![]() | 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. |
Note This page is deprecated as I try to make bugs simpler to report and resolve. New bugs are now reported at User talk:Citation bot.
Archives were scrambled due to poor configuration of CB3. Everything is back here. Many things were duplicated (maybe archived, then back, then tagged ad 'resolved' and re-archived. Chronology should be re-enforced.
One other change I noticed in that same edit. It's quite common to cite medical articles when they have been published online but have not been officially assigned year, volume, and pages. For example, Autism therapies formerly contained this citation:
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)because the paper was published online in 2007. Eventually the paper was published in the official journal in 2008, and Citation bot updated the citation by adding volume=38 and pages=546, resulting in this partially-improved version:
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)To finish the improvement, I had to manually change the year=2007 to year=2008, add issue=3, and add the last page number (552), resulting in the following:
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)I understand that Citation bot does not have the issue=3 and the last-page 552 information available, so it cannot fix that part of the citation. However, it does have the date available, so it could update year=2007 to year=2008, thus saving me a bit of work. (I have to clean up after the Citation bot a lot, so every bit would help.) Could you please fix the citation bot to add 1 to the year if necessary, when it adds a volume= and pages= info? Thanks. Eubulides ( talk) 16:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
This edit to Autism added "|publisher= AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC PRESS INC (DC) |location= United States" to two citations of DSM-IV-TR. In both cases, the publisher= and location= information is undesirable: a "location= United States" is useless for an American organization, and a "|publisher= AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC PRESS INC (DC)" is simply duplicated (and poorly-capitalized) information for a citation that already says "|author= American Psychiatric Association". The Citation bot used to not make changes like this; can you please fix it so that it continues to not make these changes, or let me know how to shut it off for these citations? In the mean time I cleaned up by hand. Thanks. Eubulides ( talk) 04:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Is this a bug? I don't know why it added that parameter to the citation template... I'm still semi-new to things here. Killiondude ( talk) 07:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
When I visit http://toolserver.org/~verisimilus/Bot/DOI_bot/ and enter " Causes of autism", check only the "Thorough mode" box (without committing edits), and hit "Submit Query", the bot seems to give up about halfway through. The last few lines of output look like this. Maybe that citation is putting it into a loop?
Mercury exposure and child development outcomes
Already has a DOI. All details present – no need to query CrossRef. No CrossRef record found.
Determining format of URL...assessing URL Done.
Checking that the DOI is operational...
Eubulides ( talk) 19:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Some journals have all uppercase words, e.g., FEBS Journal. Your otherwise very useful bot changes these to titlecase (Febs in this case). Xasodfuih ( talk) 20:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Any reason why the bot doesn't search for ISBNs for {{ cite book}}? Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 08:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
When it replaces 'author' with 'last/first, last2/first2', etc., a name like Smith AB is replaced with Smith B. Also, it sometimes combines adjacent author names, ie 'Smith AB, Jones CD' may become 'Smith J.C.', with the periods added. I have been undoing these edits to the ref templates in my watchlist... as I'm pathologically nitpicky. Anyway, just a heads up.-- Rcej ( talk) 02:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
The ref templates that I have edited are the ones I initially 'queue jumped', and are still in my watchlist... which are too many to keep track of, but my 9/5 thru 9/6/09 contribs list shows many of them. I've never had to add an author; my edits prior to undoing Citation Bot 3's 9/5 activity consisted of –
1. reformatting author listings from the default 'Smith, Ab;' to read 'Smith AB,'
2. removing any url that doesn't provide 'Free full text', though indicated to; or removing urls that point to relevant disease info websites instead of the journal abstract/article. Also, when there is a PMC for the citation, removing the url lets the PMC hyperlink the title... in some of those instances, I've removed viable urls only if there is a PMC that gives a more easily accessible 'Free full text' version.
3. adding a missing PMID, which is a rare occurrance
Those are pretty much my routine edits to the templates I initiated through Citation Bot. I hope this info. helps... sorry if it's too sketchy sounding. It seemed like templates I've edited were the only ones CB3 edited, but I haven't confirmed that.-- Rcej ( talk) 03:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
All recent erroneous edits with an edit summary beginning [cDs] will be undone presently. Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 07:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
This edit seems to have been an error due to the bot ignoring the <nowiki></nowiki>
tags around a pipe character in the title field of the citation. The result was a broken template so I reverted. --
Dbratland (
talk)
17:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
|
, which renders as |. Would this work in all cases?
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
18:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)|
mean. It might work but I would lean towards the page being written for the convenience of human editors rather than bots. --
Dbratland (
talk)
18:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)The bot tends to add links to JSTOR even if equivalent DOI is already given. Here is an example. Two major objections:
Therefore, I would strongly object to adding direct links to JSTOR if equivalent DOI link is already given. Maxal ( talk) 17:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
[1] This problem still exists. And also, for some reason Citation bot adds |publisher=
although |journal=
etc. is given. —
bender235 (
talk)
20:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
and I couldn't make it work by experiment. (ii) Mind you, {{
JSTOR}}
is an extra template, and the number of templates per article is limited.
Materialscientist (
talk)
06:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Citation bot 1 is adding incorrect publisher data to correctly-formatted citations. In the above example, it added Nielsen Business Media, Inc. as both the publisher and the author of two Billboard articles written in the 1940s and 1950s. Although Billboard was owned by Nielsen between 1993 and 2009, it wasn't the publisher when the article was written, nor is it the publisher now. The redundant "Nielsen Business Media, Inc. Nielsen Business Media, Inc." is also not helpful. Also, the bot appears to be changing working (valid) URLs that were tested as working using other Wiki tools. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
(if its sent to my api, google isnt a publisher, so its blank.-
[5] .)
I imagine the Arxiv error is similar.
Spencerk (
talk)
18:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Is this edit correct? It looks like the bot may be treating a page number from appendix "D" as a range of pages (from "D" through 5). -- Stepheng3 ( talk) 05:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, do you know why {{ Cite doi/10.2307.2F604080}} (JSTOR 604080) contains last3, author1 and author2? There should be (at most) two authors. Shreevatsa ( talk) 02:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Is this one related? It's for a paper with a single author, with an accented name, on jstor; the bot added a second copy of the name without the accent. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Here "ed = 3rd" was corrected to "editor = 3rd". I changed this to "edition = 3rd" (of course) but wanted to report the bug. -- Fama Clamosa ( talk) 10:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Example -- JimWae ( talk) 10:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
In this edit, the bot added clearly mangled author information for this book. (I had left the author info in the citation template blank because the work is authored by the publishing organization, and Google Books' consequent description of the author is somewhat lame.) Magic ♪piano 10:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
It is still happening, are these real authors?
-- SWTPC6800 ( talk) 01:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
In this edit, Citation bot flagged this link as dead. It is not. -- Stemonitis ( talk) 16:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
The bot changed one cite web to citation, but left one: [6]. Wizard191 ( talk) 17:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
In this edit [7], the bot fixed the spelling of a cite parameter (good), but also moved it to the end of the citation, away from the related name parameters (not so good). Could you perhaps please leaving the ordering/grouping of related parameters as-found. Many Thanks, — Sladen ( talk) 10:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
In this edit you have erroneously lower-cased 'An' in 'Early Modern Japan: An Interdisciplinary Journal'. See EMJ home page -- candyworm ( talk) 20:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Example, not an isolated one. The tagged dois are valid and are clickable before the bot operation (the bot actually used some of those dois to expand the refs.). Materialscientist ( talk) 23:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Resumed. Especially clear when the bot is run over an article once and then again (I do that often because the bot misses some parameters from one run, e.g. adding both doi and pmid, etc). Focus on doi: 10.2113/gsecongeo.39.2.109. Here, the bot expanded it and then tagged as broken. I then went to the bot history and stumbled upon a funny example when the bot first untagged dois and then re-tagged them. Reverse example [8] [9]. Materialscientist ( talk) 06:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
As you can see here [10], the bot reassigned the first name of "editor5" and made it the first name of "editor1" (there are six authors for this veterinary medical text). The correct name of the lead editor is "Ross D. Clark, DVM" and the correct name of editor5 is "Jacob Mosier, DVM". Thanks! Astro$01 ( talk) 11:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
does not recognise more than four pairs of editor names; the highest permissible is |editor4-last=
|editor4-first=
--
Redrose64 (
talk)
14:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)In this edit, Citation bot changed an interwiki doi link of the form [[doi:10.1016/j.ejc.2008.09.028]] (inside the id field of a citation template) to the broken format [[doi=10.1016/j.ejc.2008.09.028]]. Note by the way that this is not the doi of the paper itself; it is the doi of an erratum to the paper, which is why it was specified that way rather than using a doi field. Please avoid breaking links like this. — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
{{
doi|10.1016/j.ejc.2008.09.028}}
would be much more common.
Materialscientist (
talk)
04:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I insist that this is not resolved. The bot is perfectly welcome to change fields of the form doi= within a citation template. If it messes up anything else that is not a doi= field, but merely has the "doi" substring in it for some other reason, as it did in this edit, then it is a bug. It should be more careful to check that the "doi" that it thinks it is matching really is part of a field name in a template (e.g. that the letters "doi" follow a vertical pipe, not true in this example, and that they aren't nested inside other double-curly or double-square bracket pairs, also not true in this example). — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
|id=
parameter in a fashion that violated the template documentation. Unfortunately, I only have time to make the bot operate in line with consensus policies, and cannot accommodate custom uses of templates that are at odds with their documentation. Before I amend the bot's behaviour, I would therefore first ask that consensus is obtained for this novel usage of the id parameter, and that this consensus is reflected in the cite journal documentation.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
21:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Not sure why, but the bot just blanked an article here when it was trying to note that a doi was incorrect. Great bot by the way - I've saved hours since I found out about {{ cite doi}} and {{ cite jstor}}. Smartse ( talk) 12:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Citation bot 1 keeps confusing issue numbers for page numbers for online publications. See this edit of Lemur, particularly the refs named "2009Groeneveld", "2008Braune", and "2008Orlando". – VisionHolder « talk » 18:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
<JournalIssue CitedMedium="Internet">
<Volume>8</Volume>
<PubDate>
<Year>2008</Year>
</PubDate>
</JournalIssue>
and
<Pagination>
<MedlinePgn>121</MedlinePgn>
</Pagination>
so clearly they've got the same error. I'd suggest that in such cases, where no true issue number nor page number applies, we would do better to follow the format given in
Citing Medicine as shown as example
"36. Journal article on the Internet with location/extent expressed as an article number". To whit, it shows:
Pasanen K, Parkkari J, Pasanen M, Hiilloskorpi H, Mäkinen T, Järvinen M, Kannus P. Neuromuscular training and the risk of leg injuries in female floorball players: cluster randomised controlled study. BMJ [Internet]. 2008 Jul 1 [cited 2008 Nov 17];337:a295 [7 p.]. Available from: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/337/jul01_2/a295 Free full text article. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.a295
Of course that implies that we define a new
|articleno=a295
which overrides both issue and page.
LeadSongDog
come howl!
20:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Has this sort of thing been fixed? Rich Farmbrough, 04:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC).
The attempted application at Copula (statistics) for cite to Onken et al. left all authors on Last= line and 5 rather than 4 "first*=". Result edited manually. Melcombe ( talk) 11:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template%3ACite_doi%2F10.1021.2Fop9700385&action=historysubmit&diff=398313359&oldid=374677940 Ronhjones (Talk) 22:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I think the bot should detect if 'et al' is present in situations like this one. Ruslik_ Zero 19:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
For some reason, the bot seems to have a bit of a fascination with using the information about this paper instead of the paper that the doi/pmid actually links to. I've now seen it across multiple articles, for example in Template:Cite pmid/2439888, Template:Cite doi/10.1038.2F174515a0 and there are about 50 other occurences. Any idea what's up? If you can let me know how to fix them relatively speedily then I'll have a go. (you must sometimes wish you ever bothered inventing the bot musn't you?) SmartSE ( talk) 23:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying to run the bot on Genome-wide association study. However, it does not seem to be reacting at all to references with PMID's after the 32nd reference. There are no error output so unfortunately I can't be more helpful than than. -- LasseFolkersen ( talk) 16:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
to {{
cite journal}}
, it should have been {{
cite web}}
.
When I run it on Bioorthogonal Chemistry, I get this error: Edit may have failed. Retrying: xxx Still no good. One last try: Failed. Error code: BADMD5: The supplied MD5 hash was incorrect. What is a BADMD5 anyway?
I am getting the same error on Potassium iodide. When I run the page in manual mode and check the output, it is mangling all the non-ascii characters. — Chris Capoccia T⁄ C 14:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Every time I run Citation Bot it gives me some incorrect linkage. The results page says
but when I click on (Article name) I am taken to the Main Page instead. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 01:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
For the last day or so, I have received the following message in response to attempts to use citation bot: "Blank page. Perhaps it's been deleted? ** Blank page retrieved." The message is returned for all pages and they are clearly not blank. 173.62.242.128 ( talk) 11:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I've tried to use the tool in the He wikipedia. I wrote in the first box "he:User:Neta90/Bibliography" and in the secound "Neta90" (with the default parameters). Ufortunately, it didn't work out. The error was "Writing to He:User:Neta90/Bibliography ... Edit may have failed. Retrying: xxx Still no good. One last try: Failed. Error code: NOTOKEN: The token parameter must be set. history / last edit". Is it a bug? Thanks, Neta90 ( talk) 15:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
In this edit there were ten instances which, like the example below, didn't find the PMID. Is the bot querying pubmed by doi before declaring "abandoned. nothing found"? I suspect it is not, as a manual pubmed query for "10.1056/NEJMoa060068" found the record and returned PMID 17093248.
*-> Rabbit antithymocyte globulin versus basiliximab in renal transplantation
1: Tidy citation and try ISBN SICI
Brennan, DC, Daller JA, Lake KD, Cibrik D, Del Castillo D
2: Find DOI
- Checking CrossRef database... Match found: 10.1056/NEJMoa060068
3: Find PMID & expand
- Searching PubMed...
- Errors detected in PMID search; abandoned. nothing found.
4: Expand citation
- Checking CrossRef for more details
Done. Just a couple of things to tweak now...
Checking that DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa060068 is operational...
LeadSongDog
come howl!
16:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Now tagged {{nobots}}. Keeps changing an URL to the wrong page. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 20:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I like to include author data in my citation tags, even if they won't be displayed. However, Citation bot 1 keep deleting "extra" author information. See this edit of Lemur, particularly refs named "2009Mittermeier" and "2008MittermeierGroves". Can this "feature" be disabled? – VisionHolder « talk » 18:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
(with a journal, authors, volume, issue, pages, and doi) in lieu of {{
cite book}}
(with editors, a publication-place, publisher, and an isbn). It also erroneously listed editors as if they were authors. It is less than surprising the bot got confused by this one. Wikisource fixed.
LeadSongDog
come howl!
21:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)|author9=Jones, A.B; Smith, C.D; Milton, E.F.
. This still won't be displayed (it just triggers the display of "et al.") but the bot will leave them be.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
16:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC){{ resolved}}
On Tempo (chess) the bot replaced a 13-digit ISBN with a 10-digit ISBN from duplicate data. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 05:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
It also made an unwanted change to Rook and pawn versus rook endgame yesterday. The authorlink was commented out because the author is linked previously. The bot changed it. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 05:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
|authorlink=<!-- John Nunn-->
to the same effect.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
16:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC){{ resolved}}
The review of the book is posted at the place the book is listed so the bot thinks the book is the reference and sticks in the isbn. Smkolins ( talk) 23:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
In the article Oral Roberts, there are citations with an "id" parameter that has two ISBN numbers. This works as intended when the parameter is named "id", but when the "id" is changed to "isbn", the two ISBN numbers are interpreted as one big ISBN number, which is incorrect. I reverted the changes that the bot made. Obankston ( talk) 15:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
|isbn=0-87975-535-0
. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
16:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Don't forget it is perfectly acceptable to indicate more than one ISBN in, say, a "Further reading" section or a section containing a list of an author's works to alert readers to the fact that a particular book exists in more than one format. — Cheers, JackLee – talk– 19:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: length (
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)?
TomS TDotO (
talk)
10:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
is that sooner or later, a well-meaning editor (or bot) will fill in all the absent fields, and possibly not do so in the intended manner. If there are two editions or formats to show in "Further reading", they could each be given a full citation: see
Template:Rolt-Red – if you do this yourself, it's less likely that the aforementioned well-meaning ed/bot will get it wrong. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
14:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
LeadSongDog come howl! 16:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC) {{ resolved}}
Hello. I used the cite doi template for the doi 10.1136/bmj.1.3363.1111-a on Samuel Taylor Darling to create this reference (some time ago, but I've only just noticed it's wrong!). The bot then expanded this for me, completely incorrectly, such that only the doi bit that I originally input is actually correct. Ta, Chris ( talk) 08:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Diff= http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Tribute&diff=385236599&oldid=378447098
Please do not remove &hl=en#v=onepage. "onepage" became "snippet".
Whenever I use {{ cite doi}}, I always have to make [13] this sort of change: [14], http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template:Cite_doi/10.1260.2F095830503765184583&diff=prev&oldid=384324518], [15], etc. Only the first page of the article ever gets properly added to the citation template. I'm not sure why this is, but is there any way to fix it? NW ( Talk) 02:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
I jumped the queue with this link [16] and it went through the motions but never created the template. (I ended up just creating it myself.) I can't reproduce with other dois. ErikHaugen ( talk) 22:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Also is it deliberate that first names are abbreviated? I almost always end up editing the cite doi subpage to a.) include entire page range and b.) spell out first names. ErikHaugen ( talk) 22:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
This is an old diff, but it just came to my attention today that this old edit of your bot completely broke the citation template. The citation parameters for a patent are completely different than that of {{ cite patent}}, so you should never convert between these two. Wizard191 ( talk) 13:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Could you please get the bot to ignore Oxford Dictionary of National Biography references. Duplicating authors or adding the editor of the dictionary as the author of the article is inappropriate. DrKiernan ( talk) 08:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Hi. The bot updated the PMID for ref 1 in this article, from a correct PMID to an incorrect PMID. The updated PMID pointed to a paper (I guess a short paper) that had the same start page as the correct paper - I suspect this is why the mistake occurred. This does, however raise the question of whether this will happen every time more than one paper starts on the same page of a journal. Any thoughts? Regards, GILO ACCIDENT & EMERGENCY 05:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC) {{ fixed}} in r231 – never overwrite editor input. Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 14:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC){{ resolved}}
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Collatz_conjecture&diff=373121445&oldid=371737940
http://code.google.com/p/citation-bot/issues/detail?id=60
Cheers, — sligocki ( talk) 01:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
This edit has problems
So whatever is detecting the need for postscript changes seems too sensitive, and the bot should detect "journal=" and "newspaper=". -- Lexein ( talk) 16:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Why is Citation Bot 1 naming all unnamed refs in articles it's working on? This is not only unnecessary, but actually unhelpful, as the point of names is not only to collect together cites from the same source, but also as a mnemonic device for editors. They are never going to remember what "Ref_a" or "Ref_n" is. Please fix this. Example: [19] Beyond My Ken ( talk) 00:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
{{pmid 123456}}
which nobody can remember what they refer toPlease re-enable it! It so immensely helpful. Users are free to rename the citations if they feel like it, but there's just no reason to keep 5 <ref> which could be consendensed into one <ref name=Ref_A> and 4 <ref name=Ref_A/>. It really tidies up the reflists. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
I tried running it and it said "Activated by Alpha Quadrant" but doesn't do anything else. I waited a half hour, but nothing happened. I tried a few other articles to see if it was just that particular one, but I got the same message. Is the bot down? Thanks, Alpha Quadrant talk 03:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
There are a parallel set of cite templates ({{ vcite journal}}, {{ vcite book}}, etc.). These behave much like {{ cite journal}}, etc. except that they take certain shortcuts in order to reduce page load times. The syntax used in the vcite templates is identical to the cite templates except that support for complex parameters such as "first1, last1, editor1-first, editor1-last" is dropped and instead one must use simple "author, editor", etc parameters. I tried running Citation bot on an example article (see nuclear receptor) where I have replaced cite with vcite templates, but Citation bot doesn't seem to recognize these templates. Would it be possible to extend the Citation bot so that the vcite series of templates are recognized and updated? Thanks. Boghog ( talk) 09:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
When expanding doi: 10.1007/BF01397171, the bot took letters ü as �, but I could copy/paste those letters from the doi-target page to wikipedia. Is it possible to preserve such symbols or they are lost somewhere at crossref? Materialscientist ( talk) 11:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC) {{ resolved}} in r249.
Seems to have the Jstor number thrice, in the second citation changed. Rich Farmbrough, 04:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC).
Two kinds of edits to Google Books URLs are happening. After a recent edit by the bot, I tested each of the edited URLs and found none of the edits were correct. One type of edit was previously discussed. The other is visible in this comparison of diffs from before the bot ran until after I edited to the correct URLs, thus bypassing the immediate result of the bot, thus showing the additional kind of edit by the bot. Thanks. Nick Levinson ( talk) 06:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
The details are completely wrong for this DOI Template:Cite_doi/10.1007.2F978-3-540-89982-2_59. pgr94 ( talk) 11:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
At this edit the bot seems to have mangled the diacritics in author names. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC) {{ resolved}}
![]() | 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. |
Note This page is deprecated as I try to make bugs simpler to report and resolve. New bugs are now reported at User talk:Citation bot.
Archives were scrambled due to poor configuration of CB3. Everything is back here. Many things were duplicated (maybe archived, then back, then tagged ad 'resolved' and re-archived. Chronology should be re-enforced.
One other change I noticed in that same edit. It's quite common to cite medical articles when they have been published online but have not been officially assigned year, volume, and pages. For example, Autism therapies formerly contained this citation:
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)because the paper was published online in 2007. Eventually the paper was published in the official journal in 2008, and Citation bot updated the citation by adding volume=38 and pages=546, resulting in this partially-improved version:
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)To finish the improvement, I had to manually change the year=2007 to year=2008, add issue=3, and add the last page number (552), resulting in the following:
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)I understand that Citation bot does not have the issue=3 and the last-page 552 information available, so it cannot fix that part of the citation. However, it does have the date available, so it could update year=2007 to year=2008, thus saving me a bit of work. (I have to clean up after the Citation bot a lot, so every bit would help.) Could you please fix the citation bot to add 1 to the year if necessary, when it adds a volume= and pages= info? Thanks. Eubulides ( talk) 16:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
This edit to Autism added "|publisher= AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC PRESS INC (DC) |location= United States" to two citations of DSM-IV-TR. In both cases, the publisher= and location= information is undesirable: a "location= United States" is useless for an American organization, and a "|publisher= AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC PRESS INC (DC)" is simply duplicated (and poorly-capitalized) information for a citation that already says "|author= American Psychiatric Association". The Citation bot used to not make changes like this; can you please fix it so that it continues to not make these changes, or let me know how to shut it off for these citations? In the mean time I cleaned up by hand. Thanks. Eubulides ( talk) 04:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Is this a bug? I don't know why it added that parameter to the citation template... I'm still semi-new to things here. Killiondude ( talk) 07:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
When I visit http://toolserver.org/~verisimilus/Bot/DOI_bot/ and enter " Causes of autism", check only the "Thorough mode" box (without committing edits), and hit "Submit Query", the bot seems to give up about halfway through. The last few lines of output look like this. Maybe that citation is putting it into a loop?
Mercury exposure and child development outcomes
Already has a DOI. All details present – no need to query CrossRef. No CrossRef record found.
Determining format of URL...assessing URL Done.
Checking that the DOI is operational...
Eubulides ( talk) 19:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Some journals have all uppercase words, e.g., FEBS Journal. Your otherwise very useful bot changes these to titlecase (Febs in this case). Xasodfuih ( talk) 20:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Any reason why the bot doesn't search for ISBNs for {{ cite book}}? Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 08:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
When it replaces 'author' with 'last/first, last2/first2', etc., a name like Smith AB is replaced with Smith B. Also, it sometimes combines adjacent author names, ie 'Smith AB, Jones CD' may become 'Smith J.C.', with the periods added. I have been undoing these edits to the ref templates in my watchlist... as I'm pathologically nitpicky. Anyway, just a heads up.-- Rcej ( talk) 02:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
The ref templates that I have edited are the ones I initially 'queue jumped', and are still in my watchlist... which are too many to keep track of, but my 9/5 thru 9/6/09 contribs list shows many of them. I've never had to add an author; my edits prior to undoing Citation Bot 3's 9/5 activity consisted of –
1. reformatting author listings from the default 'Smith, Ab;' to read 'Smith AB,'
2. removing any url that doesn't provide 'Free full text', though indicated to; or removing urls that point to relevant disease info websites instead of the journal abstract/article. Also, when there is a PMC for the citation, removing the url lets the PMC hyperlink the title... in some of those instances, I've removed viable urls only if there is a PMC that gives a more easily accessible 'Free full text' version.
3. adding a missing PMID, which is a rare occurrance
Those are pretty much my routine edits to the templates I initiated through Citation Bot. I hope this info. helps... sorry if it's too sketchy sounding. It seemed like templates I've edited were the only ones CB3 edited, but I haven't confirmed that.-- Rcej ( talk) 03:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
All recent erroneous edits with an edit summary beginning [cDs] will be undone presently. Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 07:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
This edit seems to have been an error due to the bot ignoring the <nowiki></nowiki>
tags around a pipe character in the title field of the citation. The result was a broken template so I reverted. --
Dbratland (
talk)
17:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
|
, which renders as |. Would this work in all cases?
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
18:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)|
mean. It might work but I would lean towards the page being written for the convenience of human editors rather than bots. --
Dbratland (
talk)
18:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)The bot tends to add links to JSTOR even if equivalent DOI is already given. Here is an example. Two major objections:
Therefore, I would strongly object to adding direct links to JSTOR if equivalent DOI link is already given. Maxal ( talk) 17:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
[1] This problem still exists. And also, for some reason Citation bot adds |publisher=
although |journal=
etc. is given. —
bender235 (
talk)
20:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
and I couldn't make it work by experiment. (ii) Mind you, {{
JSTOR}}
is an extra template, and the number of templates per article is limited.
Materialscientist (
talk)
06:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Citation bot 1 is adding incorrect publisher data to correctly-formatted citations. In the above example, it added Nielsen Business Media, Inc. as both the publisher and the author of two Billboard articles written in the 1940s and 1950s. Although Billboard was owned by Nielsen between 1993 and 2009, it wasn't the publisher when the article was written, nor is it the publisher now. The redundant "Nielsen Business Media, Inc. Nielsen Business Media, Inc." is also not helpful. Also, the bot appears to be changing working (valid) URLs that were tested as working using other Wiki tools. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
(if its sent to my api, google isnt a publisher, so its blank.-
[5] .)
I imagine the Arxiv error is similar.
Spencerk (
talk)
18:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Is this edit correct? It looks like the bot may be treating a page number from appendix "D" as a range of pages (from "D" through 5). -- Stepheng3 ( talk) 05:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, do you know why {{ Cite doi/10.2307.2F604080}} (JSTOR 604080) contains last3, author1 and author2? There should be (at most) two authors. Shreevatsa ( talk) 02:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Is this one related? It's for a paper with a single author, with an accented name, on jstor; the bot added a second copy of the name without the accent. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Here "ed = 3rd" was corrected to "editor = 3rd". I changed this to "edition = 3rd" (of course) but wanted to report the bug. -- Fama Clamosa ( talk) 10:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Example -- JimWae ( talk) 10:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
In this edit, the bot added clearly mangled author information for this book. (I had left the author info in the citation template blank because the work is authored by the publishing organization, and Google Books' consequent description of the author is somewhat lame.) Magic ♪piano 10:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
It is still happening, are these real authors?
-- SWTPC6800 ( talk) 01:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
In this edit, Citation bot flagged this link as dead. It is not. -- Stemonitis ( talk) 16:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
The bot changed one cite web to citation, but left one: [6]. Wizard191 ( talk) 17:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
In this edit [7], the bot fixed the spelling of a cite parameter (good), but also moved it to the end of the citation, away from the related name parameters (not so good). Could you perhaps please leaving the ordering/grouping of related parameters as-found. Many Thanks, — Sladen ( talk) 10:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
In this edit you have erroneously lower-cased 'An' in 'Early Modern Japan: An Interdisciplinary Journal'. See EMJ home page -- candyworm ( talk) 20:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Example, not an isolated one. The tagged dois are valid and are clickable before the bot operation (the bot actually used some of those dois to expand the refs.). Materialscientist ( talk) 23:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Resumed. Especially clear when the bot is run over an article once and then again (I do that often because the bot misses some parameters from one run, e.g. adding both doi and pmid, etc). Focus on doi: 10.2113/gsecongeo.39.2.109. Here, the bot expanded it and then tagged as broken. I then went to the bot history and stumbled upon a funny example when the bot first untagged dois and then re-tagged them. Reverse example [8] [9]. Materialscientist ( talk) 06:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
As you can see here [10], the bot reassigned the first name of "editor5" and made it the first name of "editor1" (there are six authors for this veterinary medical text). The correct name of the lead editor is "Ross D. Clark, DVM" and the correct name of editor5 is "Jacob Mosier, DVM". Thanks! Astro$01 ( talk) 11:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
does not recognise more than four pairs of editor names; the highest permissible is |editor4-last=
|editor4-first=
--
Redrose64 (
talk)
14:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)In this edit, Citation bot changed an interwiki doi link of the form [[doi:10.1016/j.ejc.2008.09.028]] (inside the id field of a citation template) to the broken format [[doi=10.1016/j.ejc.2008.09.028]]. Note by the way that this is not the doi of the paper itself; it is the doi of an erratum to the paper, which is why it was specified that way rather than using a doi field. Please avoid breaking links like this. — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
{{
doi|10.1016/j.ejc.2008.09.028}}
would be much more common.
Materialscientist (
talk)
04:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I insist that this is not resolved. The bot is perfectly welcome to change fields of the form doi= within a citation template. If it messes up anything else that is not a doi= field, but merely has the "doi" substring in it for some other reason, as it did in this edit, then it is a bug. It should be more careful to check that the "doi" that it thinks it is matching really is part of a field name in a template (e.g. that the letters "doi" follow a vertical pipe, not true in this example, and that they aren't nested inside other double-curly or double-square bracket pairs, also not true in this example). — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
|id=
parameter in a fashion that violated the template documentation. Unfortunately, I only have time to make the bot operate in line with consensus policies, and cannot accommodate custom uses of templates that are at odds with their documentation. Before I amend the bot's behaviour, I would therefore first ask that consensus is obtained for this novel usage of the id parameter, and that this consensus is reflected in the cite journal documentation.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
21:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Not sure why, but the bot just blanked an article here when it was trying to note that a doi was incorrect. Great bot by the way - I've saved hours since I found out about {{ cite doi}} and {{ cite jstor}}. Smartse ( talk) 12:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Citation bot 1 keeps confusing issue numbers for page numbers for online publications. See this edit of Lemur, particularly the refs named "2009Groeneveld", "2008Braune", and "2008Orlando". – VisionHolder « talk » 18:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
<JournalIssue CitedMedium="Internet">
<Volume>8</Volume>
<PubDate>
<Year>2008</Year>
</PubDate>
</JournalIssue>
and
<Pagination>
<MedlinePgn>121</MedlinePgn>
</Pagination>
so clearly they've got the same error. I'd suggest that in such cases, where no true issue number nor page number applies, we would do better to follow the format given in
Citing Medicine as shown as example
"36. Journal article on the Internet with location/extent expressed as an article number". To whit, it shows:
Pasanen K, Parkkari J, Pasanen M, Hiilloskorpi H, Mäkinen T, Järvinen M, Kannus P. Neuromuscular training and the risk of leg injuries in female floorball players: cluster randomised controlled study. BMJ [Internet]. 2008 Jul 1 [cited 2008 Nov 17];337:a295 [7 p.]. Available from: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/337/jul01_2/a295 Free full text article. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.a295
Of course that implies that we define a new
|articleno=a295
which overrides both issue and page.
LeadSongDog
come howl!
20:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Has this sort of thing been fixed? Rich Farmbrough, 04:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC).
The attempted application at Copula (statistics) for cite to Onken et al. left all authors on Last= line and 5 rather than 4 "first*=". Result edited manually. Melcombe ( talk) 11:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template%3ACite_doi%2F10.1021.2Fop9700385&action=historysubmit&diff=398313359&oldid=374677940 Ronhjones (Talk) 22:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I think the bot should detect if 'et al' is present in situations like this one. Ruslik_ Zero 19:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
For some reason, the bot seems to have a bit of a fascination with using the information about this paper instead of the paper that the doi/pmid actually links to. I've now seen it across multiple articles, for example in Template:Cite pmid/2439888, Template:Cite doi/10.1038.2F174515a0 and there are about 50 other occurences. Any idea what's up? If you can let me know how to fix them relatively speedily then I'll have a go. (you must sometimes wish you ever bothered inventing the bot musn't you?) SmartSE ( talk) 23:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying to run the bot on Genome-wide association study. However, it does not seem to be reacting at all to references with PMID's after the 32nd reference. There are no error output so unfortunately I can't be more helpful than than. -- LasseFolkersen ( talk) 16:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
to {{
cite journal}}
, it should have been {{
cite web}}
.
When I run it on Bioorthogonal Chemistry, I get this error: Edit may have failed. Retrying: xxx Still no good. One last try: Failed. Error code: BADMD5: The supplied MD5 hash was incorrect. What is a BADMD5 anyway?
I am getting the same error on Potassium iodide. When I run the page in manual mode and check the output, it is mangling all the non-ascii characters. — Chris Capoccia T⁄ C 14:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Every time I run Citation Bot it gives me some incorrect linkage. The results page says
but when I click on (Article name) I am taken to the Main Page instead. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 01:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
For the last day or so, I have received the following message in response to attempts to use citation bot: "Blank page. Perhaps it's been deleted? ** Blank page retrieved." The message is returned for all pages and they are clearly not blank. 173.62.242.128 ( talk) 11:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I've tried to use the tool in the He wikipedia. I wrote in the first box "he:User:Neta90/Bibliography" and in the secound "Neta90" (with the default parameters). Ufortunately, it didn't work out. The error was "Writing to He:User:Neta90/Bibliography ... Edit may have failed. Retrying: xxx Still no good. One last try: Failed. Error code: NOTOKEN: The token parameter must be set. history / last edit". Is it a bug? Thanks, Neta90 ( talk) 15:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
In this edit there were ten instances which, like the example below, didn't find the PMID. Is the bot querying pubmed by doi before declaring "abandoned. nothing found"? I suspect it is not, as a manual pubmed query for "10.1056/NEJMoa060068" found the record and returned PMID 17093248.
*-> Rabbit antithymocyte globulin versus basiliximab in renal transplantation
1: Tidy citation and try ISBN SICI
Brennan, DC, Daller JA, Lake KD, Cibrik D, Del Castillo D
2: Find DOI
- Checking CrossRef database... Match found: 10.1056/NEJMoa060068
3: Find PMID & expand
- Searching PubMed...
- Errors detected in PMID search; abandoned. nothing found.
4: Expand citation
- Checking CrossRef for more details
Done. Just a couple of things to tweak now...
Checking that DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa060068 is operational...
LeadSongDog
come howl!
16:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Now tagged {{nobots}}. Keeps changing an URL to the wrong page. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 20:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I like to include author data in my citation tags, even if they won't be displayed. However, Citation bot 1 keep deleting "extra" author information. See this edit of Lemur, particularly refs named "2009Mittermeier" and "2008MittermeierGroves". Can this "feature" be disabled? – VisionHolder « talk » 18:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
(with a journal, authors, volume, issue, pages, and doi) in lieu of {{
cite book}}
(with editors, a publication-place, publisher, and an isbn). It also erroneously listed editors as if they were authors. It is less than surprising the bot got confused by this one. Wikisource fixed.
LeadSongDog
come howl!
21:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)|author9=Jones, A.B; Smith, C.D; Milton, E.F.
. This still won't be displayed (it just triggers the display of "et al.") but the bot will leave them be.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
16:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC){{ resolved}}
On Tempo (chess) the bot replaced a 13-digit ISBN with a 10-digit ISBN from duplicate data. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 05:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
It also made an unwanted change to Rook and pawn versus rook endgame yesterday. The authorlink was commented out because the author is linked previously. The bot changed it. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 05:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
|authorlink=<!-- John Nunn-->
to the same effect.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
16:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC){{ resolved}}
The review of the book is posted at the place the book is listed so the bot thinks the book is the reference and sticks in the isbn. Smkolins ( talk) 23:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
In the article Oral Roberts, there are citations with an "id" parameter that has two ISBN numbers. This works as intended when the parameter is named "id", but when the "id" is changed to "isbn", the two ISBN numbers are interpreted as one big ISBN number, which is incorrect. I reverted the changes that the bot made. Obankston ( talk) 15:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
|isbn=0-87975-535-0
. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
16:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Don't forget it is perfectly acceptable to indicate more than one ISBN in, say, a "Further reading" section or a section containing a list of an author's works to alert readers to the fact that a particular book exists in more than one format. — Cheers, JackLee – talk– 19:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: length (
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)?
TomS TDotO (
talk)
10:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
is that sooner or later, a well-meaning editor (or bot) will fill in all the absent fields, and possibly not do so in the intended manner. If there are two editions or formats to show in "Further reading", they could each be given a full citation: see
Template:Rolt-Red – if you do this yourself, it's less likely that the aforementioned well-meaning ed/bot will get it wrong. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
14:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
LeadSongDog come howl! 16:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC) {{ resolved}}
Hello. I used the cite doi template for the doi 10.1136/bmj.1.3363.1111-a on Samuel Taylor Darling to create this reference (some time ago, but I've only just noticed it's wrong!). The bot then expanded this for me, completely incorrectly, such that only the doi bit that I originally input is actually correct. Ta, Chris ( talk) 08:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Diff= http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Tribute&diff=385236599&oldid=378447098
Please do not remove &hl=en#v=onepage. "onepage" became "snippet".
Whenever I use {{ cite doi}}, I always have to make [13] this sort of change: [14], http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template:Cite_doi/10.1260.2F095830503765184583&diff=prev&oldid=384324518], [15], etc. Only the first page of the article ever gets properly added to the citation template. I'm not sure why this is, but is there any way to fix it? NW ( Talk) 02:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
I jumped the queue with this link [16] and it went through the motions but never created the template. (I ended up just creating it myself.) I can't reproduce with other dois. ErikHaugen ( talk) 22:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Also is it deliberate that first names are abbreviated? I almost always end up editing the cite doi subpage to a.) include entire page range and b.) spell out first names. ErikHaugen ( talk) 22:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
This is an old diff, but it just came to my attention today that this old edit of your bot completely broke the citation template. The citation parameters for a patent are completely different than that of {{ cite patent}}, so you should never convert between these two. Wizard191 ( talk) 13:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Could you please get the bot to ignore Oxford Dictionary of National Biography references. Duplicating authors or adding the editor of the dictionary as the author of the article is inappropriate. DrKiernan ( talk) 08:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Hi. The bot updated the PMID for ref 1 in this article, from a correct PMID to an incorrect PMID. The updated PMID pointed to a paper (I guess a short paper) that had the same start page as the correct paper - I suspect this is why the mistake occurred. This does, however raise the question of whether this will happen every time more than one paper starts on the same page of a journal. Any thoughts? Regards, GILO ACCIDENT & EMERGENCY 05:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC) {{ fixed}} in r231 – never overwrite editor input. Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 14:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC){{ resolved}}
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Collatz_conjecture&diff=373121445&oldid=371737940
http://code.google.com/p/citation-bot/issues/detail?id=60
Cheers, — sligocki ( talk) 01:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
This edit has problems
So whatever is detecting the need for postscript changes seems too sensitive, and the bot should detect "journal=" and "newspaper=". -- Lexein ( talk) 16:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Why is Citation Bot 1 naming all unnamed refs in articles it's working on? This is not only unnecessary, but actually unhelpful, as the point of names is not only to collect together cites from the same source, but also as a mnemonic device for editors. They are never going to remember what "Ref_a" or "Ref_n" is. Please fix this. Example: [19] Beyond My Ken ( talk) 00:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
{{pmid 123456}}
which nobody can remember what they refer toPlease re-enable it! It so immensely helpful. Users are free to rename the citations if they feel like it, but there's just no reason to keep 5 <ref> which could be consendensed into one <ref name=Ref_A> and 4 <ref name=Ref_A/>. It really tidies up the reflists. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
I tried running it and it said "Activated by Alpha Quadrant" but doesn't do anything else. I waited a half hour, but nothing happened. I tried a few other articles to see if it was just that particular one, but I got the same message. Is the bot down? Thanks, Alpha Quadrant talk 03:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
There are a parallel set of cite templates ({{ vcite journal}}, {{ vcite book}}, etc.). These behave much like {{ cite journal}}, etc. except that they take certain shortcuts in order to reduce page load times. The syntax used in the vcite templates is identical to the cite templates except that support for complex parameters such as "first1, last1, editor1-first, editor1-last" is dropped and instead one must use simple "author, editor", etc parameters. I tried running Citation bot on an example article (see nuclear receptor) where I have replaced cite with vcite templates, but Citation bot doesn't seem to recognize these templates. Would it be possible to extend the Citation bot so that the vcite series of templates are recognized and updated? Thanks. Boghog ( talk) 09:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
When expanding doi: 10.1007/BF01397171, the bot took letters ü as �, but I could copy/paste those letters from the doi-target page to wikipedia. Is it possible to preserve such symbols or they are lost somewhere at crossref? Materialscientist ( talk) 11:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC) {{ resolved}} in r249.
Seems to have the Jstor number thrice, in the second citation changed. Rich Farmbrough, 04:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC).
Two kinds of edits to Google Books URLs are happening. After a recent edit by the bot, I tested each of the edited URLs and found none of the edits were correct. One type of edit was previously discussed. The other is visible in this comparison of diffs from before the bot ran until after I edited to the correct URLs, thus bypassing the immediate result of the bot, thus showing the additional kind of edit by the bot. Thanks. Nick Levinson ( talk) 06:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
The details are completely wrong for this DOI Template:Cite_doi/10.1007.2F978-3-540-89982-2_59. pgr94 ( talk) 11:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
At this edit the bot seems to have mangled the diacritics in author names. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC) {{ resolved}}