonehunter ( talk) 13:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Today, this bot has accidentally blanked a few articles. Opinions may vary but that seems like a rather extreme way of cleaning up citations. ElKevbo ( talk) 12:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello, in
this edit the bot removed part of a |via=
field, leaving the remaining part in the adjacent date field. I have move it out to |quote=
for now. This is the second occurrence of this today.
Keith D (
talk)
Why is the bot removing |via=
, as
here?
Nikkimaria (
talk)
11:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
See This RFC. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 15:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
|via=
in the context of TWL has only ever been in accordance with
WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT (that I am aware of). How specifically that should look in various cases is a good and worthwhile discussion to have somewhere (an RFC on VPP would maybe not be my first suggestion, but…).Oh, and before someone goes thermonuclear over that too… TWL provides userboxes for editors who have access to a particular partner resource too. These are intended to help other editors locate someone with access to a source they lack, and not to advertise, promote, or acknowledge any access from that partner. Apart from the general purpose (or lack thereof) for userboxes, these are intended as an extension or supplement to
the resource exchange. There are lots of freindly people at
WP:TWL that will be more than happy to clarify or answer any questions you may have. --
Xover (
talk)
17:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
|via=
parameter is the instructions
here, which were
more explicit back when I received Project muse access.
Vanamonde (
talk)
04:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)In
this edit, the bot changes the reference quite significantly. I get changing https://www.jstor.org/stable/823202
to jstor=823202
, but what it seems to have done is changed url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/823202|deadurl=no|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20180226083106/http://www.jstor.org/stable/823202|archivedate=February 26, 2018|df=
to jstor=823202
instead, removing the link to the archive URL, and the archive date parameter. Is that intended?
Fish+
Karate
09:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: |archive-url=
requires |url=
(
help); Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
Hello and
welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to
Wikipedia are appreciated, but
a recent edit of yours has an
edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an
article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use
the sandbox to make test edits. Removing a citation's accessdate is NOT "cleanup", contrary to what you asserted.
Snuggums (
talk /
edits)
02:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
[16] (not
watching, please {{
ping}}
)
czar
13:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
When the bot is removing redundant URLs, like it did at Marble Bar, Western Australia, it should probably remove the accessdates as well. Graham 87 05:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
{{
ping}}
)
czar
13:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)I've never seen this tag before: [18] not sure what a "predatory open access journal" is, but it doesn't sound good. — Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs) 00:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
In this diff the bot changed three citations. The 2nd and 3rd changes make sense but not the first one, where it erroneously replaced an issue number adding a page number which then overrode the actual page number parameter. Kerry ( talk) 13:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Mistaking it for a deprecated magic link, CitationCleanerBot is inserting {{ PMID}} within quoted ref tags (see for example diff). This is mostly harmless, but nevertheless, an unnecessary edit. It would be better to replace "PMID xxxxxx" → "PMIDxxxxxx" if found within a ref tag. Boghog ( talk) 06:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi CCBot / Headbomb, I came across a ref on
Nano-threads where a |citeseerx=
means the |access-date=
shows up as an
error. Is that something the bot could help clear up in general - for this and any similar ID parameters like it? It might already be working on these, but the error's been there
2016 (well,
2012 but the format was id={{citeseerx}}
then), so I thought it was worth mentioning. I've left it unfixed for now in case it's useful as a test case. Discussion (
here) ›
Mortee
talk
12:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Here, on 27 June, the bot changed a jstor url into a jstor id, but there was already a JSTOR id in the citation. DferDaisy ( talk) 22:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC)