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 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1342
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 22:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Considering that the correct one would be {{
cite encyclopedia}}, therefore second best would be {{
cite book}}, and it follows that the third best would be {{
cite journal}}, and finally the fourth best is {{
cite web}}.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 20:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
That’s really awesome that the page title has html tags in it. Any thoughts on what the bot should do with such titles? Seriously, it is the correct title for the webpage, which is really sad.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 22:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
As seen in this edit: why are the urls being removed?
Also: The edit summary says: "Alter: title. Removed accessdate with no specified URL. Removed parameters.
" But the first change removed accessdate AND the url simultaneously, other changes removed urls but not any accessdates. Ergo, the edit summary is incorrect. Is that due to operator inattention? Or is that a bot problem? ♦
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 22:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
there was [then] no URL left in that citation", the URL was not redundant. That's sheer ludicrousity. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 00:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I can understand the doubts about current access-date practices, but these are discussed at Help talk:Citation Style 1#access-date. Nemo 17:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC
|url=
is redundant in that there is a |doi=
. And why is there an |access-date=
to begin with? This is a journal article that with the exception of unusual corrections, doesn't change over time, hence |access-date=
is redundant with |date=
. Hence there is double redundancy in this citation. Get rid of both.
Boghog (
talk) 21:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)|doi=
makes |url=
unnecessary. |date=
makes |access-date=
unnecessary.
Boghog (
talk) 21:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link){{
citation}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link){{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link){{ notabug}} since we are already hitting edit summary length limits AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 13:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Should publisher be removed from journals
{{ fixed}} discussion closed
Account is currently
blocked. Also see discussion
above.
Boghog (
talk) 13:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1374
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 14:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
|url=
instances are changed into |chapter-url=
, even though many references refer not just to a chapter, but to an exact page within that chapter. Second, capitalization of the names of the French journals was entirely unnecessary; the French don't do that and both references had |language=fr
. Third, |pages=IE-87
did not need to replace a hyphen with an en dash. Such a change would make sense in many cases when people don't know how to or simply don't care about the proper page ranges, but letters should signal this isn't a regular case.
|page-url=
. As for capitalization, we don't use French rules. |language=
does not refer to the language title of the work(s) or where the work was produced but the content within, so that reason for not changing is straight bogus in the context of the template. As for hyphens and endashes, that's a hard problem. I'm not sure what the best behavior is for that. --
Izno (
talk) 18:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I stand corrected, the citation templates now detect pages of IE-7 and don’t convert the dash. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 21:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1354 AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 02:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
{{ fixed}}
|via=JSTOR
|jstor=18398
Ah yes. We currently limit them to 100000 and up to avoid GIGO
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 02:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
|jstor=18398
"?
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 21:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)https://www-jstor-org.libezp.lib.lsu.edu/stable/10.7249/j.ctt4cgd90.10?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=social&searchText=media&searchText=egypt&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoAdvancedSearch%3FcurrentPath%3D%252Faction%252FdoAdvancedSearch%26amp%3Bf5%3Dall%26amp%3Bq0%3Dsocial%2Bmedia%26amp%3Bc6%3DAND%26amp%3Bf1%3Dall%26amp%3Bc2%3DAND%26amp%3Bf2%3Dall%26amp%3Bc3%3DAND%26amp%3Bgroup%3Dnone%26amp%3Bacc%3Don%26amp%3Bc4%3DAND%26amp%3BsearchType%3DfacetSearch%26amp%3Bf6%3Dall%26amp%3Bsd%3D2010%26amp%3Bpage%3D1%26amp%3Bc1%3DAND%26amp%3Bed%3D2018%26amp%3Bq1%3Degypt%26amp%3Bf0%3Dall%26amp%3Bf4%3Dall%26amp%3Bf3%3Dall%26amp%3Bc5%3DAND&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
should be changed to |jstor=10.7249/j.ctt4cgd90.10
and remove the URL. (
t)
Josve05a (
c) 10:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
https://www.jstor.org.libweb.lib.utsa.edu/stable/3347357
(
t)
Josve05a (
c) 12:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1368 AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 01:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
{{ fixed}}
|volume=Vol. 47, No. 4
should be treated the same was as |volume=47(4)
is (i.e. converted to |volume=47
|issue=4
) if metadata from e.g. JSTOR supports the change.
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1366 AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 01:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
[Wrapping up the discussion someone was in a hurry to bury in the archive.]
My thanks to Boghog for explaining that single URLs are now count double in the presence of DOIs. Headbomb's "linking twice" explanation would have been more useful if he had mentioned that DOIs count as URLs. (And his arithmetic is still faulty.)
The edit summary is still stupid. I have no problem with removing the accessdate, but removing it on the basis of there being "no specified URL" in same edit where the extant URL is removed is so stupefying that it ought to be suppressed. The "Removing parameters", while strictly true, is so lamely under-informative that I marvel at the possibility someone thought that was a useful message. Surely that could be improved. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 20:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
{{ fixed}} AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 15:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
|journal=Ps: Political Science and Politics
|journal=PS: Political Science and Politics
When expanding from {{Cite journal |jstor = 420824}}
(
t)
Josve05a (
c) 00:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I just tried this for the first time on two pages, the first with Commit edits selected and the second without them. The first time the app stated it made the changes, but nothing appeared changed via View History. The second time I tried this it was with Commit edits turned off, so I reviewed them and submitted via the button on the bottom. Both times nothing appeared edited on the articles themselves via View History. Am I doing something incorrectly or is there an issue with the bot? Thanks. ---
FULBERT (
talk) 16:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
{{ notabug}} flag for archive
Hi. This edit changed a citation (Irish University Review) from the page number of the cited content (page 5) to the page range of the journal article (pages 5–21). Please make sure the bot isn't doing the same on other articles. Scolaire ( talk) 10:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
|at=
.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 13:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
|at=
for the sake of being precise. If the page is the first page or out of range or blank the update to range.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 17:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1301 AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 21:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
at: place in the cited source containing the information that supports the article text when a page number is not given, is inappropriate or is insufficient. Common examples include column or col., paragraph or para. and section or sec; where are you seeing that
|at=
should be used for specific pages in the source used for a particular sentence in the article? The same page also says page: page in the cited source containing the information that supports the article text, for example, i.e., it's not saying the page the cited source appears on. Umimmak ( talk) 01:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
|at=
would protect from bots in general. But, that's missusing the templates. We will fix ourselves, but no do the change.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 01:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
|at=
and |page(s)=
are treated differently in the citations. Compare the use of a colon in "Article Title". Journal. 1: 1.(
|page=
) vs a period in "Article Title". Journal. 1. 1.(
|at=
) or the use of a p.in
Book Title. p. 1.(
|page=
) but not in Book Title. 1.(
|at=
).
Umimmak (
talk) 01:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC){{ fixed}} AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 14:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1381
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 00:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I figured it out.
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1384
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 01:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
|volume=47.4
→ |volume=47.4
|issue=4
(if a JSTOR identifier says the issue is 4)|volume=47.4
should be treated the same was as |volume=47(4)
is (i.e. converted to |volume=47
|issue=4
) if metadata from e.g. JSTOR supports the change.
Definitely would want metadata confirmation on that.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 18:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1372 This should help a lot
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 21:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
When the bot dies (such as when it is blocked) the error message goes to the console. This pull once implemented will send errors to HTML also. https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1385 (I am attempting to document signifcant code changes on wikipedia) AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 23:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
{{ fixed}}. It now gives errors. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 15:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Please track how the bot is activated in edit summaries (toolbar, draft, website, other peoples *.js files). Use whitelist of approved methods, with 'toolbar' being grandfathered. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 19:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
{{ wontfix}} Just to unreliable. People just copy text for key. No real point if we get User Oauth up and running. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 00:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
WP:SAYWHERE is explicitly not
WP:SAYHOW. While |via=
may let readers know where a link points to when it's unusual, it's pointless to have when you have no link to go with.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 08:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
|via=
is often used in lieu of a URL precisely because EBSCOhost and other repositories don’t have permanent URLs, but it’s still useful to let people know where they got the article.
Umimmak (
talk) 14:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
|jstor=
because it can be helpful to let the reader know that an online version of the article exists on JSTOR. I don’t see how this use of |via=
is different; it lets the reader know the article can be found in a particular database which they might have access to. If you don’t want to use |via=
at all, that’s one move you could try to gain consensus for but I don’t see the benefit of removing it only when there isn’t a URL. (Surely the URL tells you where you’re going, making |via=
redundant, no?)
Umimmak (
talk) 21:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
|jstor=
gives you a link to the specific paper on the JSTOR repository. We don't just add |via=JSTOR
with no link to JSTOR. There is no reason for the reader to care that you've personally accessed the article via an EBSCOhost vs PASCAL vs ProQuest vs Whatever database, the only thing that matters is what article you read. How you've accessed the material is irrelevant.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 21:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
|via=Google it you dumbass
would basically be the right answer on 99% of {{
cite web}}.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 15:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
When we lose urls we obviously get rid of it, and in most cases it is probably best to get rid of when no url, but this seems like something that should only be removed by an automatic process if there are obvious other links such as doi/pmc. Having a bot just remove them in general seems dubious. Although I do laugh when vis says Google search and remove it. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 15:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
|via=
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 17:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
|via=
provided some uquique source of information, it is simply promoting a specific database. Unrelated side note: EBSCO so-called urls do suck. ProQuest at least gives every document a single number (actually, they sometimes give it more than one) that you can simply use.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 22:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)|via=
also closed with consensus against their position (getting to be a bit of a pattern that). However, they are correct that the parameter should not be used to indicate that a paper might be available from a particular database: it's to indicate that database through which it was actually accessed, and some judgement and common sense is required regarding its use (do not blindly add it). There is no good reason to include |via=
when the specific source accessed cannot possibly have any differences from a conceptual perfect master: a prime example is a paper journal accessed in a physical copy in your local library (and the same, roughly, goes for an electronic copy on the publishers own website: both are effectively to be considered perfect copy of record, and only third-party republishing/access should be indicated in |via=
). However, this does in no way require a link or identifier: you may have accessed the article through a random website or database, identiified in |via=
, but omitted to include the link or identifier. That makes the flaw in the citation the absence of links or identifiers, not the precense of |via=
(in fact, in that case |via=
may be essential to enable locating the source in question, or determining equivalency between copies of indeterminate provenance). The matter of when |via=
serves a purpose and when it is just pointless clutter is not a clear cut one, which is why it should not be treated mechanistically: it is not something that can be determined by a bot based on a simplistic rule like presence of |url=
. However, there are probably a few (a very few) "blacklist" type cases that could constructively be detected, along the lines of |via=my local library
or |via=web search
. Things like |via=Google
do not qualify: it may be trying to identify a Google Books preview or similar that needs human judgement to determine whether it makes sense or no (that it will likely mostly not make sense does not change that fact). And "human judgement" is not the few self-selected people here: it requires looking individually at each specific instance, and is subject to local consensus processes at each article. You can't make a consensus here that decides what happens over there. Case in point, Headbomb's favourite bugaboo, |via=EBSCOhost
, can be argued both ways (include vs. leave out) and thus needs to employ the same consensus processes as all other such issues (SAYWHERE describes what you are not required to do, not what you are prohibited from doing). Removing it with a bot is simply an attempt to circumvent those processes. --
Xover (
talk) 06:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
|via=
when the specific source accessed cannot possibly have any differences from a conceptual perfect master". That's exactly what those databases offer. Perfect reproductions of published version of records, with no material differences, save perhaps for a preamble page unique to the database.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 07:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Maybe it is this Should WP:TWL be allowed to acknowledge the services they have partnership with in our articles Where via was generally considered worthless and often harmful, but did in some situations have value (in all the discussions it generally assumed that a url was present. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 21:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Flagging as {{ wontfix}}, since complete removal is beyond the scope of an automatic bot. But, you can always request specific ones. Once this pull is accepted, more will be removed (in this case some publishers when via is set and there is a doi, and no url). https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1394 AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 00:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Those are manual changes I had to make manually (both edits). Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 02:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I looked at the gadget source code and the fact that it goes to a diff means that the gadget is running and sending and getting text back. It’s almost as if the text sent to the gadget is encoded in some way so that the bot does nothing to it. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 05:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I was literally gonna ask you if you used that!!! AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 05:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
{{ wontfix}} but added note in use page. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 05:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1396
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 05:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
|title=Analytical Planetary solution VSOP2000
GIGO. The DOI record has no title.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 21:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Per a request at WP:ANRFC, I have closed Help talk:Citation Style 1#RFC on publisher and location in cite journal, which concerns the actions of Citation bot (you). Since your operator has not edited in almost 2 weeks, I have also requested that the bot be blocked until it is compliant with the result of the RfC. -- DannyS712 ( talk) 19:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Given that people have an amazing ability to blindly follow orders I have removed the informative part of the pull. Honestly, anyone who thinks someone is going to read what the bot says and act upon it gives the Bot way to much credit; although people surprise me all the time. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 22:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Sandstein Xover The code has been uploaded. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 15:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
@ Sandstein: The bot has been updates (as stated above; and confirmed by running the manual gadget tool with same codebase) to be in compliance of the RfC, which was the basis of the block. What more needs to be done for you to unblock the bot? ( t) Josve05a ( c) 21:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
{{ fixed}} - flag to archive. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 15:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
If this unbreaks the DOI, it's a good edit. If it's still broken, bad edit.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 09:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
This template is a poor man's cite journal. However, there could be limited support for the common parameters (|lastn=
/|firstn=
/|year=
/|journal=
/|volume=
/|pages=
) and light |url=
cleanup (e.g. trim academia.edu links, but not outright removal of a doi link, since cite LSA doesn't support identifiers).
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 21:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
{{
wontfix}}. appears to be transient database failure.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 18:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
{{
wontfix}}. appears to be transient database failure.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 18:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, when there are no changes, it does that. I think this fixes it
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1404 maybe
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 21:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
For clarify, this should remove single quotes at the start/end of journals, or double quotes at both the start/end of journals
|journal="Journal of Foobar
|journal=Journal of Foobar"
|journal="Journal of Foobar"
but not in other cases
|journal=Journal of Foobar: "Foobarist" Studies
|journal=Journal of Foobar: "Foobarist Studies"
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 01:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1413 AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 19:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
The bot itself works fine though. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 09:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
|issue=
parameters.
Keith D (
talk) 15:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1412
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 18:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1400
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 16:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
The doi leads to pmc which leads to pmid. But pmid search is before pmc is added.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 06:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
[[WP:UCB|Assisted by Citation bot]]
<changes> {{!}} You can [[WP:UCB|use this bot]] yourself. [[User talk:Citation bot|Report bugs here]]. {{!}} Activated by [[User:Example|Example]].
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1398
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 16:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1399
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 16:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
The bot does not handle generic {{
cite}} citations. Should it? Is this bogus?
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 15:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
<Emphasis Type="Italic">α</Emphasis>
with ''α''
or <i>α</i>
(same with bold)
Currently on two articles (one due to the bot):
Special:Search/insource:/Emphasis Type/. (
t)
Josve05a (
c) 21:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Not really sure why exactly this is being converted, but if it's because it finds both a DOI and an ISBN, it might be safer to not switch templates from one type to the other. Not saying that's the solution though.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 01:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
The consensus was that in almost all cases the links are to the chapter, and even if they were not, the apperance of the links in the title is where people expect them to be anyway.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 18:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
You are right, we weren't dropping them if the bibcode parameter was already present.
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1419
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 16:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
|newspaper=The Guardian
where |via=The Guardian
already exists|via=The Guardian
with |newspaper=The Guardian
This should be generalized to |work/journal/publisher/...=
.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 17:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
|via=The Guardian
is clearly wrong, as |via=
almost always is wrong.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 17:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
The titles are not similare enough. GIGO shields block it.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 16:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1425
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 18:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1424
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 18:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
...but this is the best place I can think of to ask, since all of you do work with citation templates, so one of you might help me.
Is there a way to search for a list of all cite templates with |url=
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/*****
but no |doi=
, |pmc=
or |pmid=
in them? Since the bot does not fetch such data from researchgate.net, I want to find articles such as
this so I can manually add the IDs, and then run the gadget. (
t)
Josve05a (
c) 20:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
researchgate
and (arxiv|bibcode|doi|pmid|pmc|OTHER)\s*=\s*[^\|\}]
in pre-parse mode. The pages it skips are those without identifiers.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 21:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
{{ fixed}} flag to archive. Thanks to everybody. One day RG might allow bots. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 13:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Once again - French journal titles do NOT capitalise - please fix -- Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 17:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
There is no way that Key Documents of German-Jewish History is a journal! -- Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 17:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |authormask=
ignored (|author-mask=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (
link)changed to -
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Unknown parameter |authormask=
ignored (|author-mask=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (
link)-- Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 18:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Without a url, the website= parameter has to be removed.
|website=
is synonymous with the other Work parameters (journal, [book-]title, encyclopedia, magazine, periodical, and etc.). I assume you did not mean what you said in the way you said it... --
Izno (
talk) 17:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
|url=
gets removed then |website=
get's removed. The bot assumes that the |website=
is actually used correctly. But, |website=
is not removed if there is no existly |url=
. Anyway, the |website=
is incorrect in this example anyway. The correct parameter would be |website=dx.doi.org
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 17:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Bot changed template {{Cite web}} for magazine sources to {{Cite book}}. Bot changed {{Cite web}} for a website-only source to {{Cite news}}; furthermore, per the template guidelines for {{Cite web}} and {{Cite news}} regarding which one to use: as of 29 July 2016, given the same set of valid parameters, the output between {{Cite web}} and {{Cite news}} is exactly the same -- which means that choosing which template to use depends on the details about the source (e.g. a newspaper source may need to include edition, volume, issue, location).
Pyxis Solitary
yak 03:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
{{ wontfix}} right now, since bad metadata. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 04:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Similarly for OUP doi:10.1093/zoolinnean/zly047 [34] vs. [35] (but the DOI is included in the final URL, was that test dropped?). Nemo 09:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
{{ fixed}} AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 04:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1431
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 16:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
This is a special case where n.paradoxa shouldn't be changed to N.Paradoxa (rather N.Paradoxa and all variants should be converted to the lowercase n.paradoxa.
Likewise Zookeys and Bmj, Cmaj and all variants should be converted to ZooKeys, BMJ, and CMAJ. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 13:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
{{ fixed}} AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 04:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Instead of Phytokeys Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 23:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
{{ fixed}} AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 04:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I believe I have mentioned this before, but it continues to vex and annoy: the manner in which the bot typically adds a bibcode. It used to just prefix it to the closing pair of braces. Which confuses matters when one has a long list of citation templates line up vertically, with the closing braces deliberately placed in the first column to more clearly show the end of each citation: it hides the braces behind the bibcode, in a position not expected. I have seen a recent edit where the bibcode was placed on its own line, but then it inserted some whitespace before the braces. I wonder if the bot was trying to insert an MS-DOS style "CRLF" newline, and the LF got converted to a space. Perhaps that could be checked. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
{{
Cite book}} with |chapter=
, |title=
, and |series=
, then do not add: seems reasonable.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 16:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
This should apply to most/all fields, not just |journal=
.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 11:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
You can
use this bot yourself.
You can
use this tool yourself.
When running it in gadget mode, it should read "tool" and not "bot" in the edit summary, since it is not a bot that makes the edits (in order not to confuse BOTPOL etc.) (
t)
Josve05a (
c) 19:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
The gadget-tool is not loading properly/given timeouts instead. "plain 502 from nginx". "Some NFS and then grid engine hiccups earlier today that could have put some tools in a bad state". ( t) Josve05a ( c) 23:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
{{ fixed}} AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 18:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
|journal=NCBI
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1448
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 20:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
We may not have consensus to remove publishers in general, but this is a clear case of garbage use.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 06:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
but it certainly has no consensus to add publishers to journals against every style guide out thereI'm happy to start another RFC just to see if that does exist contrary to your opinion. That aside, no, it is also your opinion that this bug should be resolved by removal of the offending information rather than replacement with correct information. Since your judgement regarding removal of the publisher and location was clearly wrong according to the community, I would be real hesitant to agree with any stance you take which purports to speak for the community. -- Izno ( talk) 17:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
This includes things like [42] ideally. I could file as seperate matter too. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 23:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
|publisher=
when it is identical to |journal=
.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 19:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)Misc citation tidying.
Add: pmc. Removed or converted URL. Removed accessdate with no specified URL.
{{
cite news}} is not part of the normal process, so it gets minimal processing. As such, it is not part of the modifications tracking system. I think we need a second tracking system.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 15:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1443/files#diff-db1d6987f6179e55530bd0cb2eb85f87
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 01:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1444
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 01:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
and so capitalization would resume right afterNo? This is a valid sentence; why did you say this thing? <- is correct semicoloning. See also Semicolon#Usage. -- Izno ( talk) 14:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1443 Just this for now. I am feeling that doing this in chapter titles and such would be bad form. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 01:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1443
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 01:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1457
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 23:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1456
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 22:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
|publisher=nytimes.com
if adding |newspaper=The New York Times
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1453
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 22:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
|title=Error 404 (Not Found)
|via=Huff Post
when adding |newspaper=Huffington Post
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1453
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 22:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
|publisher=Huffington Post
when |newspaper=Huffington Post
is added
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1458
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 23:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
We have code that does this already. I am curious why Wikipedia told us that was valid.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 14:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
To catch stuff like Nz Herald. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 14:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
{{
fixed}}
(PDF)
or {{!}} Request PDF
from |title=
where |url=
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/[0-9]
is true.
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1439
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 22:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1465
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 00:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1460
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 16:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
|publisher=Citeseerx.ist.psu.edu
when changing from |url=
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.84.7715
to |citeseerx=10.1.1.84.7715
|citeseerx=
in general.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 18:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1463
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 23:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1475
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 15:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Odd, I thought we did not do that.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 13:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1475
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 15:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Meanwhile I wonder what's the point of removing an identifier which at CiteSeerX doesn't even have a PDF. Nemo 18:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
This entire discussion is misguided. The Wikipedia standard does NOT apply to references. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:COPYLINK is the correct standard AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 01:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Since we are blocked, this issue is {{ fixed}}. Flagging for archive so this issue discussion will stop here and move where it belongs in the Wikipedia copyright pages that are linked below in the block discussion. Hopefully with more than the usual suspects we can finally 'permanently' put this discussion to bed one way or another. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 14:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
|url=
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=DD2DCDD1CA1A2919464B976C500F9FFE?doi=10.1.1.832.9945&rep=rep1&type=pdf
with |citeseerx=10.1.1.832.9945
Example
<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Ash-Shareef|first=Abdurrahim Khairullah Omar|date=15 November 2014|title=Aspects of Ancient Muslim Scholars' Induction Drawn from the Holy Qur'an in Proving Earth is Spherical|url=http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=DD2DCDD1CA1A2919464B976C500F9FFE?doi=10.1.1.832.9945&rep=rep1&type=pdf|journal=Journal of Education and Practice|volume=5|pages=210–218|via=}}</ref>
( t) Josve05a ( c) 19:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1342
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 22:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Considering that the correct one would be {{
cite encyclopedia}}, therefore second best would be {{
cite book}}, and it follows that the third best would be {{
cite journal}}, and finally the fourth best is {{
cite web}}.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 20:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
That’s really awesome that the page title has html tags in it. Any thoughts on what the bot should do with such titles? Seriously, it is the correct title for the webpage, which is really sad.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 22:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
As seen in this edit: why are the urls being removed?
Also: The edit summary says: "Alter: title. Removed accessdate with no specified URL. Removed parameters.
" But the first change removed accessdate AND the url simultaneously, other changes removed urls but not any accessdates. Ergo, the edit summary is incorrect. Is that due to operator inattention? Or is that a bot problem? ♦
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 22:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
there was [then] no URL left in that citation", the URL was not redundant. That's sheer ludicrousity. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 00:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I can understand the doubts about current access-date practices, but these are discussed at Help talk:Citation Style 1#access-date. Nemo 17:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC
|url=
is redundant in that there is a |doi=
. And why is there an |access-date=
to begin with? This is a journal article that with the exception of unusual corrections, doesn't change over time, hence |access-date=
is redundant with |date=
. Hence there is double redundancy in this citation. Get rid of both.
Boghog (
talk) 21:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)|doi=
makes |url=
unnecessary. |date=
makes |access-date=
unnecessary.
Boghog (
talk) 21:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link){{
citation}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link){{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link){{ notabug}} since we are already hitting edit summary length limits AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 13:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Should publisher be removed from journals
{{ fixed}} discussion closed
Account is currently
blocked. Also see discussion
above.
Boghog (
talk) 13:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1374
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 14:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
|url=
instances are changed into |chapter-url=
, even though many references refer not just to a chapter, but to an exact page within that chapter. Second, capitalization of the names of the French journals was entirely unnecessary; the French don't do that and both references had |language=fr
. Third, |pages=IE-87
did not need to replace a hyphen with an en dash. Such a change would make sense in many cases when people don't know how to or simply don't care about the proper page ranges, but letters should signal this isn't a regular case.
|page-url=
. As for capitalization, we don't use French rules. |language=
does not refer to the language title of the work(s) or where the work was produced but the content within, so that reason for not changing is straight bogus in the context of the template. As for hyphens and endashes, that's a hard problem. I'm not sure what the best behavior is for that. --
Izno (
talk) 18:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I stand corrected, the citation templates now detect pages of IE-7 and don’t convert the dash. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 21:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1354 AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 02:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
{{ fixed}}
|via=JSTOR
|jstor=18398
Ah yes. We currently limit them to 100000 and up to avoid GIGO
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 02:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
|jstor=18398
"?
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 21:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)https://www-jstor-org.libezp.lib.lsu.edu/stable/10.7249/j.ctt4cgd90.10?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=social&searchText=media&searchText=egypt&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoAdvancedSearch%3FcurrentPath%3D%252Faction%252FdoAdvancedSearch%26amp%3Bf5%3Dall%26amp%3Bq0%3Dsocial%2Bmedia%26amp%3Bc6%3DAND%26amp%3Bf1%3Dall%26amp%3Bc2%3DAND%26amp%3Bf2%3Dall%26amp%3Bc3%3DAND%26amp%3Bgroup%3Dnone%26amp%3Bacc%3Don%26amp%3Bc4%3DAND%26amp%3BsearchType%3DfacetSearch%26amp%3Bf6%3Dall%26amp%3Bsd%3D2010%26amp%3Bpage%3D1%26amp%3Bc1%3DAND%26amp%3Bed%3D2018%26amp%3Bq1%3Degypt%26amp%3Bf0%3Dall%26amp%3Bf4%3Dall%26amp%3Bf3%3Dall%26amp%3Bc5%3DAND&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
should be changed to |jstor=10.7249/j.ctt4cgd90.10
and remove the URL. (
t)
Josve05a (
c) 10:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
https://www.jstor.org.libweb.lib.utsa.edu/stable/3347357
(
t)
Josve05a (
c) 12:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1368 AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 01:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
{{ fixed}}
|volume=Vol. 47, No. 4
should be treated the same was as |volume=47(4)
is (i.e. converted to |volume=47
|issue=4
) if metadata from e.g. JSTOR supports the change.
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1366 AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 01:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
[Wrapping up the discussion someone was in a hurry to bury in the archive.]
My thanks to Boghog for explaining that single URLs are now count double in the presence of DOIs. Headbomb's "linking twice" explanation would have been more useful if he had mentioned that DOIs count as URLs. (And his arithmetic is still faulty.)
The edit summary is still stupid. I have no problem with removing the accessdate, but removing it on the basis of there being "no specified URL" in same edit where the extant URL is removed is so stupefying that it ought to be suppressed. The "Removing parameters", while strictly true, is so lamely under-informative that I marvel at the possibility someone thought that was a useful message. Surely that could be improved. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 20:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
{{ fixed}} AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 15:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
|journal=Ps: Political Science and Politics
|journal=PS: Political Science and Politics
When expanding from {{Cite journal |jstor = 420824}}
(
t)
Josve05a (
c) 00:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I just tried this for the first time on two pages, the first with Commit edits selected and the second without them. The first time the app stated it made the changes, but nothing appeared changed via View History. The second time I tried this it was with Commit edits turned off, so I reviewed them and submitted via the button on the bottom. Both times nothing appeared edited on the articles themselves via View History. Am I doing something incorrectly or is there an issue with the bot? Thanks. ---
FULBERT (
talk) 16:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
{{ notabug}} flag for archive
Hi. This edit changed a citation (Irish University Review) from the page number of the cited content (page 5) to the page range of the journal article (pages 5–21). Please make sure the bot isn't doing the same on other articles. Scolaire ( talk) 10:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
|at=
.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 13:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
|at=
for the sake of being precise. If the page is the first page or out of range or blank the update to range.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 17:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1301 AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 21:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
at: place in the cited source containing the information that supports the article text when a page number is not given, is inappropriate or is insufficient. Common examples include column or col., paragraph or para. and section or sec; where are you seeing that
|at=
should be used for specific pages in the source used for a particular sentence in the article? The same page also says page: page in the cited source containing the information that supports the article text, for example, i.e., it's not saying the page the cited source appears on. Umimmak ( talk) 01:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
|at=
would protect from bots in general. But, that's missusing the templates. We will fix ourselves, but no do the change.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 01:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
|at=
and |page(s)=
are treated differently in the citations. Compare the use of a colon in "Article Title". Journal. 1: 1.(
|page=
) vs a period in "Article Title". Journal. 1. 1.(
|at=
) or the use of a p.in
Book Title. p. 1.(
|page=
) but not in Book Title. 1.(
|at=
).
Umimmak (
talk) 01:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC){{ fixed}} AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 14:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1381
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 00:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I figured it out.
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1384
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 01:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
|volume=47.4
→ |volume=47.4
|issue=4
(if a JSTOR identifier says the issue is 4)|volume=47.4
should be treated the same was as |volume=47(4)
is (i.e. converted to |volume=47
|issue=4
) if metadata from e.g. JSTOR supports the change.
Definitely would want metadata confirmation on that.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 18:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1372 This should help a lot
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 21:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
When the bot dies (such as when it is blocked) the error message goes to the console. This pull once implemented will send errors to HTML also. https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1385 (I am attempting to document signifcant code changes on wikipedia) AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 23:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
{{ fixed}}. It now gives errors. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 15:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Please track how the bot is activated in edit summaries (toolbar, draft, website, other peoples *.js files). Use whitelist of approved methods, with 'toolbar' being grandfathered. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 19:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
{{ wontfix}} Just to unreliable. People just copy text for key. No real point if we get User Oauth up and running. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 00:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
WP:SAYWHERE is explicitly not
WP:SAYHOW. While |via=
may let readers know where a link points to when it's unusual, it's pointless to have when you have no link to go with.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 08:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
|via=
is often used in lieu of a URL precisely because EBSCOhost and other repositories don’t have permanent URLs, but it’s still useful to let people know where they got the article.
Umimmak (
talk) 14:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
|jstor=
because it can be helpful to let the reader know that an online version of the article exists on JSTOR. I don’t see how this use of |via=
is different; it lets the reader know the article can be found in a particular database which they might have access to. If you don’t want to use |via=
at all, that’s one move you could try to gain consensus for but I don’t see the benefit of removing it only when there isn’t a URL. (Surely the URL tells you where you’re going, making |via=
redundant, no?)
Umimmak (
talk) 21:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
|jstor=
gives you a link to the specific paper on the JSTOR repository. We don't just add |via=JSTOR
with no link to JSTOR. There is no reason for the reader to care that you've personally accessed the article via an EBSCOhost vs PASCAL vs ProQuest vs Whatever database, the only thing that matters is what article you read. How you've accessed the material is irrelevant.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 21:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
|via=Google it you dumbass
would basically be the right answer on 99% of {{
cite web}}.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 15:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
When we lose urls we obviously get rid of it, and in most cases it is probably best to get rid of when no url, but this seems like something that should only be removed by an automatic process if there are obvious other links such as doi/pmc. Having a bot just remove them in general seems dubious. Although I do laugh when vis says Google search and remove it. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 15:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
|via=
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 17:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
|via=
provided some uquique source of information, it is simply promoting a specific database. Unrelated side note: EBSCO so-called urls do suck. ProQuest at least gives every document a single number (actually, they sometimes give it more than one) that you can simply use.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 22:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)|via=
also closed with consensus against their position (getting to be a bit of a pattern that). However, they are correct that the parameter should not be used to indicate that a paper might be available from a particular database: it's to indicate that database through which it was actually accessed, and some judgement and common sense is required regarding its use (do not blindly add it). There is no good reason to include |via=
when the specific source accessed cannot possibly have any differences from a conceptual perfect master: a prime example is a paper journal accessed in a physical copy in your local library (and the same, roughly, goes for an electronic copy on the publishers own website: both are effectively to be considered perfect copy of record, and only third-party republishing/access should be indicated in |via=
). However, this does in no way require a link or identifier: you may have accessed the article through a random website or database, identiified in |via=
, but omitted to include the link or identifier. That makes the flaw in the citation the absence of links or identifiers, not the precense of |via=
(in fact, in that case |via=
may be essential to enable locating the source in question, or determining equivalency between copies of indeterminate provenance). The matter of when |via=
serves a purpose and when it is just pointless clutter is not a clear cut one, which is why it should not be treated mechanistically: it is not something that can be determined by a bot based on a simplistic rule like presence of |url=
. However, there are probably a few (a very few) "blacklist" type cases that could constructively be detected, along the lines of |via=my local library
or |via=web search
. Things like |via=Google
do not qualify: it may be trying to identify a Google Books preview or similar that needs human judgement to determine whether it makes sense or no (that it will likely mostly not make sense does not change that fact). And "human judgement" is not the few self-selected people here: it requires looking individually at each specific instance, and is subject to local consensus processes at each article. You can't make a consensus here that decides what happens over there. Case in point, Headbomb's favourite bugaboo, |via=EBSCOhost
, can be argued both ways (include vs. leave out) and thus needs to employ the same consensus processes as all other such issues (SAYWHERE describes what you are not required to do, not what you are prohibited from doing). Removing it with a bot is simply an attempt to circumvent those processes. --
Xover (
talk) 06:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
|via=
when the specific source accessed cannot possibly have any differences from a conceptual perfect master". That's exactly what those databases offer. Perfect reproductions of published version of records, with no material differences, save perhaps for a preamble page unique to the database.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 07:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Maybe it is this Should WP:TWL be allowed to acknowledge the services they have partnership with in our articles Where via was generally considered worthless and often harmful, but did in some situations have value (in all the discussions it generally assumed that a url was present. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 21:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Flagging as {{ wontfix}}, since complete removal is beyond the scope of an automatic bot. But, you can always request specific ones. Once this pull is accepted, more will be removed (in this case some publishers when via is set and there is a doi, and no url). https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1394 AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 00:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Those are manual changes I had to make manually (both edits). Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 02:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I looked at the gadget source code and the fact that it goes to a diff means that the gadget is running and sending and getting text back. It’s almost as if the text sent to the gadget is encoded in some way so that the bot does nothing to it. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 05:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I was literally gonna ask you if you used that!!! AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 05:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
{{ wontfix}} but added note in use page. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 05:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1396
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 05:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
|title=Analytical Planetary solution VSOP2000
GIGO. The DOI record has no title.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 21:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Per a request at WP:ANRFC, I have closed Help talk:Citation Style 1#RFC on publisher and location in cite journal, which concerns the actions of Citation bot (you). Since your operator has not edited in almost 2 weeks, I have also requested that the bot be blocked until it is compliant with the result of the RfC. -- DannyS712 ( talk) 19:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Given that people have an amazing ability to blindly follow orders I have removed the informative part of the pull. Honestly, anyone who thinks someone is going to read what the bot says and act upon it gives the Bot way to much credit; although people surprise me all the time. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 22:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Sandstein Xover The code has been uploaded. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 15:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
@ Sandstein: The bot has been updates (as stated above; and confirmed by running the manual gadget tool with same codebase) to be in compliance of the RfC, which was the basis of the block. What more needs to be done for you to unblock the bot? ( t) Josve05a ( c) 21:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
{{ fixed}} - flag to archive. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 15:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
If this unbreaks the DOI, it's a good edit. If it's still broken, bad edit.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 09:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
This template is a poor man's cite journal. However, there could be limited support for the common parameters (|lastn=
/|firstn=
/|year=
/|journal=
/|volume=
/|pages=
) and light |url=
cleanup (e.g. trim academia.edu links, but not outright removal of a doi link, since cite LSA doesn't support identifiers).
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 21:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
{{
wontfix}}. appears to be transient database failure.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 18:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
{{
wontfix}}. appears to be transient database failure.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 18:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, when there are no changes, it does that. I think this fixes it
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1404 maybe
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 21:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
For clarify, this should remove single quotes at the start/end of journals, or double quotes at both the start/end of journals
|journal="Journal of Foobar
|journal=Journal of Foobar"
|journal="Journal of Foobar"
but not in other cases
|journal=Journal of Foobar: "Foobarist" Studies
|journal=Journal of Foobar: "Foobarist Studies"
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 01:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1413 AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 19:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
The bot itself works fine though. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 09:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
|issue=
parameters.
Keith D (
talk) 15:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1412
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 18:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1400
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 16:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
The doi leads to pmc which leads to pmid. But pmid search is before pmc is added.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 06:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
[[WP:UCB|Assisted by Citation bot]]
<changes> {{!}} You can [[WP:UCB|use this bot]] yourself. [[User talk:Citation bot|Report bugs here]]. {{!}} Activated by [[User:Example|Example]].
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1398
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 16:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1399
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 16:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
The bot does not handle generic {{
cite}} citations. Should it? Is this bogus?
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 15:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
<Emphasis Type="Italic">α</Emphasis>
with ''α''
or <i>α</i>
(same with bold)
Currently on two articles (one due to the bot):
Special:Search/insource:/Emphasis Type/. (
t)
Josve05a (
c) 21:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Not really sure why exactly this is being converted, but if it's because it finds both a DOI and an ISBN, it might be safer to not switch templates from one type to the other. Not saying that's the solution though.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 01:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
The consensus was that in almost all cases the links are to the chapter, and even if they were not, the apperance of the links in the title is where people expect them to be anyway.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 18:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
You are right, we weren't dropping them if the bibcode parameter was already present.
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1419
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 16:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
|newspaper=The Guardian
where |via=The Guardian
already exists|via=The Guardian
with |newspaper=The Guardian
This should be generalized to |work/journal/publisher/...=
.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 17:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
|via=The Guardian
is clearly wrong, as |via=
almost always is wrong.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 17:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
The titles are not similare enough. GIGO shields block it.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 16:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1425
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 18:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1424
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 18:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
...but this is the best place I can think of to ask, since all of you do work with citation templates, so one of you might help me.
Is there a way to search for a list of all cite templates with |url=
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/*****
but no |doi=
, |pmc=
or |pmid=
in them? Since the bot does not fetch such data from researchgate.net, I want to find articles such as
this so I can manually add the IDs, and then run the gadget. (
t)
Josve05a (
c) 20:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
researchgate
and (arxiv|bibcode|doi|pmid|pmc|OTHER)\s*=\s*[^\|\}]
in pre-parse mode. The pages it skips are those without identifiers.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 21:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
{{ fixed}} flag to archive. Thanks to everybody. One day RG might allow bots. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 13:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Once again - French journal titles do NOT capitalise - please fix -- Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 17:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
There is no way that Key Documents of German-Jewish History is a journal! -- Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 17:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |authormask=
ignored (|author-mask=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (
link)changed to -
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Unknown parameter |authormask=
ignored (|author-mask=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (
link)-- Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 18:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Without a url, the website= parameter has to be removed.
|website=
is synonymous with the other Work parameters (journal, [book-]title, encyclopedia, magazine, periodical, and etc.). I assume you did not mean what you said in the way you said it... --
Izno (
talk) 17:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
|url=
gets removed then |website=
get's removed. The bot assumes that the |website=
is actually used correctly. But, |website=
is not removed if there is no existly |url=
. Anyway, the |website=
is incorrect in this example anyway. The correct parameter would be |website=dx.doi.org
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 17:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Bot changed template {{Cite web}} for magazine sources to {{Cite book}}. Bot changed {{Cite web}} for a website-only source to {{Cite news}}; furthermore, per the template guidelines for {{Cite web}} and {{Cite news}} regarding which one to use: as of 29 July 2016, given the same set of valid parameters, the output between {{Cite web}} and {{Cite news}} is exactly the same -- which means that choosing which template to use depends on the details about the source (e.g. a newspaper source may need to include edition, volume, issue, location).
Pyxis Solitary
yak 03:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
{{ wontfix}} right now, since bad metadata. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 04:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Similarly for OUP doi:10.1093/zoolinnean/zly047 [34] vs. [35] (but the DOI is included in the final URL, was that test dropped?). Nemo 09:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
{{ fixed}} AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 04:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1431
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 16:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
This is a special case where n.paradoxa shouldn't be changed to N.Paradoxa (rather N.Paradoxa and all variants should be converted to the lowercase n.paradoxa.
Likewise Zookeys and Bmj, Cmaj and all variants should be converted to ZooKeys, BMJ, and CMAJ. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 13:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
{{ fixed}} AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 04:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Instead of Phytokeys Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 23:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
{{ fixed}} AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 04:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I believe I have mentioned this before, but it continues to vex and annoy: the manner in which the bot typically adds a bibcode. It used to just prefix it to the closing pair of braces. Which confuses matters when one has a long list of citation templates line up vertically, with the closing braces deliberately placed in the first column to more clearly show the end of each citation: it hides the braces behind the bibcode, in a position not expected. I have seen a recent edit where the bibcode was placed on its own line, but then it inserted some whitespace before the braces. I wonder if the bot was trying to insert an MS-DOS style "CRLF" newline, and the LF got converted to a space. Perhaps that could be checked. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
{{
Cite book}} with |chapter=
, |title=
, and |series=
, then do not add: seems reasonable.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 16:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
This should apply to most/all fields, not just |journal=
.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 11:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
You can
use this bot yourself.
You can
use this tool yourself.
When running it in gadget mode, it should read "tool" and not "bot" in the edit summary, since it is not a bot that makes the edits (in order not to confuse BOTPOL etc.) (
t)
Josve05a (
c) 19:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
The gadget-tool is not loading properly/given timeouts instead. "plain 502 from nginx". "Some NFS and then grid engine hiccups earlier today that could have put some tools in a bad state". ( t) Josve05a ( c) 23:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
{{ fixed}} AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 18:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
|journal=NCBI
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1448
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 20:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
We may not have consensus to remove publishers in general, but this is a clear case of garbage use.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 06:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
but it certainly has no consensus to add publishers to journals against every style guide out thereI'm happy to start another RFC just to see if that does exist contrary to your opinion. That aside, no, it is also your opinion that this bug should be resolved by removal of the offending information rather than replacement with correct information. Since your judgement regarding removal of the publisher and location was clearly wrong according to the community, I would be real hesitant to agree with any stance you take which purports to speak for the community. -- Izno ( talk) 17:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
This includes things like [42] ideally. I could file as seperate matter too. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 23:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
|publisher=
when it is identical to |journal=
.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 19:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)Misc citation tidying.
Add: pmc. Removed or converted URL. Removed accessdate with no specified URL.
{{
cite news}} is not part of the normal process, so it gets minimal processing. As such, it is not part of the modifications tracking system. I think we need a second tracking system.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 15:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1443/files#diff-db1d6987f6179e55530bd0cb2eb85f87
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 01:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1444
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 01:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
and so capitalization would resume right afterNo? This is a valid sentence; why did you say this thing? <- is correct semicoloning. See also Semicolon#Usage. -- Izno ( talk) 14:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1443 Just this for now. I am feeling that doing this in chapter titles and such would be bad form. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 01:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1443
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 01:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1457
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 23:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1456
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 22:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
|publisher=nytimes.com
if adding |newspaper=The New York Times
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1453
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 22:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
|title=Error 404 (Not Found)
|via=Huff Post
when adding |newspaper=Huffington Post
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1453
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 22:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
|publisher=Huffington Post
when |newspaper=Huffington Post
is added
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1458
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 23:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
We have code that does this already. I am curious why Wikipedia told us that was valid.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 14:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
To catch stuff like Nz Herald. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 14:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
{{
fixed}}
(PDF)
or {{!}} Request PDF
from |title=
where |url=
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/[0-9]
is true.
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1439
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 22:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1465
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 00:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1460
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 16:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
|publisher=Citeseerx.ist.psu.edu
when changing from |url=
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.84.7715
to |citeseerx=10.1.1.84.7715
|citeseerx=
in general.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 18:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1463
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 23:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1475
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 15:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Odd, I thought we did not do that.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 13:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1475
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 15:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Meanwhile I wonder what's the point of removing an identifier which at CiteSeerX doesn't even have a PDF. Nemo 18:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
This entire discussion is misguided. The Wikipedia standard does NOT apply to references. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:COPYLINK is the correct standard AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 01:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Since we are blocked, this issue is {{ fixed}}. Flagging for archive so this issue discussion will stop here and move where it belongs in the Wikipedia copyright pages that are linked below in the block discussion. Hopefully with more than the usual suspects we can finally 'permanently' put this discussion to bed one way or another. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 14:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
|url=
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=DD2DCDD1CA1A2919464B976C500F9FFE?doi=10.1.1.832.9945&rep=rep1&type=pdf
with |citeseerx=10.1.1.832.9945
Example
<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Ash-Shareef|first=Abdurrahim Khairullah Omar|date=15 November 2014|title=Aspects of Ancient Muslim Scholars' Induction Drawn from the Holy Qur'an in Proving Earth is Spherical|url=http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=DD2DCDD1CA1A2919464B976C500F9FFE?doi=10.1.1.832.9945&rep=rep1&type=pdf|journal=Journal of Education and Practice|volume=5|pages=210–218|via=}}</ref>
( t) Josve05a ( c) 19:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)