![]() | 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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Does DOI bot handle {{ citation}}, or only the {{ cite}} series? — David Eppstein ( talk) 15:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
[1] Is it really reasonable to label something an "abstract" when the linked page has the full document linked in PDF and/or GIF form? Wily D 12:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Is it really fixed? DOI bot has gone through all my marked articles with (abstract). See, for example, mired and D65. Just because a subscription is required it does not mean that the full article is not provided. Are you going to fix this or do we have to go through the backlog manually? -- Adoniscik( t, c) 12:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Not at all. I linked to the abstract page as a matter of policy for two reasons:
I do appreciate that your bot fixes the en dash in the page numbers! -- Adoniscik( t, c) 15:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Minor Barnstar | |
For the great job of improving citations. utcursch | talk 16:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC) |
I'm grateful for the handful of DOI's that your bot came up with. Nonetheless, I am going to revert your bot's changes to problem of Apollonius, an article I have been working on for months, for the following reason. I deliberately write & n d a s h ; instead of – to help me proofread the article. Forgive me for saying so, but it doesn't seem wise to make invisible formatting changes that also interfere with a human editor's ability to maintain the article. My suggestion would be to turn off that feature of your bot. Otherwise, well done! :) Willow ( talk) 21:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Smith! :) I plan on using your bot a lot in the future; thank you a lot for that as well! Willow ( talk) 11:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I was looking over my watchlist and I noticed this change. I then checked out the two bot approval links on the bot's page. I may have missed it, but it doesn't look like your bot was approved to make changes like this.-- Rockfang ( talk) 16:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I noticed in
this edit that the bot picked out part of the pages parameter (|pages=223
), but not the whole (|pages=223–235
). Perhaps it is because Blackwell Synergy (gasp) use en dashes for their page range, and not the more common and less correct hyphen-minus? Who knows. Thought I'd let you know. +
m
t
18:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This bot is replacing the dash for pages numbers with the endash. While this appears to be correct style, this is not an approved function for the bot. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 19:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
I missed reverting some vandalism due to a bot edit to Aluminium diff. Can the bot be configured not to make an edit within x minutes of an IP user, or user with less than x edits? Whilst it wasn't long before someone read and reverted the vandals edits diff, for a less major article than Aluminium and less blatant vandalism, the vandalism could have gone undetected for a while. Something along these lines would be good, as I ignored the bot edit on my watchlist. User A1 ( talk) 11:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
DOI bot is completely deleting the "access date" on the templates in a couple of articles, can this be avoided? Montanabw (talk) 05:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
In the Bird nest article, the DOI bot added a link to a commercial abstract when a valid URL to the free full article was already specified. Should it be doing that? MeegsC | Talk 23:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. -- Blechnic ( talk) 22:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Please keep the citation bot away for projects such as Wikipedia:Citing sources. Indeed, it would probably best to restrict it to article space only. -- Gerry Ashton ( talk) 17:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Today I saw for the first time that the bot adds an OCLC ( diff), but perhaps it has always done this. What is the rationale behind this? The OCLC was added to a book that already has an ISBN, and you can search WorldCat via the ISBN search page, so I am wondering what extra benefit the OCLC gives. -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 21:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey there
To read the DOIs for American Chemical Society publications, for example:
Publisher doi is 10.1021
Look at "ja00001a054"
DOI should be 10.1021/ja00001a054
(ja refers to J. Am. Chem. Soc.; cr refers to Chemical Reviews, etc.).
For Royal Society of Chemistry, e.g.:
prefix the DOI with 10.1039/
so, 10.1039/b804604m
Hope this helps! -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 16:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi there
I haven't tried, but I was looking at your bot's user page, and that you said only two publishers have DOIs in the URL. I thought I might fill you in? ;) -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 05:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Sites that I've seen with DOIs in the URL are only BIOONE and Blackwell publishing. The former of these encodes the title in an invisible span.
Do the <meta> tags contain a dc.Identifier or citation_doi? If so, check the dc.title or citation_title matches the title we want.
Is there a DOI in the page, anywhere? Are there lots of DOIs? Do any occur in association with the title? If there are any <br>, <p>, <li> or <td> tags between the title and a DOI, the DOI could refer to a different reference, and we'll have to ignore it.
Is there a unique DOI?
Does the DOI appear in the first 5000 characters of the document? If so, it is probably part of the document description. Any later, and it's more likely to be a reference.
Could you please take a look at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 March 9#Template:Cite pmid/19240221? The bot seems to have created a redirect ( Template:Cite pmid/19240221) to a non-existent page ( Template:Cite doi/10.1073.2Fpnas.0812570106). Thanks, – Black Falcon ( Talk) 05:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I've posted two questions regarding this bot at WP:BON#A separate template for each cited source?. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Am I the only one who thinks that putting {{ dead link}} into the "format" field makes the citation look kinda ugly, having superscripts parenthesised with normal parentheses: ( dead link – Scholar search). Also adding "scholar search" links for news articles doesn't actually help for link recovery. Maybe a link to an Internet Archive search would be more useful in some cases, depending on what fields are in the citation (e.g. journal/issn, vs. periodical). Cheers, cab ( talk) 07:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
The bot seems to be confused about slashes in DOIs.
Starting from this: {{cite doi|10.1016/j.jebo.2006.05.017}}
The template is looking for this: Template:Cite doi/10.1016.2Fj.jebo.2006.05.017
But the bot (at least when prodded via "jump the queue") creates this instead: Template:Cite doi/10.1016/j.jebo.2006.05.017
Result:
Rl (
talk)
15:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Many {{ cite arXiv}} could be converted to {{ cite journal}} For example, this page http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0605258v1 gives the journal into with this was published Nature 442, 54-58 (2006). Why not change it to a cite journal (with |id={{arXiv|0605258v1}})? Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 20:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, when you can find the journal the article has been published into, it's appropriate to change {{ cite arXiv}} to {{ cite journal}}, otherwise they should remain {{ cite arXiv}} (I'm not very familiar with {{ citation}}, but I suspect there wouldn't be any additional problem than those mentionned for {{ cite journal}}). As long as you adapt the parameters |eprint=foobar |class=barfoo |version=v123456 from {{ cite arXiv}} to into an |id={{arXiv|foobarv123456}} [barfoo] in {{ cite journal}}, there should be no problem. |class= and |version= are optional parameters; there is no need to modify the logic used when |version= is not used, as {{arXiv|foobar}} will produce the correct output; however if class is not present, the brackets should not be present (i.e, it should look like |id={{arXiv|foobarv123456}} rather than |id={{arXiv|foobarv123456}} []). All other fields from {{ cite arXiv}} (i.e., author, title, etc...) overlap with those of {{ cite journal}}.
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)I noticed that the bot misses dois (and the rest of what goes along with them) when inputs like |journal=Phys. Rev. |volume=B23 are used instead of |journal=Phys. Rev. B|volume=23. See the difference it makes [5] when you fix those [6].
IMO, the algorithm should be tweaked to search for the original input first Phys. Rev. B23. If it fails, then search for Phys. Rev. B 23. If it finds something with that new search, then change Phys. Rev. B23 to Phys. Rev. B 23, otherwise leave the journal/volume info alone. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 08:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Can something be done about adding DOIs that link to commercial sites that sell the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.180.250.211 ( talk) 17:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
In {{ cite arxiv}}, some people are using the |journal= parameter (often to indicate that a paper has been submitted/accepted by a journal). This is wrong, so Citation bot should comment that parameter out. Also, sometimes |journal=arxiv is used in various citation templates, when that's the case, and when possible, Citation bot should switch to a {{ cite arxiv}} template. Also, the Bot should stop overriding human input for authors. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 05:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello. In Navier–Stokes equations and Dispersion (water waves) the bot changed "cite web" and "cite journal" into "citation" templates, while in Airy wave theory the opposite was done: changing "citation" templates into "cite book" and "cite journal". -- Crowsnest ( talk) 20:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I notice ( here) that the bot now converts {{ citation}} to {{ cite book}} and {{ cite journal}}. What motivated this change?-- Srleffler ( talk) 04:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
An interesting issue was recently presented on Global warming
Since vandalism is a serious problem with many pages, perhaps all doi templates should be protected from anonymous editing. The other alternative is to modify the "watch" logic so that if a template is used on a page I am watching, then I will automatically get a notification any time the template is changed. (Maybe that should be done anyway.) Q Science ( talk) 00:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
There is additional discussion at Global Warming Talk Q Science ( talk) 16:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
In my gnoming work, I often have to expand refs and standardize how they look in the edit window just so I can see if there are missing parameters, inconsistencies in formatting, and so on. If would be incredibly useful if citation BOT could do the dirty work (on a per-request basis, not by default). For cite journal, it should place them as (* means if present):
Blahblah blah blah blugh.<ref> {{cite journal |author= *|authorlink= --------- OR *|last= *|first= *|authorlink= *|last2= *|first2= *|authorlink2= *|last3= *|first3= *|authorlink3= *|last4= *|first4= *|authorlink4= and so on --------- *|coauthors= |year= *|month= *|day= (or |date=) |title= *|language= *|trans_title= *|url= *|format= |journal= *|series= |volume= |issue= |page= *|publisher= *|location= *|bibcode= *|doi= *|id= *|isbn= *|issn= *|pmid= *|pmd= *|oclc= *|accessdate= *|laysummary= *|laysource= *|laydate= *|quote= ---- Other parameters (if found) place here, one per line }}</ref> Blahblahblah blug blah.
Blahblah blah blah blugh.<ref> {{cite web |author= *|authorlink= --------- OR *|last= *|first= *|authorlink= *|last2= *|first2= *|authorlink2= *|last3= *|first3= *|authorlink3= *|last4= *|first4= *|authorlink4= and so on --------- *|coauthors= |date= (or |year= *|month= *|day=) |title= *|language= *|trans_title= |url= *|format= *|page= (or |pages=) *|work= *|publisher= *|location= *|bibcode= *|doi= *|id= *|isbn= *|issn= *|oclc= *|pmd= *|pmid= |accessdate= *|archiveurl= *|quote= ---- Other parameters (if found) place here, one per line }}</ref> Blahblahblah blug blah.
Blahblah blah blah blugh.<ref> {{cite book |author= *|authorlink= --------- OR *|last= *|first= *|authorlink= *|last2= *|first2= *|authorlink2= *|last3= *|first3= *|authorlink3= *|last4= *|first4= *|authorlink4= and so on --------- *|coauthors= *|separator= *|lastauthoramp= |year= *|month= *|day= (or |date=) *|origyear= *|editor= *|editor-link= *|editor2= *|editor2-link= *|editor3= *|editor3-link= *|editor4= *|editor4-link= --------- OR *|editor-last= *|editor-first= *|editor-link= *|editor2-last= *|editor2-first= *|editor2-link= *|editor3-last= *|editor3-first= *|editor3-link= *|editor4-last= *|editor4-first= *|editor4-link= and so on --------- *|chapter= *|trans_chapter *|chapterurl= |title= *|language= *|trans_title= *|url= *|format= *|edition= *|series= *|volume= *|issue= |page= (or |pages=) *|nopp= |publisher= *|location= *|bibcode= *|doi= *|id= |isbn= *|issn= *|pmid= *|pmd= *|oclc= *|accessdate= *|laysummary= *|laysource= *|laydate= *|quote= *|ref *|postscript= ---- Other parameters (if found) place here, one per line }}</ref> Blahblahblah blug blah.
And similar for cite book, cite web, and so on... Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 18:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
You can look through ( Wikipedia:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Journals_cited_by_Wikipedia alphabetical) and see patterns. For example, many journal parameters start with a ' for no reason, others are italicized twice (templates place entries in italics automatically, no need to tell it twice), and so on (AWB typo team also contacted). Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I love this bot. I wonder how hard it would be to fix the en-dashes in page ranges of the {{ Harv}}, {{ Harvnb}} and{{ Harvtxt}}? In other words fix Smith 2009, pp. 5–6 so it becomes Smith 2009, pp. 5–6 ? I'm guessing this is a pretty easy enhancement, since it already does this for the citation templates. ---- CharlesGillingham ( talk) 10:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
A request to stop this bot was recently made (not by me; but I've chimed in) and there's currently a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents #Citation bot. Eubulides ( talk) 13:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Just a note; after an extensive bug-fixing session, I am now satisfied that the bot is safe to leave running unattended. I've kept an eye on it for a while, and now intend to leave it running overnight. If there are any systematic and major bugs that require the bot to stop, blocking User:Citation bot 1 will prevent the unsupervised running - without inconveniencing other users. Minor bugs should still be reported so that the bot can fix them on its next run.
Thanks,
Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 11:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I think there has been clear request for the bot not to reset the list of authors to multiple parameter style if "author=" already been defined - see User:Citation_bot/bugs#Does_the_bot_have_consensus_to_operate ? and subsequent section to it on example at Autism. As these requests not been heeded, the bot, which if I understand correctly is munching its way through articles automatically, will be seen to be disruptive at least to the medical topics where a definite preference has been for use of Diberri-generated referrences (temp off-line but hopefully will eventually be back in action). Now the bot is trying to do good work and add citation details, but on issue of author parameters clearly needs a short pause for thought... hence why I've turned it off (for now). If some past great discussion on this and alternative consensus then fine and any admin free (just act, no need fear wheel-warring) to unblock and turn back on (or just ask me). David Ruben Talk 00:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Revision: r53 [17:28:25] Processing page 'Template:Cite doi/10.1016.2Fj.ab.2005.03.037' — edit—history *-> 1: Tidy citation and try ISBN +doi: 10.1016/j.ab.2005.03.037 2: DOI already present :-) 3: Find PMID & expand - Searching PubMed... - Errors detected in PMID search; abandoned. nothing found. - Checking for ISBN Already has an ISBN. 4: Expand citation - Checking CrossRef for more details +title: Screening of plants containing Naja naja siamensis cobra venom inhibitory activity using modified ELISA technique +year: 2005 +last1: Daduang +first1: Sakda +last2: Sattayasai +first2: Nison +last3: Sattayasai +first3: Jintana +last4: Tophrom +first4: Pattara +last5: Thammathaworn +first5: Achra +last6: Chaveerach +first6: Arunrat +last7: Konkchaiyaphum +first7: Monruedee +journal: Analytical Biochemistry +volume: 341 +pages: 316 5: Cite Doi Enhancement Done. Just a couple of things to tweak now... +first1: S. +first2: N. +first3: J. +first4: P. +first5: A. +first6: A. +first7: M. *** Complete. Citation assessed in 1 secs. Added: last1, first1, last2, first2, last3, first3, last4, first4, last5, first5, last6, first6, last7, first7, title, journal, volume, pages, year. Writing to Template:Cite doi/10.1016.2Fj.ab.2005.03.037 ... Edit may have failed. Retrying: xxx Still no good. One last try: Failed. Abandoning page. history Page took 3 secs to process.
|author=
style, with the default to leave the style alone. However, since the bot's maintainer is offline for a few days, we'll need to wait to see whether this way is feasible.
Eubulides (
talk)
21:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)Why is |author=Chen CC, Zimmer A, Sun WH, Hall J, Brownstein MJ, Zimmer A
better than |first1=Chih-Cheng |last1=Chen |first2=Anne |last2=Zimmer |first3=Wei-Hsin |last3=Sun |first4=Jennifer |last4=Hall |first5=Michael J. |last5=Brownstein |first6=Andreas |last6=Zimmer
for
doi:
10.1073/pnas.122245999 /
PMID
12060708?? This supposed marvelous "Diberri" format doesn't get the first or third names right. And what's the benefit of hiding first names if they're known? And why block a useful bot over a preference for a broken formatting tool? Just block the bot on the specific articles you don't want to be edited. —
Chris Capoccia
T⁄
C
09:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
By the way, blocking the bot doesn't mean you can't use its results. Simply don't check the "commit edits" box. The bot will then give you the text of the resulting page. View the source of that text (use control-U in Firefox), copy whichever part of that text you like, and paste it into an edit window, and commit the results yourself. It's more awkward to do this by hand, of course, but it's a reasonable temporary workaround until the bot's maintainer comes back online. Eubulides ( talk) 17:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with author name formatting, but: can I ask you to please spell out journal names such as "Eur Arch Paediatr Dent"? It may be the standard for technical writing within the field of Paediatr Dent to not spell things out, but this convention creates an unnecessary barrier to entry for anyone else not already familiar with the standards and titles of the field. We're writing here for all Wikipedia users, not for Paediatr Dents. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Given this discussion (a change a month ago broke harv formatting for {{ cite journal}} style citations), perhaps it would be a bad idea to switch from citation to cite journal, at least for articles that use harv, harvtxt, harvnb, harvs, etc. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
re [8]. The bot added "|ISBN-status= May be invalid - please double check" to ISBN 9986-9216-9-4. I presume that's because it could not find it in WorldCat or some similar catalog. However, it is valid as shown at National Library of Lithuania. So is there a way to prevent the bot from flagging the same ISBN in other articles? This particular website is used very often in Lithuania-related articles. Thanks, Renata ( talk) 13:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Visitors to this page may be interested in a new inline reference-adding tool, Ref++. Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 00:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
How can I tell what the current revision of the bot is that will run when I invoke it manually (to know whether a recent bug fix is in or not)? Thanks Rjwilmsi 08:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Minor point : Authors name, if no puncutation or spaces, should probably be in Title Case. diff User A1 ( talk) 12:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi all, apologies for the long delay in getting back to your requests. Sometimes life gets in the way!! Anyhow, I have now fixed what I think is the contentious issue – the bot will now (r74) only unify citation types if "harv" templates are absent. It checks the page code for the string "{{harv" (case insensitive) and, if it finds it, it leaves the citation types untouched. I've fixed most of the other outstanding bugs too, and don't believe that there is anything left that warrants the bot being blocked. I've requested the unblock, but feel free to block the bot again if necessary. Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 16:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Bugs that caused block to be requested have been fixed (see above)}}
the bot doesn't seem to be working? has it been blocked? or is there a problem to fix? — Chris Capoccia T⁄ C 19:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
There's been a recent discussion at Template_talk:Citation#Coauthors touching on the fact that because the {{ citation}} and {{ cite x}} family don't use the coauthor in generation of the CITEREF anchor, coauthor names should not be used by {{ harv}} etc. I've suggested another possible task for this bot that could find a lot of broken linkages, if you wouldn't mind having a look. User:LeadSongDog come howl 18:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
Your bot claimed that a reference on Transmission electron microscopy has a broken DOI diff. The DOI in question is 10.1017/S143192760708124X , whihch I doubled checked at the journal's site, here. User A1 ( talk) 09:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I have blocked the bot temporarily, until the bot operator confirms that everything is well. Any other admin should also feel free to unblock. — Carl 21:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
How are things going in moving towards unblocking this bot again? It's extremely helpful even with these minor bugs. I'd much rather be able to run the bot on a page and fix a few minor things than have to manually check everything about all the citations. It's also very helpful for automatically finding DOIs that diberri's tool misses. — Chris Capoccia T⁄ C 08:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I can't believe this INCREDIBLY USEFUL bot has been blocked AGAIN over extraordinarily esoteric and petty citation style details. Why don't we eliminate every useful tool on Wikipedia while we're at it because it happens to be less than perfect? If you guys can't provide a work-around, could you please consider the editors that this bot is working very well for before making knee-jerk decisions like this in the future? -- Scarpy ( talk) 14:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Is there a possibility to run the bot at least manually - it would be still tremendously useful until it can be reenabled in full glory. I have added a bunch of references to Hysterectomy in the hope the bot would expand them for me and I could sure check the output. Richiez ( talk) 13:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that CitationBOT fails to run (when prompted by the .js toolbox) in pages that have endashes and emdashes in their name. Prompting the BOT from the toolserver works just fine, but not when you do it from the toolbox. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics}
There's no consensus for that, and it clutters citations for no good reason. See the discussion on Template talk:Cite journal. Thanks. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 21:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi all,
I've just got back from away and haven't had time to review the above comments. For now, I have disabled the new author handling functions, so the bot will no longer remove 'et al's, split author= into author1=, author2=, etc, and will no longer detect translators. I imagine that this will allow the bot to be used again without upsetting anyone. When I have more time I will see if I can come up with a solution that placates everybody - I suspect that it may be a case of the bot leaving the author parameter alone. Thus I believe that it is safe to unpause the bot. I've only had time to do a quick test (no edit found to be necessary at this test page) so if it turns out that unwanted behaviour is occurring, feel free to re-pause it.
For future reference, different accounts are used for different functions. This allows certain aspects of bot activity to be paused without stopping others. At present, the accounts operate as follows:
Hope that helps. If my prompt action is required, I can be reached via e-mail or my user talk page. Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 16:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid it's still changing some author lists. I just tried it on Water fluoridation (without installing the result) and it made the following insertions:
{{cite journal |author=Bailey W, Barker L, Duchon K, Maas W |title=Populations receiving optimally fluoridated public drinking water—United States, 1992–2006 |journal=MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep |volume=57 |issue=27 |pages=737–41 |year=2008 |pmid=18614991 |url=http://cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5727a1.htm |author1=Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) }}
{{cite journal |author=CDC |title= Ten great public health achievements—United States, 1900–1999 |journal= MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep |volume=48 |issue=12 |pages=241–3 |year=1999 |pmid=10220250 |url=http://cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00056796.htm |author1=Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) }}
{{cite journal |author= Truman BI, Gooch BF, Sulemana I ''et al.'' |title= Reviews of evidence on interventions to prevent dental caries, oral and pharyngeal cancers, and sports-related craniofacial injuries |journal= Am J Prev Med |volume=23 |issue= 1 Suppl |pages=21–54 |year=2002 |pmid=12091093 |doi=10.1016/S0749-3797(02)00449-X |url=http://thecommunityguide.org/oral/oral-ajpm-ev-rev.pdf |format=PDF |accessdate=2009-02-03 |author9= Task Force on Community Preventive Services }}
{{cite journal |journal=Eur Arch Paediatr Dent |year=2009 |volume=10 |issue=3 |pages=129–35 |title=Guidelines on the use of fluoride in children: an EAPD policy document |author=European Academy Of Paediatric Dentistry |url=http://www.eapd.gr/EAPDJournal/2009v10/Issue_3/Vol_10_2_June_F_Guide.pdf |format=PDF |pmid=19772841 |author1=European Academy Of Paediatric Dentistry EA }}
There were some others but this should be enough to get you see the bugs. Eubulides ( talk) 23:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I tried the new bot out on Autism. Most of the changes it made were good ones (thanks!) and I agree that it's safe to unblock now. The problems I noted were:
|first2=C.
" in a single-author article (see
this diff). In some sense this is the most troubling because if I run the bot again it'll do it again, with no obvious workaround in general.{{cite journal |author=[[Leo Kanner|Kanner L]] |title=Autistic disturbances of affective contact |journal=Nerv Child |volume=2 |pages=217–50 |year=1943 }} Reprinted in {{cite journal |year=1968 |journal=Acta Paedopsychiatr |volume=35 |issue=4 |pages=100–36 |pmid=4880460 |author1=Kanner |title=Autistic disturbances of affective contact. }}
|author1=Kanner |title=Autistic disturbances of affective contact.
" with "|author=<!-- Pacify Citation bot. --> |title=<!-- Pacify Citation bot. -->
".|doi_brokendate=2009-10-17
to
doi:
10.1001/jama.285.24.3093, a DOI that is not broken. That's the
Journal of the American Medical Association, by the way.|pmc=
values that are counterproductive because the PubMed Central articles are embargoed until next year. The affected articles were
PMC
2677584,
PMC
2677593,
PMC
2692135, and
PMC
2692092. We've talked about this before; I just wanted to mention it again, as it's an ongoing problem. I worked around this by replacing, for example, "|pmc=2677584
" with "|pmc=<!-- 2677584 embargoed until 2010-05-27 -->
", but this is unsatisfactory as it will require manual intervention on each due date, something that's unlikely to be done correctly by hand.Eubulides ( talk) 05:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
This one is weird [9]. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
At Psychopathy#References, there are several instances of PMID citations being redirected to redlinked DOI citations. Here they are:
Why is this happening? Other than editing each citation manually, is there a way to fix this? Thanks! Alamanth ( talk) 16:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
These references appear with the following text: "This citation will be automatically completed in the next few minutes. You can jump the queue or expand by hand." Jumping the queue does not work, and rather than expand them by hand, I would prefer for the citations to be expanded automatically, to ensure they are expanded completely, accurately, and uniformly.
Thank you. Alamanth ( talk) 16:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Can I suggest that the bot not add "dead link" notices to citation templates that already have the |archiveurl=
and |archivedate=
parameters? It seems that WebCite is temporarily down, which is why the bot was unable to access the archive page in some citation templates in "
Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (Singapore)": see
[12]. — Cheers,
JackLee –
talk–
05:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
For a discussion of what is in my view a gross violation of our core principle Wikipedia:NOTADVERTISING, please see HERE. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 11:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
{{ Resolved}}
Would it be possible to use templates to place " dead link – Scholar search" in citations? This way they could be exclude from print, and PDFs and Books would come out nicer. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Please see
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Ref_formatting_on_non-English_journals for a report on malformed rendering of anglicized titles using cite journal with |url=
http://www.somewhere.net and |title=
[Some translated title]. I think this likely relates to Crum's edits on 23, 25 June 2009 to
template:citation/core. It seemed to me that there should be a way to automagically convert to using |trans_title=
instead, perhaps with the help of
user:citation bot. Then, looking at the source for citation bot I find that r43 seems to have deliberately disabled this, evidently at the request of Eubulides, for reasons which are still opaque. Any chance of getting this sorted out on a more permanent basis?
LeadSongDog
come howl
15:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
The citation bot failed to add the issn for the Journal of Design History in this . The correct issn would be 0952-4649. Is this a bug? Smallman12q ( talk) 13:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
See WP:ANI#Citation bot. — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
|author1=
or |last1=
. At least by making them look odd they'll be more apt to get some human attention.
LeadSongDog
come howl
22:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)(unindent) I have emailed z/Journal as LeadSongDog suggests. If I understand Eubulides, however, that will not prevent CitationBot from capitalizing the first letter. Since I don't know what conventions the Library of Congress Catalogue and WorldCat impose on titles, I can't say whether we might run into some irreconcilable differences between what a publication calls itself and how it is named by these organizations. -- Jc3s5h ( talk) 21:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
In this edit, the bot added the isbn for the wrong volume of Schuster's Hepaticae and Anthocerotae. As far as I am aware, the first two volumes did not have assigned ISBNs. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 04:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Citation bot 2 ( talk · contribs) has just blanked Talk:Global warming controversy for no good reason. It first added a broken DOI note [13], then removed all other talk page content [14]. Please investigate...-- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 16:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
|doi=
. As I've said before, it seemed at first like a nice idea, but it is fundamentally broken and unnecessary. It begs for vandalism, which it then hides in the history of an unwatched subpage. It imposes one stylistic choice on multiple citing articles. And given that the dois sometimes go turn up dead like this one it just plain makes citations stop working, leaving facts effectively uncited. Let's put {{
deprecated}} to it once and for all.
LeadSongDog
come howl
19:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I'm spencer, a freebase programmer from Canada. I've put together a web service that can figure out a reference's 'publisher' unambiguously, given a url, using data in freebase.
the app was originally put together for this ubiquity citation tool but the more i think about it, the more it makes sense to write this information into existing references. I'd like to get some feedback on the idea.
freebase has many (several hundred thousand) 'official websites' mapped to freebase topics, and they are also connected to wikipedia. So if you give it a domain name, it will check to see if it is a publisher (defined as a newspaper, periodical, broadcaster, or blog), and if so, it will return its wikipedia link.
the api is
http://referee.freebaseapps.com/?url={url}
Heres an example:
and it's not just popular American websites either. [16] [17]
I think its a cool way to infer information in wikipedia, improving references. Love to hear what you think. I am willing to invest a fair amount of time to this project, if it is supported Spencerk ( talk) 22:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
hi martin! the answer i think is that it is all totally flexible, and depends more upon wikipedia policy than anything. There seems to be some ambiguity between 'publisher' and 'work' parameters, that I don't fully understand, and am not alone. Currently the api will return ' wordpress' as the publisher to a blog for example. but these things can be changed to accommodate policy. I've pinged a few others, hoping for some clarifications, cheers Spencerk ( talk) 19:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
thanks Jc3s5h! i like your definition of publisher, and i think its more satisfying than whats in the documentation. Freebase doesn't actually have a publisher type, so i've used
newspaper,
periodical,
news_reporting_organisation, and
blog. If it belongs to any of these categories, it is considered a publisher, and i think this is valid. I agree aswell that it should not replace user-contributed data. Is there a way to run this as a test? to see its results? I will try to whip something up if this is valuable.
@LeadSongDog, this is also a good idea, though freebase stores issn's aswell, and it would be easy, once the publisher is known, to grab this piece of information. Using it this may pose a licensing problem though. I will ask the freebase mailing list about this.
Spencerk (
talk)
11:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
|journal=
(e.g.) or |periodical=
(
e.g.) field. For now, I am simply not querying the API for a publisher if a |journal=
already exists. Is this the optimal solution?
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
21:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)This edit was wrong in that there should not have been any postscript attribute. Jc3s5h ( talk) 17:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
How is this edit an improvement? I've seen other edits correctly changing cite web to cite news, but I see no advantage - and possibly a disadvantage - to changing cite book to Citation -- JimWae ( talk) 20:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Hi. I'd like to know on what basis (= user consensus) the bot adds entries like url and publisher. As yet your bot page misses that vital information which should be put on top. Frankly, I deem these addditions superfluous in articles and would like to stop them permanently from being added in articles I created. Regards Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 08:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
On this diff [20], I don't know whether the second author is really an editor, but the edit left the citation data in an obviously broken state. Maybe the bot could test for that sort of thing and leave an error. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 00:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
|author2-last=
vice |last2=
(and similar).
LeadSongDog
come howl!
19:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Hello. Thanks for the good work that Citation bot does. I am wondering what is the purpose of adding a postcript parameter to citation templates in articles such as this [21] ? ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 14:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
|postscript=
.
Rjwilmsi
18:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
postscript=<!--None-->
, thereby making the citation look inconsistent with all of the other citations in the article. —
Sladen (
talk)
11:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
|postscript=<!-- None -->
the bot could implement something like |postscript=<!-- This parameter stops the citation from ending in a period, which makes it inconsistent with other citations in the article; please remove this comment if this is not the intentional behaviour, or replace the content of this comment if the terminal period really should be omitted -->[[Category:Articles identified by a bot as having inconsistent citation formats that require editor confirmation]]
: this would be clearer (improvements to wording welcomed) but more verbose (which would probably have the benefit of attracting editors to fix the problem).
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
14:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
|postscript=<!-- Bot inserted parameter. Remove or change value to "." for the cite to end in a period if preferred. -->[[Category:Articles with inconsistent citation formats]]
(although I suspect that category would include virtually all articles except those in FA class.
LeadSongDog
come howl!
16:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Hi, could you please remove the "!" (or more) from your invitation in the edit summary? It's getting too buzzy. If so, thx. - DePiep ( talk) 22:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
There is no mention of a "postscript" parameter, as either required or optional, in the documentation for {{ cite news}}. It's therefore very confusing for editors who have an article such as Pennine Way on their watch list if the bot adds it, even as an empty parameter. I gather from browsing around that this has been discussed elsewhere. Please either get the template documentation updated or stop adding this parameter. PamD ( talk) 07:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Postscript comments Why does User:Citation bot 1 add |postcript=<!--None--> to {{ Cite news}}? ( e.g.) Please respond on my talk. Thanks. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 16:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Is it possible (and for that matter, desirable) to filter the citation metadata you're getting for cases when the alleged publisher name has strings of the form "Vol. [0-9IVXLC]+" in its name (e.g. [23]), and not add the "publisher=" parameter in those cases? That would seem to be a pretty clear indication that someone is giving you mixed up data --- I'd be surprised to hear of a real publishing company with a name like that. (Though I'm sure some editor will read this and make it their life goal to start one. WP:BEANS, etc. =)). Cheers, cab ( talk) 00:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
In the last few weeks I've been rolling back dozens of these "fixes". In fact, whenever I see "tweaked publisher" in the edit summary, I can be pretty sure that the edit is wrong and needs to be rolled back. I think it would be a good idea to disable the publisher feature of the bot until this is fixed — that way, at least, the other useful edits it makes can be kept and the bad edits don't creep into unwatched articles. — David Eppstein ( talk) 03:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|I think that the majority of problems involving publisher metadata involve SpencerK's API, which I cannot modify; thus I have stopped the bot collecting data from this source until it is fixed. This should make it safe to re-enable the bot.}}
It still seems to be having the same problem: [26]. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Too temporarily, it seems. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|see following}}
I've made a php tool for creating New York Times citations from urls at Wikipedia:WikiCite Builder. Would you be interested in adding something like this to your bot? Smallman12q ( talk) 20:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I would like to set the bot loose on a category of articles. Category:Recipients of the Medal of Honor. But I don't see an option to be able to do that. -- Kumioko ( talk) 21:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
With this edit why did the bot put the dead link template in a newly added format parameter and not follow the template documentation?-- Rockfang ( talk) 03:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Can someone please block this bot from being run on articles such as E1b1b, E1b1b1a, List of R1a frequency by population, and R1a? Whatever the pros and cons of different styles of referencing, these articles will simply not function if this bot continues to disable their references by changing the listing of authors in the cite templates.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 11:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
|author=Bloggs et al.
as it is, then how does the edit lead to a broken harv link?
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
13:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
{{
harv}}
family of templates are written in such a way that if they are given up to three surnames, all will display; but if given exactly four, they are condensed. So {{
harv|Smith|Jones|Brown|2010|p=1}}
displays as (
Smith, Jones & Brown 2010, p. 1) , but {{
harv|Smith|Jones|Brown|Doe|2010|p=1}}
displays as (
Smith et al. 2010, p. 1) . The first expects the full citation to have |last1=
to |last3=
filled in; the second expects anything from four to nine of the |lastn=
fields to be filled in. If done this way, the linking works without any "et al" fudging. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
19:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
{{
harv|Smith|Jones|Brown|2010}}
displays as (
Smith, Jones & Brown 2010, p. 1) linked to CITEREF_SmithJones_Brown2010, but {{
harv|Smith|Jones|Brown|Doe|2010}}
displays as (
Smith et al. 2010, p. 1) linked to CITEREFSmith_Jones_Brown_Doe2010 , and
{{
harv|Smith|Jones|Brown|Doe|Wong|2010}}
displays as (
Smith et al. 2010, p. 1) linked to CITEREFSmith_Jones_Brown_DoeWong
{{
harvnb}}
documentation has similar warnings, although worded differently. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
21:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
{{
harv}}
and its family, five of the parameters are unnamed, so leading/trailing spaces are significant, so if a tool is preparing {{
harv}}
templates with such spaces, the tool is buggy and the tool owner should be notified. However, per
Help:Template#Whitespace problems, the templates could be modified so that spaces can be internally stripped. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
17:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I have a DOI with < and > in it and I don't know how to properly include it so that both the wiki can handle it and the citation bot recognizes it on List of Ig Nobel Prize winners. The doi is 10.1002/(SICI)1097-010X(19980215)280:3<260::AID-JEZ7>3.0.CO;2-L I have verified this at http://www.crossref.org/guestquery/ Search on Article Query with name of Fong , and with title of Induction and Potentiation of Parturition in Fingernail Clams (Sphaerium striatinum) by Selective Serotonin Re- Uptake Inhibitors (SSRIs)
Ideas? Naraht ( talk) 19:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
{{cite journal|doi = 10.1002/(SICI)1097-010X(19980215)280:3<260::AID-JEZ7>3.0.CO;2-L}}? Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 20:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Hi there
Could your bot be tweaked to run on {{ cite encyclopedia}} references? Many online encyclopedias now have DOIs, and if I were to invoke {{ cite journal}}, your bot runs just fine on them [29] [30]. It'd be wonderful if we can do it. Even if it requires some hand coding, it'd still be better than having to use the cite journal workaround. Thanks! -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 07:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if this is a bug, or Citation Bot is merely over-zealously interpreting some style guideline, but it is quite a pain to keep fixing changes where the bot changes first names to just a letter... see e.g. here. Is there a way to prevent the bot from doing this? Shreevatsa ( talk) 13:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite journal|doi=10.xxxx/etc}}
and
run citation bot on the page.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
19:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
In this recent edit, the citation bot changed the final reference in the article (end of the diff). The bot correctly noted that the paper has three authors, and only two were listed. However, when it added the third author it did not recognise that the missing author was actually the first author. So, instead of making the authors Csöregh, Kierkegaard, and Norrestam the bot made the authors Kierkegaard, Norrestam, and Norrestam. The initial for Kierkegaard in the given reference was also incorrect, which the bot did not correct. I'm not sure if these qualify as bugs, but it does seem to me to be an issue if the bot adds in an additional author which is not the author missing from the citation. Sorry if this is the wrong place to bring this up, my knowledge of bot functioning is poor. Regards, EdChem ( talk) 06:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
How can we stop the bot from "fixing" the citations on this article? We are using a different citation style on this article, and I've had to revert the bot twice now. -- El on ka 06:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
|location=
/|year=
fields. If you need to specify two locations or dates they must be in different fields, otherwise the template won't display both of them, regardless of the citation bot.
Rjwilmsi
11:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello Martin, your input would be welcome at the discussion here -- John of Reading ( talk) 16:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I've reverted some of the bots changes to articles, such as Hubert Walter, when it ran back in June - see diff from June, and now it's going through and doing the exact same changes again diff from today. There really isn't a need for a jstor url when the doi is there, and on FAs, the url is actually a degredation of hte article, since the bot doesn't include the necessary field of "format=fee required". Once the bots run once, shouldn't it NOT repeat the runs again? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
|format=fee required
would that be sufficient?
Rjwilmsi
14:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)Then is there any way to signal the bot not to edit a particular citation, to prevent it from repeatedly making the same incorrection? I don't necessarily want to stop it from editing the entire article like with {{bots|deny=Citation bot}}, but practically all of the JSTOR metadata has the same problem with book reviews ( listing the author of a reviewed work as a co-author of the review). Thanks cab ( call) 04:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi again - I am one of the really lazy editors and would like this feature: add sensible name= to ref where its missing, such as
<ref>{{cite pmid|12716040}}</ref> ===> <ref name=Benjamin_2003>{{cite pmid|12716040}}</ref>
If Benjamin_2003 weren't unique make it Benjamin_2003_pmid. Is it in the scope and doable for this bot? Dreaming even further, if I were to write {{refcite pmid|12716040}} could it save me the hassle to type the reftags altogether? Richiez ( talk) 20:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
{{ref pmid|1234}}
" with <ref name=Smith2010>{{cite pmid|1234}}</ref>
and post here when the requests are ready for comment.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
15:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
<ref name=Smith2010>{{cite journal|pmid=1234}}</ref>
so that we don't encourage the use of {{
cite pmid}}
, for all the reasons that I've previously elaborated on.
LeadSongDog
come howl!
16:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
<ref name=Smith2010JVirolMethods>{{cite pmid|1234}}</ref>
Richiez (
talk)
18:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite pmid}}
, {{
cite pmc}}
, {{
cite doi}}
and company simply shouldn't be trusted. Now if citation bot were to subst them once the data was all validated, my view might be different, but that would still result in the "quarterpage long monster". Of course, there's no real need to use multiline in the wikitext, it could just as readily be collapsed.
LeadSongDog
come howl!
19:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC){{
cite pmid}}
as fixed format and editable by bot only, if someone wants a different format there might be specialised templates or special arguments to this template but if it can be done I would certainly not complain if the template were protected or regularly cleaned by bots.
Richiez (
talk)
09:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Amusingly (?) I was thinking about a new family of cite templates along the lines of {{Ref xxxx|name="bloggs 2009"|group="notes"|all the other stuff}}. Reason? Removing the need to learn mark-up, apart from templates (which you need anyway) to write wiki source. Rich Farmbrough, 11:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC).
{{
cite pmid}}
, {{
Cite pmc}}
, {{
Cite doi}}
are all protected, anti-vandaling the sub-space fits in with some other ideas I have been having. Most of the sub-space is individually not widely transclude, and no more of a target than ordinary pages, however.
Rich
Farmbrough,
12:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC).Consider the following reference as I make edit 1 -> 2 then I call the citation bot, which does 2 -> 3. The end result leaves an et al. outstanding that I have to clean up manually. Is there a better way for me to make edit 1 -> 2 (given that I don't know at that time whether the citation bot will be able to add additional authors) so that there's no cleanup task left? Or could citation bot remove et al. when it adds authors?
Thanks Rjwilmsi 15:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
|display-authors=1
instead of typing "et al". Then authors added by the bot won't be displayed to viewers, but will be available to user plugins that extract metadata.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
16:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC){{Cite journal | doi = 10.1227/01.NEU.0000240227.72514.27 | last1 = Heller | first1 = A.C. | last2 = Amar | year = 2006 | first2 = Arun P. | last3 = Liu | first3 = Charles Y. | last4 = Apuzzo | first4 = Michael L.J. | title = Surgery of the mind and mood: a mosaic of issues in time and evolution | url = | journal = Neurosurgery | volume = 59 | issue = 4| pages = 720–40 |display-authors=1 }}
|display-authors=
solves my problem, because at the time of my edit with only one known author I can only set |last1=
and |first1=
in which case |display-authors=1
won't show et al. unless the citation bot later adds more authors, which I can't be sure about at the time of my edit.
Rjwilmsi
03:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Without permission, since about Sep. '09, I had been 'bot denying' CB proper from the cite journal templates I initiated; I am practically OCD over having the author's names remain seemlessly and neatly presented from the 'author=' parameter, and protecting from the eternally intermittent and inconveniently hellish author's initial bugs that nobody has time to keep having to edit-undo. Now, this affected hundreds of templates I watched and/or initiated; but before blocking, I made sure all had complete dois and pmids, I gave them urls/pmcs, etc., and I watched over them like a mommy. I apologize; and an editor has recently removed those via AWB. Now, here's my audacity: May I put the block back to make my Wikilife improve? I am not taking what I did lightly... I love Wikipedia! Rcej (Robert) - talk 08:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)|last1=
etc. (the {{
cite journal}} preferred format): {{Cite journal | last1 = Kudoh | first1= S |last2= Keicho | first2=N | month = Oct | title = Diffuse panbronchiolitis | journal = Seminars in respiratory and critical care medicine | volume = 24 | issue = 5 | pages = 607–618 | year = 2003 | pmid = 16088577 | doi = 10.1055/s-2004-815608 }}
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)Is there a good reason for using initials rather than spelling out the authors' names as they are listed in the journal paper (Shoji Kudoh and Naoto Keicho in this example)? Spelling the names out avoids ambiguities, helps avoid errors of incorrect abbreviation, and helps others make appropriate cross-links to articles on the authors. Unlike in a printed journal, we don't have any particular space limitation that would justify the abbreviation. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
|last1=
etc. I won't be changing from initials to first names or vice versa, I see that as a separate consideration.
Rjwilmsi
17:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Hi!
Is it possible to run this bot in other wikis? What would be necessary in order to use it at Portuguese Wikipedia? Helder ( talk) 19:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Any clues as to what this message might mean? It makes no sense at all, so I cannot guess what needs fixing.
*{{Cite book |first=Jane |last=Cumberlidge |title=Inland Waterways of Great Britain 8th Ed. |publisher=Imray Laurie Norie and Wilson |year=2009 |isbn=978-1-84623-010-3 |postscript=<!-- Bot inserted parameter. Either remove it; or change its value to "." for the cite to end in a ".", as necessary. -->[[Category:Articles with inconsistent citation formats]]}}
Bob1960evens ( talk) 12:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I wanted to raise this as a discussion point instead of simply filing a bug report in case there's more detail than meets the eye. In this edit I was able to find the PMID of the article by Googling the title. When the Citation bot was run on the article before it didn't find this entry though. Is there a good reason, otherwise it would appear the bot is missing some easy wins? Note, this is not an isolated case. Thanks Rjwilmsi 10:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
The article Lambley, Northumberland has had the ISBN added but it is the wrong one. I have the 1966 reprint of that book – the British Library has the 1965 first edition (and the 1973 edition). The 1966 version does not have an ISBN number so I left that field blank. The bot has added isbn = 0709135491 which is the 1973 edition, and since that edition has more pages any page numbers are likely to be wrong.
Is the bot meant to be doing that? And if so, what do I do about it? I can only quote from the books that I have or have access to.
The British library catalogue entries are: 1966 and 1973.
Twiceuponatime ( talk) 09:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
isbn=<!-- no ISBN available-->
then the bot won't add it back. In addition maybe you could check
worldcat and provide |oclc=
for the edition you have, so that users at least have that link.
Rjwilmsi
12:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC){{ resolved}}
Editors here may find Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources/example_style#why_not_standardize_on_one_format.3F to be of interest. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC) {{ resolved}}
Why the bot does not recognize a perfectly valid doi in this article. Ruslik_ Zero 18:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Can the bot be enhanced to support {{ vcite journal}}? I'm not a fan of the reduced metadata from this template, but the Vancouver style is an established format e.g. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles)#Citing_medical_sources. Thanks Rjwilmsi 10:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
The Citation bot listed two editors as authors in addition to the previous mentioned problems of omitting the pmid and issue fields on the first run, omitting the month field, and specifying just the first page in the pages field for the citation Template:Cite_doi/10.1056.2FNEJMra0906948. You can review the changes and history to see the updates.
Whywhenwhohow ( talk) 19:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Should be {{ resolved}} in r492. Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 15:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
The Citation bot added the first author twice (as author 1 and author 6) and left out the issue and name of the journal for Template:Cite doi/10.1002.2F14651858.CD005102.pub2. Here is the citation offered with the journal article at [31].
Citation: Nield L, Summerbell CD, Hooper L, Whittaker V, Moore H. Dietary advice for the prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD005102. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005102.pub2.
and here is the generated citation
Whywhenwhohow ( talk) 19:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Whywhenwhohow ( talk) 20:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
What is the point, if any, of this edit? The bot seems to have named several refs that were used only once in the article. They seem to have no particular connection to PMIDs or DOI numbers. I don't see where this activity by the bot is described, and I don't see the usefulness of an edit like this. Thanks for any clues, — JohnFromPinckney ( talk) 07:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
cite pmid
, cite jstor
, etc., templates, which seems a fine idea to me, now that I've seen the request and explanation. However, the edits pointed to above suggest the bot is naming any and all cite template refs. For the cite news
, cite web
, etc. usages, one-use refs don't benefit from naming and are arguably less clear to editors than without naming. So, just to be formally clear, I think that adding names to one-use refs that don't need them is unwelcome and borders on being disruptive; please refine the bot code.—
JohnFromPinckney (
talk)
02:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Why has the discussion moved back here? People went to the bugs page because the header at the top of the page directs them to go there there on threat of being ignored. The discussion has now lost all the previous comments (mostly complaints) without even a link back to it. The argument that this was discussed at Bot Approvals is spurious. There is no discussion of this issue there, it is perfectly possible that the approvers were not aware of this implication. In any case, a bot approval by the small numbers at BAG does not trump the views of the wider Wikipedia community on whether it is actually useful or not. BAG are focused on whether the bot has bugs or will cause widespread disruption. I think you are getting a clear message from editors that unecessary clutter is not welcome, and singleton references is clutter. SpinningSpark 16:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Suggestions of any other meaningless reference names that could be replaced with a semantically-meaningful name are very welcome!
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
02:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Would it be possible to make it so this is more... organized?
Something like a category tree that would resemble
And so on? Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
{{ resolved}}
|last1=Smith |last2=A.B. |last2=Thomson |last2=C.D. |last3=Jones |last2=E.F. ...
and very, very often, if not always, it will add a
|lastX=Foobar |lastX=Barfoo
where this last author has already been mentioned.
{{ resolved}}
Newly generated citations are missing various fields including pmid, issue, and month, have incomplete page ranges, and sometimes invalid characters appear instead of accented characters.
For example, see
This one demonstrates the problem with accented characters where they appear as a question mark inside a diamond – �
Sometimes the Citation bot will add missing fields when it is run a second time. For example, see
And for Template:Cite doi/10.1097.2FAOG.0b013e3181f680c8 the Citation Bot added an invalid last1 field with a value of &Na;
Whywhenwhohow ( talk) 16:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
In many templates, there are urls of the form " http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...654..373E". These should be converted to bibcodes (|bibcode=2007ApJ...654..373E).
For example
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help)to
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help)Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 17:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Alright I checked for all mirrors, here's the full list:
The structure will always be FOO/abs/BIBCODE where FOO is one of the mirror urls. Bibcodes are always 19 characters long. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
|bibcode=
.
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books}
02:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Ping? Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I made some database scane, and four good matches exist within URLs
There are other links to the ads database, but nothing that can/should be cleaned up by this bot. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Am I missing something basic? LeadSongDog come howl! 18:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Citation bot is replacing urls with "jstor=" parameters to {{ citation}}. As far as I can tell, the citation template has no such parameter. Isn't this a problem? It is causing the jstor links to stop working.E.g. compare the first entry in the references section before and after this diff and note that prior to the diff there were both a jstor link and a doi link; after the diff the jstor link has vanished. Adding a {{ JSTOR}} template to the id parameter would work, and might be a better solution. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
|jstor=
is now supported by
Template:Citation. Thanks for the report!
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
19:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I also wonder whether it would be better if |jstor=
behaved like |pmc=
in that it would display as {{
JSTOR|123456}}
if |url=
in use?
Rjwilmsi
18:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Populating from JSTOR database: unhandled data:
JOURNAL___ BioScience
{{
Cite jstor}}
at
Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Cite_jstor/. The other Cite xxx seem fine.
LeadSongDog
come howl!
20:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
{{
ref jstor}}
. I'll take a look.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
20:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC){{
ref jstor|1304949}}
and its like may be at issue, or perhaps Citation bot 7. See also
Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Ref_jstor.
LeadSongDog
come howl!
20:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Other examples of this include:
[38],
[39], and
[40]. –
VisionHolder «
talk »
21:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Newly generated citations are missing various fields including pmid, issue, and month, have incomplete page ranges, and sometimes invalid characters appear instead of accented characters.
For example, see
This one demonstrates the problem with accented characters where they appear as a question mark inside a diamond – �
Sometimes the Citation bot will add missing fields when it is run a second time. For example, see
And for Template:Cite doi/10.1097.2FAOG.0b013e3181f680c8 the Citation Bot added an invalid last1 field with a value of &Na;
Whywhenwhohow ( talk) 16:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
In many templates, there are urls of the form " http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...654..373E". These should be converted to bibcodes (|bibcode=2007ApJ...654..373E).
For example
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help)to
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help)Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 17:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Alright I checked for all mirrors, here's the full list:
The structure will always be FOO/abs/BIBCODE where FOO is one of the mirror urls. Bibcodes are always 19 characters long. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
|bibcode=
.
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books}
02:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Ping? Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I made some database scane, and four good matches exist within URLs
There are other links to the ads database, but nothing that can/should be cleaned up by this bot. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Am I missing something basic? LeadSongDog come howl! 18:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Citation bot is replacing urls with "jstor=" parameters to {{ citation}}. As far as I can tell, the citation template has no such parameter. Isn't this a problem? It is causing the jstor links to stop working.E.g. compare the first entry in the references section before and after this diff and note that prior to the diff there were both a jstor link and a doi link; after the diff the jstor link has vanished. Adding a {{ JSTOR}} template to the id parameter would work, and might be a better solution. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
|jstor=
is now supported by
Template:Citation. Thanks for the report!
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
19:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I also wonder whether it would be better if |jstor=
behaved like |pmc=
in that it would display as {{
JSTOR|123456}}
if |url=
in use?
Rjwilmsi
18:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Populating from JSTOR database: unhandled data:
JOURNAL___ BioScience
{{
Cite jstor}}
at
Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Cite_jstor/. The other Cite xxx seem fine.
LeadSongDog
come howl!
20:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
{{
ref jstor}}
. I'll take a look.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
20:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC){{
ref jstor|1304949}}
and its like may be at issue, or perhaps Citation bot 7. See also
Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Ref_jstor.
LeadSongDog
come howl!
20:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Pages should refer to the total page count, not a specific page.
Won't fix.
{{
resolved}}
That problem seemed to start with
this edit. An instance of {{
cite pmid}}
with an existing pmid and pmc were newly matched to a doi, and then citation bot 2 replaced the content of that template with a redirect to the corresponding {{
cite doi|10.1073.2Fpnas.81.3.801}}
on 10 Feb 2011, then all hell
broke loose five days later.
LeadSongDog
come howl!
21:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Other edits in Jan and Feb follow similar patterns. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
|jstor=1301748
instead. in
Shelbyoceras at
hereI'm sorry to say that the war has not ended. The bot is back at it again. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite jstor|3094763}}
that the bot had not run against. Therefore the linked {{
cite doi}}
subpage was never created until I did so today at
this edit. Now I need to fix the {{
cite pmid|11264397}}
that got corrupted as a result. Hang in there, we'll figure it out. Cheers.
LeadSongDog
come howl!
16:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite jstor}}
were not being expanded. These cases seemed mostly but not all to be either references within {{
automatic taxobox}}
or within userspace article subpages. The associated {{
cite doi}}
subpage was not being created. Still no clear idea why it was that citation bot 2 was merging the content that should have gone into these subpages instead going into unrelated subpages. Perhaps some kind of
race condition, with two instances of the bot running at the same time? Just a thought.
LeadSongDog
come howl!
20:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
{{ resolved}}
In the last week or so, I keep having to send template like {{
Cite_doi/doi:10.1088.2F1748-9326.2F4.2F4.2F045102}} to speedy deletion. Not only are they located at the wrong place (and duplicate existing and proper templates, like {{
Cite_doi/10.1088.2F1748-9326.2F4.2F4.2F045102}}, but they are created for seemingly no reason, as nothing links to them! Usually this was due to bad use of {{
cite doi}}, such as {{
cite doi|doi:10.1234....}}
rather than {{
cite doi|10.1234....}}
, but this is not the case here.
So yeah, that should be fixed. And the input of {{ cite doi}} should be checked and stripped of "doi:" before the bot does anything. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
.x
... does this sound right?
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
02:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I think you can fix this in DOItools.php around line 394 by using
ifNullSet("issue", $crossref->issue); if (!is("page")) ifNullSet("pages", $crossRef->first_page . "–" . $crossRef->last_page);
and by adding "issue" to ifNullSet(). Ucucha 14:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that User:Citation bot 1 is making edits without supplying an edit summary. I don't think bots should be exceptions to the general rule that it is good practice to provide a summary for every edit. While not very big deal, it would certainly be helpful to other users if it supplied one. Thank you. Gnome de plume ( talk) 14:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}} in r275. Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 13:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
It would be nice if your bot left edit summaries for its edits, so that we can tell at a glance what it is doing. See this recent edit. Thanks. —SW— gossip 17:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}} in r275. Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 13:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Go here to check it out. The bot messed up a reference.--Dark Charles 07:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
<ref>...</ref>
tag, caused by misunderstanding of
WP:NAMEDREFS and/or
WP:REFNAME. Looking at <ref name="Say1803" pp.138–9)>
in HTML terms, the attributes of tags are delimited by spaces: name="Say1803"
is a valid attribute, but pp.138–9)
isn't, so the latter is ignored by the MediaWiki parser. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
17:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC){{ resolved}}
Hello. Citation bot is adding "issue=-1" to some references, for a journal which (since decades) does not use issue numbers anymore; see here. I assume the bot gets the info from the internet somewhere, but negative issue numbers seem unlikely for a journal anyway. I hope you can fix this. Success, and you are doing a great job, Crowsnest ( talk) 12:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
|issue=-1
is on
Winston Churchill, which I've just corrected.
Rjwilmsi
00:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC){{ resolved}} in r280. Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 02:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
When adding a new parameter, the bot uses the first parameter's formatting as a template for any new parameters. Seems to me like there could be an infinite number of special cases like this. Happy to apply a submitted patch, but won't be opening this can of worms myself.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
13:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
This is pretty old, but I'm reporting it anyway. Enjoy. — Mark Dominus ( talk) 16:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
|volume=The Blah...| -> |volume=Blah... |series=The|
example -- I don't see a reason for changing that... please check. --
Tabya (
talk) 13:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Fixed in r288.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
03:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC) {{
resolved}}
This edit
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Voyage_of_the_Damned_(Doctor_Who)&curid=12025149&diff=0&oldid=419259871 was just plain wrong. The original version has been restored.
Jasonfward (
talk)
11:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Other examples of this include:
[44],
[45], and
[46]. –
VisionHolder «
talk »
21:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
{{
resolved}}
? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
05:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
{{
nobots}}
is to put |issue=<!-- some comment; e.g. "This comment stops the bot adding an issue number that is erroneously in the publisher's databse" -->
in the citation. It may also be worth contacting the publisher to make them aware of this problem?
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
14:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
<Pagination> <MedlinePgn>403-14</MedlinePgn> </Pagination>
25. Journal article on the Internet with volume but no issue or other subdivision Wolfe L. America's fidelity crisis: politics, hypocrisy and family values. Electron J Hum Sex [Internet]. 2006 Oct 25 [cited 2007 Jan 5];9:[about 8 p.]. Available from: http://www.ejhs.org/volume9/Wolfe.htm LeadSongDog come howl! 06:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
|issue=
, e.g. issue=no when it is known that there is none applicable?
LeadSongDog
come howl!
19:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Hey, in the edit your bot recently made to Providence Bay, Siberia the bibcode pointed to a 250+ page pdf, while the url you replaced pointed directly to the article. I reverted.
If the bot cannot recognize that it is not pointing to the same place, then maybe this sort of edit needs to be done manually. Dankarl ( talk) 01:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
And, as the previous commenter reported, no edit summary. Dankarl ( talk) 01:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
|bibcode=
goes to the abstract page and has links for either GIF or PDF versions of the article, giving the reader the choice.
Rjwilmsi
08:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)If there were in fact an abstract there would be some merit to that argument. There is not an abstract, and using the bibcode merely sends the reader to an intermediary page with links. Not an improvement. Dankarl ( talk) 02:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Martin, I don't appreciate having your bot rearranging citation formats (like splitting parameters on different lines) just because you thought it was a good thing to do. And where it was trying to insert "series=" parameters it was going just plain wrong. The one instance where I have seen it catch an actual error (in what I have done), involving a misnumbered "last" parameter, it failed to fix it properly. In such cases I would strongly suggest that any "fixing" be limited to identifying a possible problem, such as adding a tag. Any actual fixing should be left to the discretion of a human agent, preferably one familiar with the source. - J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
|series=
parameter, which is documented in {{
Cite journal}}
as follows:
|volume=
, it should simply be removed. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
14:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
|volume=
which does not contain a pure number is not necessarily going to consist of a series prefix followed by the "real" volume number.{{
volume needed}}
seems closest but has the opposite meaning. Possibly {{
ambiguous}}
--
Redrose64 (
talk)
09:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC){{ resolved}}
I note from this diff [47] that where a paper has lots of authors, the bot is listing eight and then "et al".
Why eight ?
If you're going to truncate the list with "et al", most style guides would surely truncate after the first, or at most the second or third author. Jheald ( talk) 19:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
{{
citation/core}}
. If there are up to eight authors, all get displayed; if there are nine or more, the first eight are displayed but the others are replaced by "et al.". This can be configured using the |display-authors=
parameter; for example, |display-authors=3
will display three then "et al.". Note that whatever the truncation point, the first nine are always put into the
COinS metadata, so it's best to specify as many as possible. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
21:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC){{ resolved}}
LeadSongDog come howl! 17:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template%3ACite_doi%2F10.1186.2F1471-2148-4-44&action=historysubmit&diff=418315248&oldid=418206360
Fixed in
GitHub Pull 324{{
resolved}}
The bot ought to be a lot more conservative before it adds a "series" field, and moves material there.
In addition to the example noted above, [48], see for example: [49] [50]
Or this one (the Annales de Chimie et de Physique ref), where there was a series to be found, but the bot still got it wrong: [51]
-- that is just 3/3 just from the last three appearances of this bot on my watchlist
Current parsing for pulling out the series is not fit purpose, and needs to be turned off.
(Also, re that last diff, an "issue = 0" may be questionable too) Jheald ( talk) 18:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
volume = vol 30
... After: series = vol | volume = 30
... (Ideally would have: suppressed the word "vol")volume = 32 No. 1
... After: series = 32 | volume = No. 1
... (Ideally would have: made volume = 32 | issue = 1
)volume = 1 & 3
... After: series = 1 | volume = & 3
... (Ideally would have: made no change -- intention was to cite the two volumes of a multi-volume work that contained essays in the relevant area).volume = 1 (3me Série)
... After: series = 1 | volume = (3me Série)
... (Ideally would have: made series = (3me Série) | volume = 1
).
The CrossRef database records the issue as "1". To avoid this false positive, I'm ignoring any issue numbers reported as 1 in their db. A shame but I doubt that they'll fix the errors...
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
04:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
{{
resolved}}
{{ resolved}}
The bot seems to have erroneously deleted a number of authors from a citation in the Avogadro constant article. Not sure why this happened, but possibly the typo in author number 17 set it off. SpinningSpark 10:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
|lastn=
parameters from 1 to 9. What's your objective of listing all the extra authors in invalid template parameters?
Rjwilmsi
11:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
|title=Relative incapacitation contributions of pressure wave and wound channel \n in the Marshall and Sanow data set
should be
|title=Relative incapacitation contributions of pressure wave and wound channel in the Marshall and Sanow data set
The logic should be general since this should never happen for any parameter (except possibly |author=
) AKA
|journal=\n Journal of \n Foo
→ |journal=Journal of Foo
|doi=\n 10.123456789
→ |doi=10.123456789
|publisher=American Mathematical \n Society
→ |publisher=American Mathematical Society
This would not affect "single line" vs "multiline" referencing, just make sure things are not broken up for no reason. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
|url=
, since the formatting breaks when we have line breaks in the title in that case. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
21:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
|url=
.
Rjwilmsi
20:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I had the bot on hold until I fixed a couple of bugs: it's just been run. Please check
Special:Contributions/citation_bot_2 in case there are any errors!
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
16:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Crystallographic_database&diff=prev&oldid=421074857 Merged below. {{ resolved}}
Enhancement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Extinction_event&diff=prev&oldid=421079180
Fixed in
GitHub Pull 322
{{
resolved}}
Something more informative than depunctuated URL would be nice: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Bifidobacterium_animalis&diff=prev&oldid=421085160 {{ resolved}}
|pmid=
is given but mislabled as |1=
|pmid=
Is this ubiquitous or restricted to certain references?
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
19:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite pmid|123456}}
(in lieu of {{
cite pmid}}
. The bot creates the subpage for cite doi but does not correct the error. Then, because it doesn't always find the right data without knowing the pmid, it either craps out or replaces it with incorrect metadata. Several times this mal-metadata was for a particular paper from Cladistics. It'd be good if the bot could somehow clean up the mess it made by itself. Citation bot 2 should be stopped until this is fixed.
LeadSongDog
come howl!
22:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
|jstor=
parameter. In this case, |jstor=10.2307/1576591
is set to the doi (10.2307/1576591) rather than the jstor (1576591). I've fixed this.
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books}
14:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)![]() | User input needed. This bug has been marked as needing user verification.
|
See #Removal of jstor link by Citation bot Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC) {{ resolved}}
I have revered Citation bot 1's edit to Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 4), it applied lower case to a title, and part of the edit summary was garbled. 117Avenue ( talk) 02:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC) {{ resolved}} in r328 Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 04:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't see the problem there? Citation bot never removed any url... ? Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
See also above Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC) {{ resolved}}
403: User account expired
The page you requested is hosted by the Toolserver user verisimilus, whose account has expired. Toolserver user accounts are automatically expired if the user is inactive for over six months. To prevent stale pages remaining accessible, we automatically block requests to expired content.
If you think you are receiving this page in error, or you have a question, please contact the owner of this document: verisimilus [at] toolserver [dot] org. (Please do not contact Toolserver administrators about this problem, as we cannot fix it—only the Toolserver account owner may renew their account.)
HTTP server at toolserver.org - ts-admins [at] toolserver [dot] org
Eek; I've been inactive for a while and for some reason didn't receive an account renewal e-mail. I've contacted the administrators to request reactivation. Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 15:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
-->
Of course the journal name, abbreviation, or issn should match well if at all, but that doesn't seem to catch cases like this one, where the doi pointed to the wrong article in the right journal. Given that pubmed lists several dates for some articles, it would seem sensible to accept that any of these dates match the crossref publication_date. If nothing matches but the journal, perhaps a {{
vn}}
tag could be inserted in lieu of the bot making the edit.
LeadSongDog
come howl!
18:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
The bot seems to have broken a few refs here. Possibly due to an earlier edit by User talk:Rjwilmsi that broke a ref here. Thought you should know. Otherwise the bot and user generally do a stirling job! -- Paul ( talk) 10:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
The {{
citation}}
template does not recognise a |column=
parameter. Knowing this, Citation bot is assuming a typo, and that the closest-matching valid parameter (at least in terms of spelling/sound-alike) is |volume=
, so it's amending accordingly.
If you need to give the column number in your refs, use the |at=
parameter instead of |page=
, i.e. instead of |page=3
|column=B
, put |at=p. 3, col. B
and similarly for the other four instances. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
21:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
|pmid=
conversion creates link to unrelated pubmed article
The bot made a weird edit, in the middle of another citation, which I fixed, FYI.
Best regards from a fan of CiteBot1, Kiefer. Wolfowitz 21:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Pages that should not be edited by the bot should contain {{bots|deny=citation bot}}.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
13:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
|id=
to |isbn=
?
other
to editor
? —
Ruud
14:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
It only removed "&lpage=77", which is a redundant part of the Google Books URL. "&PA77" is still there, and that ought to be enough to get you to the right page in Google Books. Perhaps |p=77
should be added, but I don't think this is a bot error. However, in that same edit, why did the bot remove {{
fails verification}}?
Ucucha
06:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
|page=
77 and not |url=
. That way it is evident to the reader that the link goes to the specific cited page, not to the full work.
LeadSongDog
come howl!
13:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Example edits that were incorrect:
Mistakenly changed "| author1-first = Alan H. " to "| author8-link = Alan H. "
Mistakenly changed "| author1-last = Savitzky" to "| author1-link = Savitzky" and redundantly added "| publisher = Journal of Herpetology, Vol. 35, No. 4"
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)![]() | User input needed. This bug has been marked as needing user verification.
|
{{
arxiv}}
can be declared in 3 main ways. {{
arxiv|astro-ph/0610314}}
, {{
arxiv|astro-ph|0610314}}
and {{
arxiv|archive=astro-ph|id=0610314}}
. In all cases, these should be converted to |arxiv=astro-ph/0610314
.
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books}
06:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
|id=
redundant with |1=
and no other parameters (at least when used in a {{
cite xxx|id=}}
)) include {{
asin|0123456789}}
(except when |country=
is used), {{
bibcode|0123456789}}
(|label=
/|2=
can be ignored), {{
doi|0123456789}}
, {{
issn|0123456789}}
, {{
jfm|0123456789}}
, {{
jstor|0123456789}}
(except when |sici=
/|issn=
are used), {{
mr|0123456798}}
, {{
oclc|0123456789}}
(but not when |2=
/|3=
are used), {{
ol|01234567789}}
(only if |author=
is not used), {{
osti|0123456789}}
, {{
pmc|0123456789}}
, {{
pmid|0123456789}}
, {{
IETF-RFC|0123456789}}
(use |rfc=0123456789
when in a {{
cite xxx}}), {{
ssrn|0123456798}}
, and {{
zbl|0123456789}}
{{
lccn}}
which would need careful examination (and might best be left alone) before converting.
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books}
14:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)It seems to miss the LCCNs... see [58]. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}} (?)
![]() | User input needed. This bug has been marked as needing user verification.
|
A similar problem in this ? Vol III of Explosives encyclopedia translation gets linked to an article in journal Science with title that refers to Vol 1 of the Encyclopedia. My guess is a book review in Science borrowed the book title, bot mismatched using Science title (ignoring author/translator != Dolan), bot mismatched volume (1 != III). Glrx ( talk) 19:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
*{{Citation |first=Tadeusz |last=Urbański |authorlink= Tadeusz Urbański |title=Chemistry and Technology of Explosives |volume= III |edition=First English |year=1967 |location=Warszawa |publisher=PWN - Polish Scientific Publishers and Pergamon Press |isbn= |oclc=499857211 |doi=}}. Translation by Marian Jurecki, edited by Sylvia Laverton. See also ISBN 9780080104010.
{{
vn}}
or similar.
LeadSongDog
come howl!
05:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
That was not the only change made by the bot in the RDX article, (see [60]). Another book: Cooper, Paul W. (1996), Explosives Engineering, New York: Wiley-VCH, ISBN 0-471-18636-8: that was properly cited (see Amazon listing) was changed to a journal review of a workshop on explosives (see Journal entry). Pyrotec ( talk) 09:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
had an ambiguous identifier. The given
ISBN
0471186368 is on
OCLC
34409473 and on
OCLC
232968272. Both those records show the publisher as VCH. The same author/date/publisher also apply to
ISBN
156081926X which seems to be an abridged or introductory version, the title of which includes the title of the other. In any case, adding info on the book review was in error. Clearly when {{
citation}} has |isbn=
populated this should not happen, though {{
cite book}}
would not have had an issue.
LeadSongDog
come howl!
13:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
![]() | User input needed. This bug has been marked as needing user verification.
|
The bot processed the actual DOI for this paper just before this one: Mikovits, J. A.; Ruscetti, F. W. (2010). "Response to Comments on "Detection of an Infectious Retrovirus, XMRV, in Blood Cells of Patients with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome"". Science. 328 (5980): 825–825.
Bibcode:
2010Sci...328..825M.
doi:
10.1126/science.1184548.. See
[63]. Might those data have lingered somewhere in the bot?
Ucucha
03:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
{{
asiantitle}}
, which seems a more elegant answer. I'm a bit surprised they didn't use |language=
though.
LeadSongDog
come howl!
15:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Since we're reporting auto-casing, there should be a tweak for words following a :. For example here Citation Bot changes Light-Front Holography and Gauge/Gravity Duality: The Light Meson and Baryon Spectra to Light-Front Holography and Gauge/Gravity Duality: the Light Meson and Baryon Spectra. It is customary, but not always, to capitalize the first word after a colon since it's usually the start of a subtitle. Hence Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope and not the jarringly weird Star Wars Episode IV: a New Hope. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
{{
resolved}}
Pagination for this article is not present in the CrossRef database.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
13:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
|arxiv=
fails when the template has named parameters
Not fixed. See [64] Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
{{
cite book}}
which is suitable for an OpenLibrary number, so I'm sticking with
OCLC
55853736. Thanks for your help. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
13:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)Open Library number is |ol=number
.
*{{cite book |last=MacDermot |first=E. T. |year=1927 |title=History of the Great Western Railway |publisher=[[Great Western Railway Company]] |ol=22019452M |lccn=28015258 }}
gives
Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
|ol=
and |lccn=
(plus some others) to the documentation of {{
cite book}}
, but in a
rather scanty form. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
15:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)![]() | User input needed. This bug has been marked as needing user verification.
|
It's not quite a bug since the URL wasn't used by the template. But some improvement could be made here I think. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
|url=
not present, but that's not a reason to delete the content. Fortunately this should be pretty rare.
Rjwilmsi
09:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC){{ resolved}}
![]() | User input needed. This bug has been marked as needing user verification.
|
{{
resolved}}
![]() | User input needed. This bug has been marked as needing user verification.
|
<ref name=BioClocks></ref>
, which the bot should have simply deleted but instead replaced.
LeadSongDog
come howl!
19:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
<ref name=BioClocks></ref>
is a synonym for <ref name=BioClocks />
. I realized this and updated the bot in a recent edit, presumably after this bug was reported.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
21:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)if(strlen($firstN) === 1) { $firstN .= '.'; }
)
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
17:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Fixed in
GitHub Pull 355 && {{
resolved}}.
{{
resolved}}
Is there a reason why this bot is changing cite book to citation? Did we do away with this? See here [66] He iro 05:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
I don't know how feasible a fix is; there are probably many cases where an article was written by a true Scotsman and the bot should make this change, because its input data often make errors with case, but there are certain to be more exceptions like this one.
Ucucha
14:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Book chapters now supported.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
21:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
The archiving bot archived the same 11, 12, 13, 14 or 22 identical threads into Archive_1 over and over again.
See the edit history for Archive_1, especially between 23 June 2011 and 19 August 2011.
The duplication of threads has now been removed from Archive_1. See Archive1 (the 3rd archive) for these threads. The item numbers below refer to those found in the version of Archive_1 dated 19 August 2011 and the version of Archive1 (the 3rd archive) dated 2 October 2011.
The following duplicate threads were manually moved over to Archive_2 in 2012 and have now also been removed.
![]() | 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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Does DOI bot handle {{ citation}}, or only the {{ cite}} series? — David Eppstein ( talk) 15:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
[1] Is it really reasonable to label something an "abstract" when the linked page has the full document linked in PDF and/or GIF form? Wily D 12:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Is it really fixed? DOI bot has gone through all my marked articles with (abstract). See, for example, mired and D65. Just because a subscription is required it does not mean that the full article is not provided. Are you going to fix this or do we have to go through the backlog manually? -- Adoniscik( t, c) 12:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Not at all. I linked to the abstract page as a matter of policy for two reasons:
I do appreciate that your bot fixes the en dash in the page numbers! -- Adoniscik( t, c) 15:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Minor Barnstar | |
For the great job of improving citations. utcursch | talk 16:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC) |
I'm grateful for the handful of DOI's that your bot came up with. Nonetheless, I am going to revert your bot's changes to problem of Apollonius, an article I have been working on for months, for the following reason. I deliberately write & n d a s h ; instead of – to help me proofread the article. Forgive me for saying so, but it doesn't seem wise to make invisible formatting changes that also interfere with a human editor's ability to maintain the article. My suggestion would be to turn off that feature of your bot. Otherwise, well done! :) Willow ( talk) 21:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Smith! :) I plan on using your bot a lot in the future; thank you a lot for that as well! Willow ( talk) 11:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I was looking over my watchlist and I noticed this change. I then checked out the two bot approval links on the bot's page. I may have missed it, but it doesn't look like your bot was approved to make changes like this.-- Rockfang ( talk) 16:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I noticed in
this edit that the bot picked out part of the pages parameter (|pages=223
), but not the whole (|pages=223–235
). Perhaps it is because Blackwell Synergy (gasp) use en dashes for their page range, and not the more common and less correct hyphen-minus? Who knows. Thought I'd let you know. +
m
t
18:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This bot is replacing the dash for pages numbers with the endash. While this appears to be correct style, this is not an approved function for the bot. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 19:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
I missed reverting some vandalism due to a bot edit to Aluminium diff. Can the bot be configured not to make an edit within x minutes of an IP user, or user with less than x edits? Whilst it wasn't long before someone read and reverted the vandals edits diff, for a less major article than Aluminium and less blatant vandalism, the vandalism could have gone undetected for a while. Something along these lines would be good, as I ignored the bot edit on my watchlist. User A1 ( talk) 11:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
DOI bot is completely deleting the "access date" on the templates in a couple of articles, can this be avoided? Montanabw (talk) 05:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
In the Bird nest article, the DOI bot added a link to a commercial abstract when a valid URL to the free full article was already specified. Should it be doing that? MeegsC | Talk 23:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. -- Blechnic ( talk) 22:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Please keep the citation bot away for projects such as Wikipedia:Citing sources. Indeed, it would probably best to restrict it to article space only. -- Gerry Ashton ( talk) 17:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Today I saw for the first time that the bot adds an OCLC ( diff), but perhaps it has always done this. What is the rationale behind this? The OCLC was added to a book that already has an ISBN, and you can search WorldCat via the ISBN search page, so I am wondering what extra benefit the OCLC gives. -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 21:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey there
To read the DOIs for American Chemical Society publications, for example:
Publisher doi is 10.1021
Look at "ja00001a054"
DOI should be 10.1021/ja00001a054
(ja refers to J. Am. Chem. Soc.; cr refers to Chemical Reviews, etc.).
For Royal Society of Chemistry, e.g.:
prefix the DOI with 10.1039/
so, 10.1039/b804604m
Hope this helps! -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 16:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi there
I haven't tried, but I was looking at your bot's user page, and that you said only two publishers have DOIs in the URL. I thought I might fill you in? ;) -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 05:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Sites that I've seen with DOIs in the URL are only BIOONE and Blackwell publishing. The former of these encodes the title in an invisible span.
Do the <meta> tags contain a dc.Identifier or citation_doi? If so, check the dc.title or citation_title matches the title we want.
Is there a DOI in the page, anywhere? Are there lots of DOIs? Do any occur in association with the title? If there are any <br>, <p>, <li> or <td> tags between the title and a DOI, the DOI could refer to a different reference, and we'll have to ignore it.
Is there a unique DOI?
Does the DOI appear in the first 5000 characters of the document? If so, it is probably part of the document description. Any later, and it's more likely to be a reference.
Could you please take a look at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 March 9#Template:Cite pmid/19240221? The bot seems to have created a redirect ( Template:Cite pmid/19240221) to a non-existent page ( Template:Cite doi/10.1073.2Fpnas.0812570106). Thanks, – Black Falcon ( Talk) 05:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I've posted two questions regarding this bot at WP:BON#A separate template for each cited source?. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Am I the only one who thinks that putting {{ dead link}} into the "format" field makes the citation look kinda ugly, having superscripts parenthesised with normal parentheses: ( dead link – Scholar search). Also adding "scholar search" links for news articles doesn't actually help for link recovery. Maybe a link to an Internet Archive search would be more useful in some cases, depending on what fields are in the citation (e.g. journal/issn, vs. periodical). Cheers, cab ( talk) 07:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
The bot seems to be confused about slashes in DOIs.
Starting from this: {{cite doi|10.1016/j.jebo.2006.05.017}}
The template is looking for this: Template:Cite doi/10.1016.2Fj.jebo.2006.05.017
But the bot (at least when prodded via "jump the queue") creates this instead: Template:Cite doi/10.1016/j.jebo.2006.05.017
Result:
Rl (
talk)
15:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Many {{ cite arXiv}} could be converted to {{ cite journal}} For example, this page http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0605258v1 gives the journal into with this was published Nature 442, 54-58 (2006). Why not change it to a cite journal (with |id={{arXiv|0605258v1}})? Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 20:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, when you can find the journal the article has been published into, it's appropriate to change {{ cite arXiv}} to {{ cite journal}}, otherwise they should remain {{ cite arXiv}} (I'm not very familiar with {{ citation}}, but I suspect there wouldn't be any additional problem than those mentionned for {{ cite journal}}). As long as you adapt the parameters |eprint=foobar |class=barfoo |version=v123456 from {{ cite arXiv}} to into an |id={{arXiv|foobarv123456}} [barfoo] in {{ cite journal}}, there should be no problem. |class= and |version= are optional parameters; there is no need to modify the logic used when |version= is not used, as {{arXiv|foobar}} will produce the correct output; however if class is not present, the brackets should not be present (i.e, it should look like |id={{arXiv|foobarv123456}} rather than |id={{arXiv|foobarv123456}} []). All other fields from {{ cite arXiv}} (i.e., author, title, etc...) overlap with those of {{ cite journal}}.
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)I noticed that the bot misses dois (and the rest of what goes along with them) when inputs like |journal=Phys. Rev. |volume=B23 are used instead of |journal=Phys. Rev. B|volume=23. See the difference it makes [5] when you fix those [6].
IMO, the algorithm should be tweaked to search for the original input first Phys. Rev. B23. If it fails, then search for Phys. Rev. B 23. If it finds something with that new search, then change Phys. Rev. B23 to Phys. Rev. B 23, otherwise leave the journal/volume info alone. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 08:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Can something be done about adding DOIs that link to commercial sites that sell the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.180.250.211 ( talk) 17:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
In {{ cite arxiv}}, some people are using the |journal= parameter (often to indicate that a paper has been submitted/accepted by a journal). This is wrong, so Citation bot should comment that parameter out. Also, sometimes |journal=arxiv is used in various citation templates, when that's the case, and when possible, Citation bot should switch to a {{ cite arxiv}} template. Also, the Bot should stop overriding human input for authors. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 05:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello. In Navier–Stokes equations and Dispersion (water waves) the bot changed "cite web" and "cite journal" into "citation" templates, while in Airy wave theory the opposite was done: changing "citation" templates into "cite book" and "cite journal". -- Crowsnest ( talk) 20:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I notice ( here) that the bot now converts {{ citation}} to {{ cite book}} and {{ cite journal}}. What motivated this change?-- Srleffler ( talk) 04:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
An interesting issue was recently presented on Global warming
Since vandalism is a serious problem with many pages, perhaps all doi templates should be protected from anonymous editing. The other alternative is to modify the "watch" logic so that if a template is used on a page I am watching, then I will automatically get a notification any time the template is changed. (Maybe that should be done anyway.) Q Science ( talk) 00:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
There is additional discussion at Global Warming Talk Q Science ( talk) 16:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
In my gnoming work, I often have to expand refs and standardize how they look in the edit window just so I can see if there are missing parameters, inconsistencies in formatting, and so on. If would be incredibly useful if citation BOT could do the dirty work (on a per-request basis, not by default). For cite journal, it should place them as (* means if present):
Blahblah blah blah blugh.<ref> {{cite journal |author= *|authorlink= --------- OR *|last= *|first= *|authorlink= *|last2= *|first2= *|authorlink2= *|last3= *|first3= *|authorlink3= *|last4= *|first4= *|authorlink4= and so on --------- *|coauthors= |year= *|month= *|day= (or |date=) |title= *|language= *|trans_title= *|url= *|format= |journal= *|series= |volume= |issue= |page= *|publisher= *|location= *|bibcode= *|doi= *|id= *|isbn= *|issn= *|pmid= *|pmd= *|oclc= *|accessdate= *|laysummary= *|laysource= *|laydate= *|quote= ---- Other parameters (if found) place here, one per line }}</ref> Blahblahblah blug blah.
Blahblah blah blah blugh.<ref> {{cite web |author= *|authorlink= --------- OR *|last= *|first= *|authorlink= *|last2= *|first2= *|authorlink2= *|last3= *|first3= *|authorlink3= *|last4= *|first4= *|authorlink4= and so on --------- *|coauthors= |date= (or |year= *|month= *|day=) |title= *|language= *|trans_title= |url= *|format= *|page= (or |pages=) *|work= *|publisher= *|location= *|bibcode= *|doi= *|id= *|isbn= *|issn= *|oclc= *|pmd= *|pmid= |accessdate= *|archiveurl= *|quote= ---- Other parameters (if found) place here, one per line }}</ref> Blahblahblah blug blah.
Blahblah blah blah blugh.<ref> {{cite book |author= *|authorlink= --------- OR *|last= *|first= *|authorlink= *|last2= *|first2= *|authorlink2= *|last3= *|first3= *|authorlink3= *|last4= *|first4= *|authorlink4= and so on --------- *|coauthors= *|separator= *|lastauthoramp= |year= *|month= *|day= (or |date=) *|origyear= *|editor= *|editor-link= *|editor2= *|editor2-link= *|editor3= *|editor3-link= *|editor4= *|editor4-link= --------- OR *|editor-last= *|editor-first= *|editor-link= *|editor2-last= *|editor2-first= *|editor2-link= *|editor3-last= *|editor3-first= *|editor3-link= *|editor4-last= *|editor4-first= *|editor4-link= and so on --------- *|chapter= *|trans_chapter *|chapterurl= |title= *|language= *|trans_title= *|url= *|format= *|edition= *|series= *|volume= *|issue= |page= (or |pages=) *|nopp= |publisher= *|location= *|bibcode= *|doi= *|id= |isbn= *|issn= *|pmid= *|pmd= *|oclc= *|accessdate= *|laysummary= *|laysource= *|laydate= *|quote= *|ref *|postscript= ---- Other parameters (if found) place here, one per line }}</ref> Blahblahblah blug blah.
And similar for cite book, cite web, and so on... Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 18:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
You can look through ( Wikipedia:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Journals_cited_by_Wikipedia alphabetical) and see patterns. For example, many journal parameters start with a ' for no reason, others are italicized twice (templates place entries in italics automatically, no need to tell it twice), and so on (AWB typo team also contacted). Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I love this bot. I wonder how hard it would be to fix the en-dashes in page ranges of the {{ Harv}}, {{ Harvnb}} and{{ Harvtxt}}? In other words fix Smith 2009, pp. 5–6 so it becomes Smith 2009, pp. 5–6 ? I'm guessing this is a pretty easy enhancement, since it already does this for the citation templates. ---- CharlesGillingham ( talk) 10:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
A request to stop this bot was recently made (not by me; but I've chimed in) and there's currently a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents #Citation bot. Eubulides ( talk) 13:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Just a note; after an extensive bug-fixing session, I am now satisfied that the bot is safe to leave running unattended. I've kept an eye on it for a while, and now intend to leave it running overnight. If there are any systematic and major bugs that require the bot to stop, blocking User:Citation bot 1 will prevent the unsupervised running - without inconveniencing other users. Minor bugs should still be reported so that the bot can fix them on its next run.
Thanks,
Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 11:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I think there has been clear request for the bot not to reset the list of authors to multiple parameter style if "author=" already been defined - see User:Citation_bot/bugs#Does_the_bot_have_consensus_to_operate ? and subsequent section to it on example at Autism. As these requests not been heeded, the bot, which if I understand correctly is munching its way through articles automatically, will be seen to be disruptive at least to the medical topics where a definite preference has been for use of Diberri-generated referrences (temp off-line but hopefully will eventually be back in action). Now the bot is trying to do good work and add citation details, but on issue of author parameters clearly needs a short pause for thought... hence why I've turned it off (for now). If some past great discussion on this and alternative consensus then fine and any admin free (just act, no need fear wheel-warring) to unblock and turn back on (or just ask me). David Ruben Talk 00:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Revision: r53 [17:28:25] Processing page 'Template:Cite doi/10.1016.2Fj.ab.2005.03.037' — edit—history *-> 1: Tidy citation and try ISBN +doi: 10.1016/j.ab.2005.03.037 2: DOI already present :-) 3: Find PMID & expand - Searching PubMed... - Errors detected in PMID search; abandoned. nothing found. - Checking for ISBN Already has an ISBN. 4: Expand citation - Checking CrossRef for more details +title: Screening of plants containing Naja naja siamensis cobra venom inhibitory activity using modified ELISA technique +year: 2005 +last1: Daduang +first1: Sakda +last2: Sattayasai +first2: Nison +last3: Sattayasai +first3: Jintana +last4: Tophrom +first4: Pattara +last5: Thammathaworn +first5: Achra +last6: Chaveerach +first6: Arunrat +last7: Konkchaiyaphum +first7: Monruedee +journal: Analytical Biochemistry +volume: 341 +pages: 316 5: Cite Doi Enhancement Done. Just a couple of things to tweak now... +first1: S. +first2: N. +first3: J. +first4: P. +first5: A. +first6: A. +first7: M. *** Complete. Citation assessed in 1 secs. Added: last1, first1, last2, first2, last3, first3, last4, first4, last5, first5, last6, first6, last7, first7, title, journal, volume, pages, year. Writing to Template:Cite doi/10.1016.2Fj.ab.2005.03.037 ... Edit may have failed. Retrying: xxx Still no good. One last try: Failed. Abandoning page. history Page took 3 secs to process.
|author=
style, with the default to leave the style alone. However, since the bot's maintainer is offline for a few days, we'll need to wait to see whether this way is feasible.
Eubulides (
talk)
21:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)Why is |author=Chen CC, Zimmer A, Sun WH, Hall J, Brownstein MJ, Zimmer A
better than |first1=Chih-Cheng |last1=Chen |first2=Anne |last2=Zimmer |first3=Wei-Hsin |last3=Sun |first4=Jennifer |last4=Hall |first5=Michael J. |last5=Brownstein |first6=Andreas |last6=Zimmer
for
doi:
10.1073/pnas.122245999 /
PMID
12060708?? This supposed marvelous "Diberri" format doesn't get the first or third names right. And what's the benefit of hiding first names if they're known? And why block a useful bot over a preference for a broken formatting tool? Just block the bot on the specific articles you don't want to be edited. —
Chris Capoccia
T⁄
C
09:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
By the way, blocking the bot doesn't mean you can't use its results. Simply don't check the "commit edits" box. The bot will then give you the text of the resulting page. View the source of that text (use control-U in Firefox), copy whichever part of that text you like, and paste it into an edit window, and commit the results yourself. It's more awkward to do this by hand, of course, but it's a reasonable temporary workaround until the bot's maintainer comes back online. Eubulides ( talk) 17:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with author name formatting, but: can I ask you to please spell out journal names such as "Eur Arch Paediatr Dent"? It may be the standard for technical writing within the field of Paediatr Dent to not spell things out, but this convention creates an unnecessary barrier to entry for anyone else not already familiar with the standards and titles of the field. We're writing here for all Wikipedia users, not for Paediatr Dents. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Given this discussion (a change a month ago broke harv formatting for {{ cite journal}} style citations), perhaps it would be a bad idea to switch from citation to cite journal, at least for articles that use harv, harvtxt, harvnb, harvs, etc. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
re [8]. The bot added "|ISBN-status= May be invalid - please double check" to ISBN 9986-9216-9-4. I presume that's because it could not find it in WorldCat or some similar catalog. However, it is valid as shown at National Library of Lithuania. So is there a way to prevent the bot from flagging the same ISBN in other articles? This particular website is used very often in Lithuania-related articles. Thanks, Renata ( talk) 13:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Visitors to this page may be interested in a new inline reference-adding tool, Ref++. Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 00:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
How can I tell what the current revision of the bot is that will run when I invoke it manually (to know whether a recent bug fix is in or not)? Thanks Rjwilmsi 08:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Minor point : Authors name, if no puncutation or spaces, should probably be in Title Case. diff User A1 ( talk) 12:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi all, apologies for the long delay in getting back to your requests. Sometimes life gets in the way!! Anyhow, I have now fixed what I think is the contentious issue – the bot will now (r74) only unify citation types if "harv" templates are absent. It checks the page code for the string "{{harv" (case insensitive) and, if it finds it, it leaves the citation types untouched. I've fixed most of the other outstanding bugs too, and don't believe that there is anything left that warrants the bot being blocked. I've requested the unblock, but feel free to block the bot again if necessary. Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 16:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Bugs that caused block to be requested have been fixed (see above)}}
the bot doesn't seem to be working? has it been blocked? or is there a problem to fix? — Chris Capoccia T⁄ C 19:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
There's been a recent discussion at Template_talk:Citation#Coauthors touching on the fact that because the {{ citation}} and {{ cite x}} family don't use the coauthor in generation of the CITEREF anchor, coauthor names should not be used by {{ harv}} etc. I've suggested another possible task for this bot that could find a lot of broken linkages, if you wouldn't mind having a look. User:LeadSongDog come howl 18:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
Your bot claimed that a reference on Transmission electron microscopy has a broken DOI diff. The DOI in question is 10.1017/S143192760708124X , whihch I doubled checked at the journal's site, here. User A1 ( talk) 09:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I have blocked the bot temporarily, until the bot operator confirms that everything is well. Any other admin should also feel free to unblock. — Carl 21:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
How are things going in moving towards unblocking this bot again? It's extremely helpful even with these minor bugs. I'd much rather be able to run the bot on a page and fix a few minor things than have to manually check everything about all the citations. It's also very helpful for automatically finding DOIs that diberri's tool misses. — Chris Capoccia T⁄ C 08:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I can't believe this INCREDIBLY USEFUL bot has been blocked AGAIN over extraordinarily esoteric and petty citation style details. Why don't we eliminate every useful tool on Wikipedia while we're at it because it happens to be less than perfect? If you guys can't provide a work-around, could you please consider the editors that this bot is working very well for before making knee-jerk decisions like this in the future? -- Scarpy ( talk) 14:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Is there a possibility to run the bot at least manually - it would be still tremendously useful until it can be reenabled in full glory. I have added a bunch of references to Hysterectomy in the hope the bot would expand them for me and I could sure check the output. Richiez ( talk) 13:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that CitationBOT fails to run (when prompted by the .js toolbox) in pages that have endashes and emdashes in their name. Prompting the BOT from the toolserver works just fine, but not when you do it from the toolbox. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics}
There's no consensus for that, and it clutters citations for no good reason. See the discussion on Template talk:Cite journal. Thanks. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 21:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi all,
I've just got back from away and haven't had time to review the above comments. For now, I have disabled the new author handling functions, so the bot will no longer remove 'et al's, split author= into author1=, author2=, etc, and will no longer detect translators. I imagine that this will allow the bot to be used again without upsetting anyone. When I have more time I will see if I can come up with a solution that placates everybody - I suspect that it may be a case of the bot leaving the author parameter alone. Thus I believe that it is safe to unpause the bot. I've only had time to do a quick test (no edit found to be necessary at this test page) so if it turns out that unwanted behaviour is occurring, feel free to re-pause it.
For future reference, different accounts are used for different functions. This allows certain aspects of bot activity to be paused without stopping others. At present, the accounts operate as follows:
Hope that helps. If my prompt action is required, I can be reached via e-mail or my user talk page. Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 16:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid it's still changing some author lists. I just tried it on Water fluoridation (without installing the result) and it made the following insertions:
{{cite journal |author=Bailey W, Barker L, Duchon K, Maas W |title=Populations receiving optimally fluoridated public drinking water—United States, 1992–2006 |journal=MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep |volume=57 |issue=27 |pages=737–41 |year=2008 |pmid=18614991 |url=http://cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5727a1.htm |author1=Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) }}
{{cite journal |author=CDC |title= Ten great public health achievements—United States, 1900–1999 |journal= MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep |volume=48 |issue=12 |pages=241–3 |year=1999 |pmid=10220250 |url=http://cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00056796.htm |author1=Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) }}
{{cite journal |author= Truman BI, Gooch BF, Sulemana I ''et al.'' |title= Reviews of evidence on interventions to prevent dental caries, oral and pharyngeal cancers, and sports-related craniofacial injuries |journal= Am J Prev Med |volume=23 |issue= 1 Suppl |pages=21–54 |year=2002 |pmid=12091093 |doi=10.1016/S0749-3797(02)00449-X |url=http://thecommunityguide.org/oral/oral-ajpm-ev-rev.pdf |format=PDF |accessdate=2009-02-03 |author9= Task Force on Community Preventive Services }}
{{cite journal |journal=Eur Arch Paediatr Dent |year=2009 |volume=10 |issue=3 |pages=129–35 |title=Guidelines on the use of fluoride in children: an EAPD policy document |author=European Academy Of Paediatric Dentistry |url=http://www.eapd.gr/EAPDJournal/2009v10/Issue_3/Vol_10_2_June_F_Guide.pdf |format=PDF |pmid=19772841 |author1=European Academy Of Paediatric Dentistry EA }}
There were some others but this should be enough to get you see the bugs. Eubulides ( talk) 23:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I tried the new bot out on Autism. Most of the changes it made were good ones (thanks!) and I agree that it's safe to unblock now. The problems I noted were:
|first2=C.
" in a single-author article (see
this diff). In some sense this is the most troubling because if I run the bot again it'll do it again, with no obvious workaround in general.{{cite journal |author=[[Leo Kanner|Kanner L]] |title=Autistic disturbances of affective contact |journal=Nerv Child |volume=2 |pages=217–50 |year=1943 }} Reprinted in {{cite journal |year=1968 |journal=Acta Paedopsychiatr |volume=35 |issue=4 |pages=100–36 |pmid=4880460 |author1=Kanner |title=Autistic disturbances of affective contact. }}
|author1=Kanner |title=Autistic disturbances of affective contact.
" with "|author=<!-- Pacify Citation bot. --> |title=<!-- Pacify Citation bot. -->
".|doi_brokendate=2009-10-17
to
doi:
10.1001/jama.285.24.3093, a DOI that is not broken. That's the
Journal of the American Medical Association, by the way.|pmc=
values that are counterproductive because the PubMed Central articles are embargoed until next year. The affected articles were
PMC
2677584,
PMC
2677593,
PMC
2692135, and
PMC
2692092. We've talked about this before; I just wanted to mention it again, as it's an ongoing problem. I worked around this by replacing, for example, "|pmc=2677584
" with "|pmc=<!-- 2677584 embargoed until 2010-05-27 -->
", but this is unsatisfactory as it will require manual intervention on each due date, something that's unlikely to be done correctly by hand.Eubulides ( talk) 05:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
This one is weird [9]. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
At Psychopathy#References, there are several instances of PMID citations being redirected to redlinked DOI citations. Here they are:
Why is this happening? Other than editing each citation manually, is there a way to fix this? Thanks! Alamanth ( talk) 16:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
These references appear with the following text: "This citation will be automatically completed in the next few minutes. You can jump the queue or expand by hand." Jumping the queue does not work, and rather than expand them by hand, I would prefer for the citations to be expanded automatically, to ensure they are expanded completely, accurately, and uniformly.
Thank you. Alamanth ( talk) 16:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Can I suggest that the bot not add "dead link" notices to citation templates that already have the |archiveurl=
and |archivedate=
parameters? It seems that WebCite is temporarily down, which is why the bot was unable to access the archive page in some citation templates in "
Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (Singapore)": see
[12]. — Cheers,
JackLee –
talk–
05:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
For a discussion of what is in my view a gross violation of our core principle Wikipedia:NOTADVERTISING, please see HERE. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 11:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
{{ Resolved}}
Would it be possible to use templates to place " dead link – Scholar search" in citations? This way they could be exclude from print, and PDFs and Books would come out nicer. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Please see
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Ref_formatting_on_non-English_journals for a report on malformed rendering of anglicized titles using cite journal with |url=
http://www.somewhere.net and |title=
[Some translated title]. I think this likely relates to Crum's edits on 23, 25 June 2009 to
template:citation/core. It seemed to me that there should be a way to automagically convert to using |trans_title=
instead, perhaps with the help of
user:citation bot. Then, looking at the source for citation bot I find that r43 seems to have deliberately disabled this, evidently at the request of Eubulides, for reasons which are still opaque. Any chance of getting this sorted out on a more permanent basis?
LeadSongDog
come howl
15:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
The citation bot failed to add the issn for the Journal of Design History in this . The correct issn would be 0952-4649. Is this a bug? Smallman12q ( talk) 13:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
See WP:ANI#Citation bot. — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
|author1=
or |last1=
. At least by making them look odd they'll be more apt to get some human attention.
LeadSongDog
come howl
22:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)(unindent) I have emailed z/Journal as LeadSongDog suggests. If I understand Eubulides, however, that will not prevent CitationBot from capitalizing the first letter. Since I don't know what conventions the Library of Congress Catalogue and WorldCat impose on titles, I can't say whether we might run into some irreconcilable differences between what a publication calls itself and how it is named by these organizations. -- Jc3s5h ( talk) 21:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
In this edit, the bot added the isbn for the wrong volume of Schuster's Hepaticae and Anthocerotae. As far as I am aware, the first two volumes did not have assigned ISBNs. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 04:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Citation bot 2 ( talk · contribs) has just blanked Talk:Global warming controversy for no good reason. It first added a broken DOI note [13], then removed all other talk page content [14]. Please investigate...-- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 16:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
|doi=
. As I've said before, it seemed at first like a nice idea, but it is fundamentally broken and unnecessary. It begs for vandalism, which it then hides in the history of an unwatched subpage. It imposes one stylistic choice on multiple citing articles. And given that the dois sometimes go turn up dead like this one it just plain makes citations stop working, leaving facts effectively uncited. Let's put {{
deprecated}} to it once and for all.
LeadSongDog
come howl
19:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I'm spencer, a freebase programmer from Canada. I've put together a web service that can figure out a reference's 'publisher' unambiguously, given a url, using data in freebase.
the app was originally put together for this ubiquity citation tool but the more i think about it, the more it makes sense to write this information into existing references. I'd like to get some feedback on the idea.
freebase has many (several hundred thousand) 'official websites' mapped to freebase topics, and they are also connected to wikipedia. So if you give it a domain name, it will check to see if it is a publisher (defined as a newspaper, periodical, broadcaster, or blog), and if so, it will return its wikipedia link.
the api is
http://referee.freebaseapps.com/?url={url}
Heres an example:
and it's not just popular American websites either. [16] [17]
I think its a cool way to infer information in wikipedia, improving references. Love to hear what you think. I am willing to invest a fair amount of time to this project, if it is supported Spencerk ( talk) 22:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
hi martin! the answer i think is that it is all totally flexible, and depends more upon wikipedia policy than anything. There seems to be some ambiguity between 'publisher' and 'work' parameters, that I don't fully understand, and am not alone. Currently the api will return ' wordpress' as the publisher to a blog for example. but these things can be changed to accommodate policy. I've pinged a few others, hoping for some clarifications, cheers Spencerk ( talk) 19:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
thanks Jc3s5h! i like your definition of publisher, and i think its more satisfying than whats in the documentation. Freebase doesn't actually have a publisher type, so i've used
newspaper,
periodical,
news_reporting_organisation, and
blog. If it belongs to any of these categories, it is considered a publisher, and i think this is valid. I agree aswell that it should not replace user-contributed data. Is there a way to run this as a test? to see its results? I will try to whip something up if this is valuable.
@LeadSongDog, this is also a good idea, though freebase stores issn's aswell, and it would be easy, once the publisher is known, to grab this piece of information. Using it this may pose a licensing problem though. I will ask the freebase mailing list about this.
Spencerk (
talk)
11:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
|journal=
(e.g.) or |periodical=
(
e.g.) field. For now, I am simply not querying the API for a publisher if a |journal=
already exists. Is this the optimal solution?
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
21:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)This edit was wrong in that there should not have been any postscript attribute. Jc3s5h ( talk) 17:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
How is this edit an improvement? I've seen other edits correctly changing cite web to cite news, but I see no advantage - and possibly a disadvantage - to changing cite book to Citation -- JimWae ( talk) 20:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Hi. I'd like to know on what basis (= user consensus) the bot adds entries like url and publisher. As yet your bot page misses that vital information which should be put on top. Frankly, I deem these addditions superfluous in articles and would like to stop them permanently from being added in articles I created. Regards Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 08:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
On this diff [20], I don't know whether the second author is really an editor, but the edit left the citation data in an obviously broken state. Maybe the bot could test for that sort of thing and leave an error. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 00:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
|author2-last=
vice |last2=
(and similar).
LeadSongDog
come howl!
19:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Hello. Thanks for the good work that Citation bot does. I am wondering what is the purpose of adding a postcript parameter to citation templates in articles such as this [21] ? ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 14:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
|postscript=
.
Rjwilmsi
18:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
postscript=<!--None-->
, thereby making the citation look inconsistent with all of the other citations in the article. —
Sladen (
talk)
11:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
|postscript=<!-- None -->
the bot could implement something like |postscript=<!-- This parameter stops the citation from ending in a period, which makes it inconsistent with other citations in the article; please remove this comment if this is not the intentional behaviour, or replace the content of this comment if the terminal period really should be omitted -->[[Category:Articles identified by a bot as having inconsistent citation formats that require editor confirmation]]
: this would be clearer (improvements to wording welcomed) but more verbose (which would probably have the benefit of attracting editors to fix the problem).
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
14:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
|postscript=<!-- Bot inserted parameter. Remove or change value to "." for the cite to end in a period if preferred. -->[[Category:Articles with inconsistent citation formats]]
(although I suspect that category would include virtually all articles except those in FA class.
LeadSongDog
come howl!
16:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Hi, could you please remove the "!" (or more) from your invitation in the edit summary? It's getting too buzzy. If so, thx. - DePiep ( talk) 22:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
There is no mention of a "postscript" parameter, as either required or optional, in the documentation for {{ cite news}}. It's therefore very confusing for editors who have an article such as Pennine Way on their watch list if the bot adds it, even as an empty parameter. I gather from browsing around that this has been discussed elsewhere. Please either get the template documentation updated or stop adding this parameter. PamD ( talk) 07:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Postscript comments Why does User:Citation bot 1 add |postcript=<!--None--> to {{ Cite news}}? ( e.g.) Please respond on my talk. Thanks. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 16:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Is it possible (and for that matter, desirable) to filter the citation metadata you're getting for cases when the alleged publisher name has strings of the form "Vol. [0-9IVXLC]+" in its name (e.g. [23]), and not add the "publisher=" parameter in those cases? That would seem to be a pretty clear indication that someone is giving you mixed up data --- I'd be surprised to hear of a real publishing company with a name like that. (Though I'm sure some editor will read this and make it their life goal to start one. WP:BEANS, etc. =)). Cheers, cab ( talk) 00:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
In the last few weeks I've been rolling back dozens of these "fixes". In fact, whenever I see "tweaked publisher" in the edit summary, I can be pretty sure that the edit is wrong and needs to be rolled back. I think it would be a good idea to disable the publisher feature of the bot until this is fixed — that way, at least, the other useful edits it makes can be kept and the bad edits don't creep into unwatched articles. — David Eppstein ( talk) 03:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|I think that the majority of problems involving publisher metadata involve SpencerK's API, which I cannot modify; thus I have stopped the bot collecting data from this source until it is fixed. This should make it safe to re-enable the bot.}}
It still seems to be having the same problem: [26]. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Too temporarily, it seems. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|see following}}
I've made a php tool for creating New York Times citations from urls at Wikipedia:WikiCite Builder. Would you be interested in adding something like this to your bot? Smallman12q ( talk) 20:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I would like to set the bot loose on a category of articles. Category:Recipients of the Medal of Honor. But I don't see an option to be able to do that. -- Kumioko ( talk) 21:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
With this edit why did the bot put the dead link template in a newly added format parameter and not follow the template documentation?-- Rockfang ( talk) 03:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Can someone please block this bot from being run on articles such as E1b1b, E1b1b1a, List of R1a frequency by population, and R1a? Whatever the pros and cons of different styles of referencing, these articles will simply not function if this bot continues to disable their references by changing the listing of authors in the cite templates.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 11:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
|author=Bloggs et al.
as it is, then how does the edit lead to a broken harv link?
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
13:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
{{
harv}}
family of templates are written in such a way that if they are given up to three surnames, all will display; but if given exactly four, they are condensed. So {{
harv|Smith|Jones|Brown|2010|p=1}}
displays as (
Smith, Jones & Brown 2010, p. 1) , but {{
harv|Smith|Jones|Brown|Doe|2010|p=1}}
displays as (
Smith et al. 2010, p. 1) . The first expects the full citation to have |last1=
to |last3=
filled in; the second expects anything from four to nine of the |lastn=
fields to be filled in. If done this way, the linking works without any "et al" fudging. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
19:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
{{
harv|Smith|Jones|Brown|2010}}
displays as (
Smith, Jones & Brown 2010, p. 1) linked to CITEREF_SmithJones_Brown2010, but {{
harv|Smith|Jones|Brown|Doe|2010}}
displays as (
Smith et al. 2010, p. 1) linked to CITEREFSmith_Jones_Brown_Doe2010 , and
{{
harv|Smith|Jones|Brown|Doe|Wong|2010}}
displays as (
Smith et al. 2010, p. 1) linked to CITEREFSmith_Jones_Brown_DoeWong
{{
harvnb}}
documentation has similar warnings, although worded differently. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
21:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
{{
harv}}
and its family, five of the parameters are unnamed, so leading/trailing spaces are significant, so if a tool is preparing {{
harv}}
templates with such spaces, the tool is buggy and the tool owner should be notified. However, per
Help:Template#Whitespace problems, the templates could be modified so that spaces can be internally stripped. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
17:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I have a DOI with < and > in it and I don't know how to properly include it so that both the wiki can handle it and the citation bot recognizes it on List of Ig Nobel Prize winners. The doi is 10.1002/(SICI)1097-010X(19980215)280:3<260::AID-JEZ7>3.0.CO;2-L I have verified this at http://www.crossref.org/guestquery/ Search on Article Query with name of Fong , and with title of Induction and Potentiation of Parturition in Fingernail Clams (Sphaerium striatinum) by Selective Serotonin Re- Uptake Inhibitors (SSRIs)
Ideas? Naraht ( talk) 19:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
{{cite journal|doi = 10.1002/(SICI)1097-010X(19980215)280:3<260::AID-JEZ7>3.0.CO;2-L}}? Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 20:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Hi there
Could your bot be tweaked to run on {{ cite encyclopedia}} references? Many online encyclopedias now have DOIs, and if I were to invoke {{ cite journal}}, your bot runs just fine on them [29] [30]. It'd be wonderful if we can do it. Even if it requires some hand coding, it'd still be better than having to use the cite journal workaround. Thanks! -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 07:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if this is a bug, or Citation Bot is merely over-zealously interpreting some style guideline, but it is quite a pain to keep fixing changes where the bot changes first names to just a letter... see e.g. here. Is there a way to prevent the bot from doing this? Shreevatsa ( talk) 13:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite journal|doi=10.xxxx/etc}}
and
run citation bot on the page.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
19:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
In this recent edit, the citation bot changed the final reference in the article (end of the diff). The bot correctly noted that the paper has three authors, and only two were listed. However, when it added the third author it did not recognise that the missing author was actually the first author. So, instead of making the authors Csöregh, Kierkegaard, and Norrestam the bot made the authors Kierkegaard, Norrestam, and Norrestam. The initial for Kierkegaard in the given reference was also incorrect, which the bot did not correct. I'm not sure if these qualify as bugs, but it does seem to me to be an issue if the bot adds in an additional author which is not the author missing from the citation. Sorry if this is the wrong place to bring this up, my knowledge of bot functioning is poor. Regards, EdChem ( talk) 06:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
How can we stop the bot from "fixing" the citations on this article? We are using a different citation style on this article, and I've had to revert the bot twice now. -- El on ka 06:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
|location=
/|year=
fields. If you need to specify two locations or dates they must be in different fields, otherwise the template won't display both of them, regardless of the citation bot.
Rjwilmsi
11:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello Martin, your input would be welcome at the discussion here -- John of Reading ( talk) 16:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I've reverted some of the bots changes to articles, such as Hubert Walter, when it ran back in June - see diff from June, and now it's going through and doing the exact same changes again diff from today. There really isn't a need for a jstor url when the doi is there, and on FAs, the url is actually a degredation of hte article, since the bot doesn't include the necessary field of "format=fee required". Once the bots run once, shouldn't it NOT repeat the runs again? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
|format=fee required
would that be sufficient?
Rjwilmsi
14:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)Then is there any way to signal the bot not to edit a particular citation, to prevent it from repeatedly making the same incorrection? I don't necessarily want to stop it from editing the entire article like with {{bots|deny=Citation bot}}, but practically all of the JSTOR metadata has the same problem with book reviews ( listing the author of a reviewed work as a co-author of the review). Thanks cab ( call) 04:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi again - I am one of the really lazy editors and would like this feature: add sensible name= to ref where its missing, such as
<ref>{{cite pmid|12716040}}</ref> ===> <ref name=Benjamin_2003>{{cite pmid|12716040}}</ref>
If Benjamin_2003 weren't unique make it Benjamin_2003_pmid. Is it in the scope and doable for this bot? Dreaming even further, if I were to write {{refcite pmid|12716040}} could it save me the hassle to type the reftags altogether? Richiez ( talk) 20:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
{{ref pmid|1234}}
" with <ref name=Smith2010>{{cite pmid|1234}}</ref>
and post here when the requests are ready for comment.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
15:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
<ref name=Smith2010>{{cite journal|pmid=1234}}</ref>
so that we don't encourage the use of {{
cite pmid}}
, for all the reasons that I've previously elaborated on.
LeadSongDog
come howl!
16:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
<ref name=Smith2010JVirolMethods>{{cite pmid|1234}}</ref>
Richiez (
talk)
18:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite pmid}}
, {{
cite pmc}}
, {{
cite doi}}
and company simply shouldn't be trusted. Now if citation bot were to subst them once the data was all validated, my view might be different, but that would still result in the "quarterpage long monster". Of course, there's no real need to use multiline in the wikitext, it could just as readily be collapsed.
LeadSongDog
come howl!
19:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC){{
cite pmid}}
as fixed format and editable by bot only, if someone wants a different format there might be specialised templates or special arguments to this template but if it can be done I would certainly not complain if the template were protected or regularly cleaned by bots.
Richiez (
talk)
09:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Amusingly (?) I was thinking about a new family of cite templates along the lines of {{Ref xxxx|name="bloggs 2009"|group="notes"|all the other stuff}}. Reason? Removing the need to learn mark-up, apart from templates (which you need anyway) to write wiki source. Rich Farmbrough, 11:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC).
{{
cite pmid}}
, {{
Cite pmc}}
, {{
Cite doi}}
are all protected, anti-vandaling the sub-space fits in with some other ideas I have been having. Most of the sub-space is individually not widely transclude, and no more of a target than ordinary pages, however.
Rich
Farmbrough,
12:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC).Consider the following reference as I make edit 1 -> 2 then I call the citation bot, which does 2 -> 3. The end result leaves an et al. outstanding that I have to clean up manually. Is there a better way for me to make edit 1 -> 2 (given that I don't know at that time whether the citation bot will be able to add additional authors) so that there's no cleanup task left? Or could citation bot remove et al. when it adds authors?
Thanks Rjwilmsi 15:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
|display-authors=1
instead of typing "et al". Then authors added by the bot won't be displayed to viewers, but will be available to user plugins that extract metadata.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
16:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC){{Cite journal | doi = 10.1227/01.NEU.0000240227.72514.27 | last1 = Heller | first1 = A.C. | last2 = Amar | year = 2006 | first2 = Arun P. | last3 = Liu | first3 = Charles Y. | last4 = Apuzzo | first4 = Michael L.J. | title = Surgery of the mind and mood: a mosaic of issues in time and evolution | url = | journal = Neurosurgery | volume = 59 | issue = 4| pages = 720–40 |display-authors=1 }}
|display-authors=
solves my problem, because at the time of my edit with only one known author I can only set |last1=
and |first1=
in which case |display-authors=1
won't show et al. unless the citation bot later adds more authors, which I can't be sure about at the time of my edit.
Rjwilmsi
03:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Without permission, since about Sep. '09, I had been 'bot denying' CB proper from the cite journal templates I initiated; I am practically OCD over having the author's names remain seemlessly and neatly presented from the 'author=' parameter, and protecting from the eternally intermittent and inconveniently hellish author's initial bugs that nobody has time to keep having to edit-undo. Now, this affected hundreds of templates I watched and/or initiated; but before blocking, I made sure all had complete dois and pmids, I gave them urls/pmcs, etc., and I watched over them like a mommy. I apologize; and an editor has recently removed those via AWB. Now, here's my audacity: May I put the block back to make my Wikilife improve? I am not taking what I did lightly... I love Wikipedia! Rcej (Robert) - talk 08:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)|last1=
etc. (the {{
cite journal}} preferred format): {{Cite journal | last1 = Kudoh | first1= S |last2= Keicho | first2=N | month = Oct | title = Diffuse panbronchiolitis | journal = Seminars in respiratory and critical care medicine | volume = 24 | issue = 5 | pages = 607–618 | year = 2003 | pmid = 16088577 | doi = 10.1055/s-2004-815608 }}
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)Is there a good reason for using initials rather than spelling out the authors' names as they are listed in the journal paper (Shoji Kudoh and Naoto Keicho in this example)? Spelling the names out avoids ambiguities, helps avoid errors of incorrect abbreviation, and helps others make appropriate cross-links to articles on the authors. Unlike in a printed journal, we don't have any particular space limitation that would justify the abbreviation. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
|last1=
etc. I won't be changing from initials to first names or vice versa, I see that as a separate consideration.
Rjwilmsi
17:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Hi!
Is it possible to run this bot in other wikis? What would be necessary in order to use it at Portuguese Wikipedia? Helder ( talk) 19:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Any clues as to what this message might mean? It makes no sense at all, so I cannot guess what needs fixing.
*{{Cite book |first=Jane |last=Cumberlidge |title=Inland Waterways of Great Britain 8th Ed. |publisher=Imray Laurie Norie and Wilson |year=2009 |isbn=978-1-84623-010-3 |postscript=<!-- Bot inserted parameter. Either remove it; or change its value to "." for the cite to end in a ".", as necessary. -->[[Category:Articles with inconsistent citation formats]]}}
Bob1960evens ( talk) 12:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I wanted to raise this as a discussion point instead of simply filing a bug report in case there's more detail than meets the eye. In this edit I was able to find the PMID of the article by Googling the title. When the Citation bot was run on the article before it didn't find this entry though. Is there a good reason, otherwise it would appear the bot is missing some easy wins? Note, this is not an isolated case. Thanks Rjwilmsi 10:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
The article Lambley, Northumberland has had the ISBN added but it is the wrong one. I have the 1966 reprint of that book – the British Library has the 1965 first edition (and the 1973 edition). The 1966 version does not have an ISBN number so I left that field blank. The bot has added isbn = 0709135491 which is the 1973 edition, and since that edition has more pages any page numbers are likely to be wrong.
Is the bot meant to be doing that? And if so, what do I do about it? I can only quote from the books that I have or have access to.
The British library catalogue entries are: 1966 and 1973.
Twiceuponatime ( talk) 09:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
isbn=<!-- no ISBN available-->
then the bot won't add it back. In addition maybe you could check
worldcat and provide |oclc=
for the edition you have, so that users at least have that link.
Rjwilmsi
12:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC){{ resolved}}
Editors here may find Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources/example_style#why_not_standardize_on_one_format.3F to be of interest. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC) {{ resolved}}
Why the bot does not recognize a perfectly valid doi in this article. Ruslik_ Zero 18:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Can the bot be enhanced to support {{ vcite journal}}? I'm not a fan of the reduced metadata from this template, but the Vancouver style is an established format e.g. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles)#Citing_medical_sources. Thanks Rjwilmsi 10:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
The Citation bot listed two editors as authors in addition to the previous mentioned problems of omitting the pmid and issue fields on the first run, omitting the month field, and specifying just the first page in the pages field for the citation Template:Cite_doi/10.1056.2FNEJMra0906948. You can review the changes and history to see the updates.
Whywhenwhohow ( talk) 19:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Should be {{ resolved}} in r492. Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 15:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
The Citation bot added the first author twice (as author 1 and author 6) and left out the issue and name of the journal for Template:Cite doi/10.1002.2F14651858.CD005102.pub2. Here is the citation offered with the journal article at [31].
Citation: Nield L, Summerbell CD, Hooper L, Whittaker V, Moore H. Dietary advice for the prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD005102. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005102.pub2.
and here is the generated citation
Whywhenwhohow ( talk) 19:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Whywhenwhohow ( talk) 20:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
What is the point, if any, of this edit? The bot seems to have named several refs that were used only once in the article. They seem to have no particular connection to PMIDs or DOI numbers. I don't see where this activity by the bot is described, and I don't see the usefulness of an edit like this. Thanks for any clues, — JohnFromPinckney ( talk) 07:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
cite pmid
, cite jstor
, etc., templates, which seems a fine idea to me, now that I've seen the request and explanation. However, the edits pointed to above suggest the bot is naming any and all cite template refs. For the cite news
, cite web
, etc. usages, one-use refs don't benefit from naming and are arguably less clear to editors than without naming. So, just to be formally clear, I think that adding names to one-use refs that don't need them is unwelcome and borders on being disruptive; please refine the bot code.—
JohnFromPinckney (
talk)
02:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Why has the discussion moved back here? People went to the bugs page because the header at the top of the page directs them to go there there on threat of being ignored. The discussion has now lost all the previous comments (mostly complaints) without even a link back to it. The argument that this was discussed at Bot Approvals is spurious. There is no discussion of this issue there, it is perfectly possible that the approvers were not aware of this implication. In any case, a bot approval by the small numbers at BAG does not trump the views of the wider Wikipedia community on whether it is actually useful or not. BAG are focused on whether the bot has bugs or will cause widespread disruption. I think you are getting a clear message from editors that unecessary clutter is not welcome, and singleton references is clutter. SpinningSpark 16:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Suggestions of any other meaningless reference names that could be replaced with a semantically-meaningful name are very welcome!
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
02:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Would it be possible to make it so this is more... organized?
Something like a category tree that would resemble
And so on? Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
{{ resolved}}
|last1=Smith |last2=A.B. |last2=Thomson |last2=C.D. |last3=Jones |last2=E.F. ...
and very, very often, if not always, it will add a
|lastX=Foobar |lastX=Barfoo
where this last author has already been mentioned.
{{ resolved}}
Newly generated citations are missing various fields including pmid, issue, and month, have incomplete page ranges, and sometimes invalid characters appear instead of accented characters.
For example, see
This one demonstrates the problem with accented characters where they appear as a question mark inside a diamond – �
Sometimes the Citation bot will add missing fields when it is run a second time. For example, see
And for Template:Cite doi/10.1097.2FAOG.0b013e3181f680c8 the Citation Bot added an invalid last1 field with a value of &Na;
Whywhenwhohow ( talk) 16:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
In many templates, there are urls of the form " http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...654..373E". These should be converted to bibcodes (|bibcode=2007ApJ...654..373E).
For example
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help)to
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help)Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 17:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Alright I checked for all mirrors, here's the full list:
The structure will always be FOO/abs/BIBCODE where FOO is one of the mirror urls. Bibcodes are always 19 characters long. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
|bibcode=
.
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books}
02:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Ping? Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I made some database scane, and four good matches exist within URLs
There are other links to the ads database, but nothing that can/should be cleaned up by this bot. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Am I missing something basic? LeadSongDog come howl! 18:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Citation bot is replacing urls with "jstor=" parameters to {{ citation}}. As far as I can tell, the citation template has no such parameter. Isn't this a problem? It is causing the jstor links to stop working.E.g. compare the first entry in the references section before and after this diff and note that prior to the diff there were both a jstor link and a doi link; after the diff the jstor link has vanished. Adding a {{ JSTOR}} template to the id parameter would work, and might be a better solution. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
|jstor=
is now supported by
Template:Citation. Thanks for the report!
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
19:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I also wonder whether it would be better if |jstor=
behaved like |pmc=
in that it would display as {{
JSTOR|123456}}
if |url=
in use?
Rjwilmsi
18:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Populating from JSTOR database: unhandled data:
JOURNAL___ BioScience
{{
Cite jstor}}
at
Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Cite_jstor/. The other Cite xxx seem fine.
LeadSongDog
come howl!
20:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
{{
ref jstor}}
. I'll take a look.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
20:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC){{
ref jstor|1304949}}
and its like may be at issue, or perhaps Citation bot 7. See also
Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Ref_jstor.
LeadSongDog
come howl!
20:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Other examples of this include:
[38],
[39], and
[40]. –
VisionHolder «
talk »
21:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Newly generated citations are missing various fields including pmid, issue, and month, have incomplete page ranges, and sometimes invalid characters appear instead of accented characters.
For example, see
This one demonstrates the problem with accented characters where they appear as a question mark inside a diamond – �
Sometimes the Citation bot will add missing fields when it is run a second time. For example, see
And for Template:Cite doi/10.1097.2FAOG.0b013e3181f680c8 the Citation Bot added an invalid last1 field with a value of &Na;
Whywhenwhohow ( talk) 16:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
In many templates, there are urls of the form " http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...654..373E". These should be converted to bibcodes (|bibcode=2007ApJ...654..373E).
For example
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help)to
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help)Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 17:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Alright I checked for all mirrors, here's the full list:
The structure will always be FOO/abs/BIBCODE where FOO is one of the mirror urls. Bibcodes are always 19 characters long. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
|bibcode=
.
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books}
02:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Ping? Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I made some database scane, and four good matches exist within URLs
There are other links to the ads database, but nothing that can/should be cleaned up by this bot. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Am I missing something basic? LeadSongDog come howl! 18:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Citation bot is replacing urls with "jstor=" parameters to {{ citation}}. As far as I can tell, the citation template has no such parameter. Isn't this a problem? It is causing the jstor links to stop working.E.g. compare the first entry in the references section before and after this diff and note that prior to the diff there were both a jstor link and a doi link; after the diff the jstor link has vanished. Adding a {{ JSTOR}} template to the id parameter would work, and might be a better solution. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
|jstor=
is now supported by
Template:Citation. Thanks for the report!
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
19:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I also wonder whether it would be better if |jstor=
behaved like |pmc=
in that it would display as {{
JSTOR|123456}}
if |url=
in use?
Rjwilmsi
18:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Populating from JSTOR database: unhandled data:
JOURNAL___ BioScience
{{
Cite jstor}}
at
Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Cite_jstor/. The other Cite xxx seem fine.
LeadSongDog
come howl!
20:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
{{
ref jstor}}
. I'll take a look.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
20:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC){{
ref jstor|1304949}}
and its like may be at issue, or perhaps Citation bot 7. See also
Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Ref_jstor.
LeadSongDog
come howl!
20:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Pages should refer to the total page count, not a specific page.
Won't fix.
{{
resolved}}
That problem seemed to start with
this edit. An instance of {{
cite pmid}}
with an existing pmid and pmc were newly matched to a doi, and then citation bot 2 replaced the content of that template with a redirect to the corresponding {{
cite doi|10.1073.2Fpnas.81.3.801}}
on 10 Feb 2011, then all hell
broke loose five days later.
LeadSongDog
come howl!
21:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Other edits in Jan and Feb follow similar patterns. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
|jstor=1301748
instead. in
Shelbyoceras at
hereI'm sorry to say that the war has not ended. The bot is back at it again. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite jstor|3094763}}
that the bot had not run against. Therefore the linked {{
cite doi}}
subpage was never created until I did so today at
this edit. Now I need to fix the {{
cite pmid|11264397}}
that got corrupted as a result. Hang in there, we'll figure it out. Cheers.
LeadSongDog
come howl!
16:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite jstor}}
were not being expanded. These cases seemed mostly but not all to be either references within {{
automatic taxobox}}
or within userspace article subpages. The associated {{
cite doi}}
subpage was not being created. Still no clear idea why it was that citation bot 2 was merging the content that should have gone into these subpages instead going into unrelated subpages. Perhaps some kind of
race condition, with two instances of the bot running at the same time? Just a thought.
LeadSongDog
come howl!
20:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
{{ resolved}}
In the last week or so, I keep having to send template like {{
Cite_doi/doi:10.1088.2F1748-9326.2F4.2F4.2F045102}} to speedy deletion. Not only are they located at the wrong place (and duplicate existing and proper templates, like {{
Cite_doi/10.1088.2F1748-9326.2F4.2F4.2F045102}}, but they are created for seemingly no reason, as nothing links to them! Usually this was due to bad use of {{
cite doi}}, such as {{
cite doi|doi:10.1234....}}
rather than {{
cite doi|10.1234....}}
, but this is not the case here.
So yeah, that should be fixed. And the input of {{ cite doi}} should be checked and stripped of "doi:" before the bot does anything. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
.x
... does this sound right?
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
02:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I think you can fix this in DOItools.php around line 394 by using
ifNullSet("issue", $crossref->issue); if (!is("page")) ifNullSet("pages", $crossRef->first_page . "–" . $crossRef->last_page);
and by adding "issue" to ifNullSet(). Ucucha 14:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that User:Citation bot 1 is making edits without supplying an edit summary. I don't think bots should be exceptions to the general rule that it is good practice to provide a summary for every edit. While not very big deal, it would certainly be helpful to other users if it supplied one. Thank you. Gnome de plume ( talk) 14:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}} in r275. Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 13:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
It would be nice if your bot left edit summaries for its edits, so that we can tell at a glance what it is doing. See this recent edit. Thanks. —SW— gossip 17:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}} in r275. Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 13:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Go here to check it out. The bot messed up a reference.--Dark Charles 07:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
<ref>...</ref>
tag, caused by misunderstanding of
WP:NAMEDREFS and/or
WP:REFNAME. Looking at <ref name="Say1803" pp.138–9)>
in HTML terms, the attributes of tags are delimited by spaces: name="Say1803"
is a valid attribute, but pp.138–9)
isn't, so the latter is ignored by the MediaWiki parser. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
17:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC){{ resolved}}
Hello. Citation bot is adding "issue=-1" to some references, for a journal which (since decades) does not use issue numbers anymore; see here. I assume the bot gets the info from the internet somewhere, but negative issue numbers seem unlikely for a journal anyway. I hope you can fix this. Success, and you are doing a great job, Crowsnest ( talk) 12:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
|issue=-1
is on
Winston Churchill, which I've just corrected.
Rjwilmsi
00:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC){{ resolved}} in r280. Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 02:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
When adding a new parameter, the bot uses the first parameter's formatting as a template for any new parameters. Seems to me like there could be an infinite number of special cases like this. Happy to apply a submitted patch, but won't be opening this can of worms myself.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
13:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
This is pretty old, but I'm reporting it anyway. Enjoy. — Mark Dominus ( talk) 16:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
|volume=The Blah...| -> |volume=Blah... |series=The|
example -- I don't see a reason for changing that... please check. --
Tabya (
talk) 13:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Fixed in r288.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
03:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC) {{
resolved}}
This edit
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Voyage_of_the_Damned_(Doctor_Who)&curid=12025149&diff=0&oldid=419259871 was just plain wrong. The original version has been restored.
Jasonfward (
talk)
11:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Other examples of this include:
[44],
[45], and
[46]. –
VisionHolder «
talk »
21:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
{{
resolved}}
? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
05:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
{{
nobots}}
is to put |issue=<!-- some comment; e.g. "This comment stops the bot adding an issue number that is erroneously in the publisher's databse" -->
in the citation. It may also be worth contacting the publisher to make them aware of this problem?
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
14:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
<Pagination> <MedlinePgn>403-14</MedlinePgn> </Pagination>
25. Journal article on the Internet with volume but no issue or other subdivision Wolfe L. America's fidelity crisis: politics, hypocrisy and family values. Electron J Hum Sex [Internet]. 2006 Oct 25 [cited 2007 Jan 5];9:[about 8 p.]. Available from: http://www.ejhs.org/volume9/Wolfe.htm LeadSongDog come howl! 06:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
|issue=
, e.g. issue=no when it is known that there is none applicable?
LeadSongDog
come howl!
19:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Hey, in the edit your bot recently made to Providence Bay, Siberia the bibcode pointed to a 250+ page pdf, while the url you replaced pointed directly to the article. I reverted.
If the bot cannot recognize that it is not pointing to the same place, then maybe this sort of edit needs to be done manually. Dankarl ( talk) 01:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
And, as the previous commenter reported, no edit summary. Dankarl ( talk) 01:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
|bibcode=
goes to the abstract page and has links for either GIF or PDF versions of the article, giving the reader the choice.
Rjwilmsi
08:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)If there were in fact an abstract there would be some merit to that argument. There is not an abstract, and using the bibcode merely sends the reader to an intermediary page with links. Not an improvement. Dankarl ( talk) 02:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Martin, I don't appreciate having your bot rearranging citation formats (like splitting parameters on different lines) just because you thought it was a good thing to do. And where it was trying to insert "series=" parameters it was going just plain wrong. The one instance where I have seen it catch an actual error (in what I have done), involving a misnumbered "last" parameter, it failed to fix it properly. In such cases I would strongly suggest that any "fixing" be limited to identifying a possible problem, such as adding a tag. Any actual fixing should be left to the discretion of a human agent, preferably one familiar with the source. - J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
|series=
parameter, which is documented in {{
Cite journal}}
as follows:
|volume=
, it should simply be removed. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
14:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
|volume=
which does not contain a pure number is not necessarily going to consist of a series prefix followed by the "real" volume number.{{
volume needed}}
seems closest but has the opposite meaning. Possibly {{
ambiguous}}
--
Redrose64 (
talk)
09:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC){{ resolved}}
I note from this diff [47] that where a paper has lots of authors, the bot is listing eight and then "et al".
Why eight ?
If you're going to truncate the list with "et al", most style guides would surely truncate after the first, or at most the second or third author. Jheald ( talk) 19:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
{{
citation/core}}
. If there are up to eight authors, all get displayed; if there are nine or more, the first eight are displayed but the others are replaced by "et al.". This can be configured using the |display-authors=
parameter; for example, |display-authors=3
will display three then "et al.". Note that whatever the truncation point, the first nine are always put into the
COinS metadata, so it's best to specify as many as possible. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
21:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC){{ resolved}}
LeadSongDog come howl! 17:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template%3ACite_doi%2F10.1186.2F1471-2148-4-44&action=historysubmit&diff=418315248&oldid=418206360
Fixed in
GitHub Pull 324{{
resolved}}
The bot ought to be a lot more conservative before it adds a "series" field, and moves material there.
In addition to the example noted above, [48], see for example: [49] [50]
Or this one (the Annales de Chimie et de Physique ref), where there was a series to be found, but the bot still got it wrong: [51]
-- that is just 3/3 just from the last three appearances of this bot on my watchlist
Current parsing for pulling out the series is not fit purpose, and needs to be turned off.
(Also, re that last diff, an "issue = 0" may be questionable too) Jheald ( talk) 18:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
volume = vol 30
... After: series = vol | volume = 30
... (Ideally would have: suppressed the word "vol")volume = 32 No. 1
... After: series = 32 | volume = No. 1
... (Ideally would have: made volume = 32 | issue = 1
)volume = 1 & 3
... After: series = 1 | volume = & 3
... (Ideally would have: made no change -- intention was to cite the two volumes of a multi-volume work that contained essays in the relevant area).volume = 1 (3me Série)
... After: series = 1 | volume = (3me Série)
... (Ideally would have: made series = (3me Série) | volume = 1
).
The CrossRef database records the issue as "1". To avoid this false positive, I'm ignoring any issue numbers reported as 1 in their db. A shame but I doubt that they'll fix the errors...
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
04:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
{{
resolved}}
{{ resolved}}
The bot seems to have erroneously deleted a number of authors from a citation in the Avogadro constant article. Not sure why this happened, but possibly the typo in author number 17 set it off. SpinningSpark 10:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
|lastn=
parameters from 1 to 9. What's your objective of listing all the extra authors in invalid template parameters?
Rjwilmsi
11:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
|title=Relative incapacitation contributions of pressure wave and wound channel \n in the Marshall and Sanow data set
should be
|title=Relative incapacitation contributions of pressure wave and wound channel in the Marshall and Sanow data set
The logic should be general since this should never happen for any parameter (except possibly |author=
) AKA
|journal=\n Journal of \n Foo
→ |journal=Journal of Foo
|doi=\n 10.123456789
→ |doi=10.123456789
|publisher=American Mathematical \n Society
→ |publisher=American Mathematical Society
This would not affect "single line" vs "multiline" referencing, just make sure things are not broken up for no reason. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
|url=
, since the formatting breaks when we have line breaks in the title in that case. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
21:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
|url=
.
Rjwilmsi
20:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I had the bot on hold until I fixed a couple of bugs: it's just been run. Please check
Special:Contributions/citation_bot_2 in case there are any errors!
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
16:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Crystallographic_database&diff=prev&oldid=421074857 Merged below. {{ resolved}}
Enhancement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Extinction_event&diff=prev&oldid=421079180
Fixed in
GitHub Pull 322
{{
resolved}}
Something more informative than depunctuated URL would be nice: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Bifidobacterium_animalis&diff=prev&oldid=421085160 {{ resolved}}
|pmid=
is given but mislabled as |1=
|pmid=
Is this ubiquitous or restricted to certain references?
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
19:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite pmid|123456}}
(in lieu of {{
cite pmid}}
. The bot creates the subpage for cite doi but does not correct the error. Then, because it doesn't always find the right data without knowing the pmid, it either craps out or replaces it with incorrect metadata. Several times this mal-metadata was for a particular paper from Cladistics. It'd be good if the bot could somehow clean up the mess it made by itself. Citation bot 2 should be stopped until this is fixed.
LeadSongDog
come howl!
22:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
|jstor=
parameter. In this case, |jstor=10.2307/1576591
is set to the doi (10.2307/1576591) rather than the jstor (1576591). I've fixed this.
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books}
14:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)![]() | User input needed. This bug has been marked as needing user verification.
|
See #Removal of jstor link by Citation bot Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC) {{ resolved}}
I have revered Citation bot 1's edit to Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 4), it applied lower case to a title, and part of the edit summary was garbled. 117Avenue ( talk) 02:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC) {{ resolved}} in r328 Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 04:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't see the problem there? Citation bot never removed any url... ? Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
See also above Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC) {{ resolved}}
403: User account expired
The page you requested is hosted by the Toolserver user verisimilus, whose account has expired. Toolserver user accounts are automatically expired if the user is inactive for over six months. To prevent stale pages remaining accessible, we automatically block requests to expired content.
If you think you are receiving this page in error, or you have a question, please contact the owner of this document: verisimilus [at] toolserver [dot] org. (Please do not contact Toolserver administrators about this problem, as we cannot fix it—only the Toolserver account owner may renew their account.)
HTTP server at toolserver.org - ts-admins [at] toolserver [dot] org
Eek; I've been inactive for a while and for some reason didn't receive an account renewal e-mail. I've contacted the administrators to request reactivation. Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 15:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
-->
Of course the journal name, abbreviation, or issn should match well if at all, but that doesn't seem to catch cases like this one, where the doi pointed to the wrong article in the right journal. Given that pubmed lists several dates for some articles, it would seem sensible to accept that any of these dates match the crossref publication_date. If nothing matches but the journal, perhaps a {{
vn}}
tag could be inserted in lieu of the bot making the edit.
LeadSongDog
come howl!
18:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
The bot seems to have broken a few refs here. Possibly due to an earlier edit by User talk:Rjwilmsi that broke a ref here. Thought you should know. Otherwise the bot and user generally do a stirling job! -- Paul ( talk) 10:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
The {{
citation}}
template does not recognise a |column=
parameter. Knowing this, Citation bot is assuming a typo, and that the closest-matching valid parameter (at least in terms of spelling/sound-alike) is |volume=
, so it's amending accordingly.
If you need to give the column number in your refs, use the |at=
parameter instead of |page=
, i.e. instead of |page=3
|column=B
, put |at=p. 3, col. B
and similarly for the other four instances. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
21:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
|pmid=
conversion creates link to unrelated pubmed article
The bot made a weird edit, in the middle of another citation, which I fixed, FYI.
Best regards from a fan of CiteBot1, Kiefer. Wolfowitz 21:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Pages that should not be edited by the bot should contain {{bots|deny=citation bot}}.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
13:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
|id=
to |isbn=
?
other
to editor
? —
Ruud
14:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
It only removed "&lpage=77", which is a redundant part of the Google Books URL. "&PA77" is still there, and that ought to be enough to get you to the right page in Google Books. Perhaps |p=77
should be added, but I don't think this is a bot error. However, in that same edit, why did the bot remove {{
fails verification}}?
Ucucha
06:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
|page=
77 and not |url=
. That way it is evident to the reader that the link goes to the specific cited page, not to the full work.
LeadSongDog
come howl!
13:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Example edits that were incorrect:
Mistakenly changed "| author1-first = Alan H. " to "| author8-link = Alan H. "
Mistakenly changed "| author1-last = Savitzky" to "| author1-link = Savitzky" and redundantly added "| publisher = Journal of Herpetology, Vol. 35, No. 4"
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)![]() | User input needed. This bug has been marked as needing user verification.
|
{{
arxiv}}
can be declared in 3 main ways. {{
arxiv|astro-ph/0610314}}
, {{
arxiv|astro-ph|0610314}}
and {{
arxiv|archive=astro-ph|id=0610314}}
. In all cases, these should be converted to |arxiv=astro-ph/0610314
.
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books}
06:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
|id=
redundant with |1=
and no other parameters (at least when used in a {{
cite xxx|id=}}
)) include {{
asin|0123456789}}
(except when |country=
is used), {{
bibcode|0123456789}}
(|label=
/|2=
can be ignored), {{
doi|0123456789}}
, {{
issn|0123456789}}
, {{
jfm|0123456789}}
, {{
jstor|0123456789}}
(except when |sici=
/|issn=
are used), {{
mr|0123456798}}
, {{
oclc|0123456789}}
(but not when |2=
/|3=
are used), {{
ol|01234567789}}
(only if |author=
is not used), {{
osti|0123456789}}
, {{
pmc|0123456789}}
, {{
pmid|0123456789}}
, {{
IETF-RFC|0123456789}}
(use |rfc=0123456789
when in a {{
cite xxx}}), {{
ssrn|0123456798}}
, and {{
zbl|0123456789}}
{{
lccn}}
which would need careful examination (and might best be left alone) before converting.
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books}
14:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)It seems to miss the LCCNs... see [58]. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}} (?)
![]() | User input needed. This bug has been marked as needing user verification.
|
A similar problem in this ? Vol III of Explosives encyclopedia translation gets linked to an article in journal Science with title that refers to Vol 1 of the Encyclopedia. My guess is a book review in Science borrowed the book title, bot mismatched using Science title (ignoring author/translator != Dolan), bot mismatched volume (1 != III). Glrx ( talk) 19:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
*{{Citation |first=Tadeusz |last=Urbański |authorlink= Tadeusz Urbański |title=Chemistry and Technology of Explosives |volume= III |edition=First English |year=1967 |location=Warszawa |publisher=PWN - Polish Scientific Publishers and Pergamon Press |isbn= |oclc=499857211 |doi=}}. Translation by Marian Jurecki, edited by Sylvia Laverton. See also ISBN 9780080104010.
{{
vn}}
or similar.
LeadSongDog
come howl!
05:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
That was not the only change made by the bot in the RDX article, (see [60]). Another book: Cooper, Paul W. (1996), Explosives Engineering, New York: Wiley-VCH, ISBN 0-471-18636-8: that was properly cited (see Amazon listing) was changed to a journal review of a workshop on explosives (see Journal entry). Pyrotec ( talk) 09:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
had an ambiguous identifier. The given
ISBN
0471186368 is on
OCLC
34409473 and on
OCLC
232968272. Both those records show the publisher as VCH. The same author/date/publisher also apply to
ISBN
156081926X which seems to be an abridged or introductory version, the title of which includes the title of the other. In any case, adding info on the book review was in error. Clearly when {{
citation}} has |isbn=
populated this should not happen, though {{
cite book}}
would not have had an issue.
LeadSongDog
come howl!
13:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
![]() | User input needed. This bug has been marked as needing user verification.
|
The bot processed the actual DOI for this paper just before this one: Mikovits, J. A.; Ruscetti, F. W. (2010). "Response to Comments on "Detection of an Infectious Retrovirus, XMRV, in Blood Cells of Patients with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome"". Science. 328 (5980): 825–825.
Bibcode:
2010Sci...328..825M.
doi:
10.1126/science.1184548.. See
[63]. Might those data have lingered somewhere in the bot?
Ucucha
03:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
{{
asiantitle}}
, which seems a more elegant answer. I'm a bit surprised they didn't use |language=
though.
LeadSongDog
come howl!
15:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Since we're reporting auto-casing, there should be a tweak for words following a :. For example here Citation Bot changes Light-Front Holography and Gauge/Gravity Duality: The Light Meson and Baryon Spectra to Light-Front Holography and Gauge/Gravity Duality: the Light Meson and Baryon Spectra. It is customary, but not always, to capitalize the first word after a colon since it's usually the start of a subtitle. Hence Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope and not the jarringly weird Star Wars Episode IV: a New Hope. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
{{
resolved}}
Pagination for this article is not present in the CrossRef database.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
13:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
|arxiv=
fails when the template has named parameters
Not fixed. See [64] Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
{{
cite book}}
which is suitable for an OpenLibrary number, so I'm sticking with
OCLC
55853736. Thanks for your help. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
13:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)Open Library number is |ol=number
.
*{{cite book |last=MacDermot |first=E. T. |year=1927 |title=History of the Great Western Railway |publisher=[[Great Western Railway Company]] |ol=22019452M |lccn=28015258 }}
gives
Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
|ol=
and |lccn=
(plus some others) to the documentation of {{
cite book}}
, but in a
rather scanty form. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
15:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)![]() | User input needed. This bug has been marked as needing user verification.
|
It's not quite a bug since the URL wasn't used by the template. But some improvement could be made here I think. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
|url=
not present, but that's not a reason to delete the content. Fortunately this should be pretty rare.
Rjwilmsi
09:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC){{ resolved}}
![]() | User input needed. This bug has been marked as needing user verification.
|
{{
resolved}}
![]() | User input needed. This bug has been marked as needing user verification.
|
<ref name=BioClocks></ref>
, which the bot should have simply deleted but instead replaced.
LeadSongDog
come howl!
19:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
<ref name=BioClocks></ref>
is a synonym for <ref name=BioClocks />
. I realized this and updated the bot in a recent edit, presumably after this bug was reported.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
21:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)if(strlen($firstN) === 1) { $firstN .= '.'; }
)
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
17:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Fixed in
GitHub Pull 355 && {{
resolved}}.
{{
resolved}}
Is there a reason why this bot is changing cite book to citation? Did we do away with this? See here [66] He iro 05:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
I don't know how feasible a fix is; there are probably many cases where an article was written by a true Scotsman and the bot should make this change, because its input data often make errors with case, but there are certain to be more exceptions like this one.
Ucucha
14:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Book chapters now supported.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
21:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
The archiving bot archived the same 11, 12, 13, 14 or 22 identical threads into Archive_1 over and over again.
See the edit history for Archive_1, especially between 23 June 2011 and 19 August 2011.
The duplication of threads has now been removed from Archive_1. See Archive1 (the 3rd archive) for these threads. The item numbers below refer to those found in the version of Archive_1 dated 19 August 2011 and the version of Archive1 (the 3rd archive) dated 2 October 2011.
The following duplicate threads were manually moved over to Archive_2 in 2012 and have now also been removed.