![]() | 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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
> Using pubmed API to retrieve publication details: ! Error in PubMed search: No response from Entrez server > Using Zotero translation server to retrieve details from URLs. > Using Zotero translation server to retrieve details from identifiers.
> Expand individual templates by API calls
> Checking CrossRef database for doi. > Searching PubMed... nothing found. > Checking AdsAbs database > AdsAbs search 7087/25000: title:"XXXY syndrome" > Searching PubMed... ! Unable to do PMID search ! Unable to do PMID search nothing found.
Seems to be working now. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 07:23, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1900 AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 23:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Hardcoded or softcoded ones.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
18:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
See here where the bot adds a URL to a reference that has a doi and a pmid. I thought that in such cases a URL was not desired. -- Randykitty ( talk) 09:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
{{ notabug}}, since FREE links are added. Links that are the same as an identifier are removed. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 17:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
It seems that this once was a website for the station but now it redirects to multiple spam websites. "Loading" nevertheless does not seem like a title we should accept in other cases as well. --
Redalert2fan (
talk)
10:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
title = マートン&ゴメス大暴れ 先制3ランだダメ押し打だ title = 阪神ドラ2石崎が仮契約151キロ超えだ title = JNR/JR 25年の大アルバム title =トラ番担当記者コラム
and many more
-- Redalert2fan ( talk) 11:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
|newspaper=The Japan Times Online
when |publisher=The Japan Times
; see
this edit. The correct action here is to rename |publisher=
to |newspaper=
and not add |publisher=
.|title=
is primarily CJK script, in the best of all possible worlds, replace |title=
with |script-title=<language code>:<title text>
. Yeah, this is a best of all possible worlds thing because it isn't always easy or even possible to know what the language is. At the next release of
Module:Citation/CS1, |script-title=
will require a valid language code for non-Latin scripts (a limited list) so writing |script-title=
without the language code will just result in a profusion of errors.
The bot is incorrectly capitalizing non-English journal names (as here). The correctly formatted Ekolist: revija o okolju and Acta geographica Slovenica were changed to the incorrect Ekolist: Revija O Okolju and Acta Geographica Slovenica. Doremo ( talk) 05:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
To discuss go to https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T226088
I pointed them to the root cause and they they {{ fixed}} it. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 23:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
When a url is not a free copy, then it must be removed IF there is another identifier according Wikipedia style guides (we don’t do this with google books, but we should). Also, if the url matches the doi, then it should be removed.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
21:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1915
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
17:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
If you do a multiple bot run, you will have a list of stuff like
Written to Hoyt Vandenberg diff | history ... Written to Hubert Winthrop Young diff | history ... Written to Humanity and Paper Balloons diff | history
So to reviewing for diffs, you search for "diff | history" in the page, and you press Ctrl+G (in Firefox) to jump around. However, because Title in
Written to Title diff | history
isn't of fixed length, you need to spend time aligning your mouse with the diff link. Now this isn't the worse thing in the world, but if you have a list of 100 diffs, that's making a task that could take 20 seconds take 5 minutes. So instead, I suggest either of
[ diff | history] Written to Title
Written [ diff | history] to Title
Written to Title [ diff | history]
As better presentation that would allow for the more efficient reviewing of multiple diffs. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 18:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
{{ fixed}}
Instead of
> Expanding 'Jakob Ackeret'; will commit edits. --------------- [17:56:00] Processing page ' Jakob Ackeret' — — history
This could be combined in one single line
--------------- [17:56:00] Processing page ' Jakob Ackeret' — — history; will commit edits
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 18:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Good catch. It was already fixed in the other API interfaces. https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1914 AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 16:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
{{ fixed}}
This is possibly GIGO. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 18:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
JR is in this case short for Japan Rail. --
Redalert2fan (
talk)
18:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1911
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
15:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
headbomb Why deadlink? That seems like asking for trouble. Dead links often end up pointing to the wrong thing. FindArticles.com and such.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
16:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
https://(...)/10.1234/987654321{{deadlink}}
, it could maybe be parsed as a DOI link were {{
deadlink}} not there, even if the full url didn't resolve. I figured that if the link was dead, there would be nothing to be parsed and it wouldn't expand. Maybe I'm wrong there.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
18:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Not sure which fixes are making it to tool server at this time. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 17:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
It looks like you got unlucky.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
00:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
What happens is when a page is no longer avaiable on japantimes.co.jp you get redirected to
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/article-expired/ which states: "The article you have been looking for has expired and is not longer available on our system. This is due to newswire licensing terms." and has the title "Article expired". This is not clearly not the title we are looking for. --
Redalert2fan (
talk)
23:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
GIGO. Literally nothing we can do. We have complained to crossref and the publisher and they promised to fix the data someday.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
20:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
"OpenId transaction in progress" diff -- Redalert2fan ( talk) 20:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
{{ fixed}}
This is proper behavior since Wikipedia style guides mandate non-fancy punctuation be used.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
03:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Looking at this diff, the bot appears to be removing the via= and subscription= parameters from citations. I personally find those useful, but I'm not too fussed about it. However, the bot has only carried out a partial removal; other citations that include the first of these have not been touched. Is this intentional? Vanamonde ( Talk) 23:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
{{ notabug}}
Up to until an hour running the bot on bare URLs from nature.com (such as https://www.nature.com/articles/nature05769) worked. Now we get "Operation timed out after 10000 milliseconds with 0 bytes received". Have they blocked/blacklisted/throttled us? See for example with existing identifiers in template and bare URL ( t) Josve05a ( c) 20:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Works fine in the case of a doi redundancy
[68], btw.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
01:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
This would be particularly helpful for batch runs.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
01:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Looks like need to deal with
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5671934?reload=true&arnumber=5671934 vs without all the extra stuff.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
22:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
All these URLs are broken: insource:"www.sciencedirect.com" insource:/science\/article\/B....-.{7}-../. Nemo 19:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
{{ fixed}} I think
{{ notabug}}
This account has made tens of thousands of edits by proxy using the Citation bot. It is still ongoing while I'm writing this. The account itself has made only 11 edits so far.
It is obvious that this 'Marianne Zimmerman' account is a bot, since it is working around the clock, 24/7. The account is not labeled as such, and has not been authorized by the Bot Approvals Group. In itself not a big deal, because the account has been making only positive edits and has not caused disruption. Still, it is technically violating policy, and I'm wondering why a bot would use another bot to make bot edits. That seems rather silly. I hope the author of the 'Marianne bot' can come forward so that we can work things out. Cheers, Manifestation ( talk) 12:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
@ Smith609: would it be possible to have an onwiki page of blacklisted users for citation bot? Now that activation requires authentication, having an admin-editable page of "blacklisted" users would help in situations like this (while not requiring a full block of the activator). — xaosflux Talk 13:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Ctrl/Cmd + F
, and search for "Marianne". Safe for a few pauses, the bot had been running non-stop for 20 days straight, with no one noticing until now. -
Manifestation (
talk)
16:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
This:
[http://www.intechopen.com/books/aerospace-technologies-advancements/a-real-options-approach-to-valuing-the-risk-transfer-in-a-multi-year-procurement-contract A Real Options Approach to valuing the Risk Transfer in a Multi-Year Procurement Contract]. Arnold, Scot, and Marius Vassiliou (2010). Ch. 25 in Thawar T. Arif (ed), Aerospace Technologies Advancements. Zagreb, Croatia: INTECH. {{ISBN|978-953-7619-96-1}}
Becomes this:
{{cite journal|url=http://www.intechopen.com/books/aerospace-technologies-advancements/a-real-options-approach-to-valuing-the-risk-transfer-in-a-multi-year-procurement-contract|title= A Real Options Approach to valuing the Risk Transfer in a Multi-Year Procurement Contract]. Arnold, Scot, and Marius Vassiliou (2010). Ch. 25 in Thawar T. Arif (ed), Aerospace Technologies Advancements. Zagreb, Croatia: INTECH. {{ISBN|978-953-7619-96-1}}|journal= Aerospace Technologies Advancements|doi= 10.5772/7170|date= January 2010|last1= Vassiliou|first1= Marius S.|last2= Arnold|first2= Scot A.}}
{{
cite journal}}
: URL–wikilink conflict (
help); templatestyles stripmarker in |title=
at position 229 (
help)— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
The edit summary the bot produced was:
"Add: issue. Removed accessdate with no specified URL. Removed parameters. | You can
use this bot yourself.
Report bugs here. |
User-activated."
Perhaps before "Removed accessdate ..." could be added something like "Removed URL that matched DOI." or "Removed nonfree URL." (or at least "Removed URL.").
Rayhartung (
talk)
12:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Please see this diff: [76] where the edit summary is: "Add: date. Removed parameters." The actual change made was: publication-date=August 2018 was changed to date=August 2018. While a part of the parameter was removed no full parameters were removed and no new date was added making the summary a bit inaccurate. If possible could the summary for edits like these be changed to something that describes the specific action a more closely? -- Redalert2fan ( talk) 20:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
The bot ran 2 times on the following pages; diff 1 and diff 2 on this page only dates were added. diff 3 and diff 4 multiple actions were performed on this 2nd page. -- Redalert2fan ( talk) 20:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
The date can easily be determined through the webarchive url. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 09:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Started since
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1947 was merged. --
Redalert2fan (
talk)
14:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick fix! -- Redalert2fan ( talk) 16:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
If/when deployed, it's worth re-running on all pages in Category:Pages with citations having redundant parameters, which swelled a bit today (thanks Trappist the monk for reporting). Nemo 16:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Should be generalized to cover every http(s)://www.sciencedirect.com(proxycrap)/ possible. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 16:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
|series=
already present. That should be enough to figure out that adding a |journal=
to that likely doesn't make much sense.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
20:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)Could the bot drivers be requested to not add line breaks where |ref=
or |mode=
are on the same line with (that is, immediately following) "{{cite xxx" or "{{citation"? These parameters change the behavior of those templates in very significant ways, effectively changing the template. Having these parameters deeper into the argument makes them less visible, and creates confusion. Where an editor sees fit to put them on the same line, that should be respected. ♦
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk)
22:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
See the |volume=24/2
--> |volume=24
+ |issue=2
type of stuff.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
19:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
|volume=18/19
→ |volume=18–19
however.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
23:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)At [82] cite web was changed to cite thesis. Also type = Thesis was added. but at [83] Cite web was changed to Cite document. As far as I can see the only difference before was c vs C in cite. Further do we need type = Thesis if we have cite thesis? -- Redalert2fan ( talk) 19:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
|type=thesis
differentiates it from |type=dissertation
. (tiny difference).
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
21:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of July 2019 (
link) throws an error, and there are no such errors found on Wikipedia.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
18:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I just ran the bot on this revision of TRAPPIST-1 giving these results. In the API output this section caught my eye;
> Remedial work to prepare citations > Trying to convert ID parameter to parameterized identifiers. > Trying to convert ID parameter to parameterized identifiers. ~ Renamed "date" -> "CITATION_BOT_PLACEHOLDER_date" ~ Renamed "CITATION_BOT_PLACEHOLDER_date" -> "date" > Trying to convert ID parameter to parameterized identifiers. ~ Renamed "year" -> "CITATION_BOT_PLACEHOLDER_year" ~ Renamed "CITATION_BOT_PLACEHOLDER_year" -> "year" ~ Renamed "date" -> "CITATION_BOT_PLACEHOLDER_date" ~ Renamed "CITATION_BOT_PLACEHOLDER_date" -> "date"
In the end no dates were changed or added. Is this intended behavior or is there some accidental double work going on? -- Redalert2fan ( talk) 11:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1964
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
20:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Running the bot another time (3rd time), it also finds PMC ID:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Pestalotiopsis&diff=prev&oldid=907103709 (
t)
Josve05a (
c)
14:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Currently when a run is completed you get:
Could the number of pages edited also be added to this? Giving:
Or some sort of a variation of that?
-- Redalert2fan ( talk) 18:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Or a summary with diffs
Batch completed, 145 page(s) processed, 2 page(s) skipped, 24 edit(s) made.
Report issues/suggestions.
[
diff |
history]
Hoyt Vandenberg – Add: title. Converted bare reference to cite template.
[diff | history] Title2 – Edit summary
[diff | history] Title3 – Edit summary
[diff | history] Title4 – Skipped, page is fully protected!
[diff | history] Title5 – Edit summary
...
[diff | history] Title25 – Skipped, {{
bots|deny=Citation bot}}
found!
[diff | history] Title26 – Edit summary
To get the best results, see our helpful
user guide!
Suppressing the | You can use this bot yourself. Report bugs here. | Activated by User:Username part of the edit summary. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 19:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Page 1|Page 2|Page 3|...|Page N
).
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
06:53, 20 July 2019 (UTC){{ fixed}} AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 13:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
[86] I'm getting these all the time now and I think they arguably make the citation sections worse. There's no way that [edit: general readers] know to click on the linked "doi" when the citation's title itself is unlinked. I'll note that the {{ cite journal}} documentation examples keep the url parameter even when a doi is provided.
Where is the consensus to make this edit en masse? czar 13:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
|url=
is then freed up to be used for freely-available full text versions-of-record of the paper hosted on an author's website, or similar. If the DOI version is free, you can use |doi-access=free
to mark it as free, etc.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
17:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Please see the usage page for why {{ notabug}} AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 15:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Proxies for www.sciencedirect.com which we currently link somewhere: quarry:query/37794. Nemo 00:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I checked an older version and it did it back in the day too. Will investigate.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
16:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1974
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
16:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Comes from a (redirect to a) cookie consent popup. --
Redalert2fan (
talk)
21:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
The bot is incorrectly changing non-English capitalization (as
here, where društva za should be lower case).
Doremo (
talk)
02:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
|title=WebCite query result
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1990
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
11:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
|date=2011-10-01 - 2011-12-17
|date=1 October – 17 December 2011
or |date=October 1 – December 17, 2011
Probably time to fix that blank publisher removal.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
12:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
|coauthor=
.
Keith D (
talk)
17:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I just undid your edit. Seeing as the template does not support |doi=
.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
17:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Yet another reason to drop urls and us doi instead as discussed above. Probably science direct being grumpy.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
16:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/2034
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
11:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/2031
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
02:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/2033
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
11:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/2032
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
11:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
This mostly due to the (Clifton, NJ) thing in one but not the other. Probably should be a hardcoded exception/equivalence. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 04:16, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
{{Cite book |last=Laustsen |first=Anders |last2=Bak |first2=Rasmus O. |editor=Yonglun Luo |date=2019 |title=CRISPR Gene Editing: Methods and Protocols |chapter=Electroporation-Based CRISPR/Cas9 Gene Editing Using Cas9 Protein and Chemically Modified sgRNAs |location=New York |publisher=Springer |pages=127–134 |doi=10.1007/978-1-4939-9170-9_9 |pmid=30912044 |isbn=978-1-4939-9169-3}}
|series=Methods in Molecular Biology
and |volume=1961
. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
01:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC){{
cite journal}}
, the next release of
Module:Citation/CS1 suite will require {{cite journal}}
to have |journal=
.
See also
User talk:Citation bot/Archive 17#Untitled new bug.
Jonatan Svensson Glad (
talk)
19:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Full run (sadly tests can not save) Time: 43.14 minutes, Memory: 42.01MB AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 14:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
It can work if the article is split in half and run the bot two times for each half. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
The bot is incorrectly capitalizing non-English journal names, as here, where razgledi should not be capitalized. Doremo ( talk) 07:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
See this edit. I would like the bot to automatedly do this without having to summon the bot.
See this edit. I would like the bot to automatedly do this without having to summon the bot.
This is not a bot bug. Is it possible to program the bot to automatedly restore the required proper attribution in accordance with WP:MEDCOPY? If this bot can't be programmed to do this then which bot on Wikipedia can be programmed to do this? QuackGuru ( talk) 17:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
BU RoBOT disabled. There may be something useful to salvage. QuackGuru ( talk) 20:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
{{ wontfix}} this bot is a poor choice. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 20:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Can the bot be slightly more comprehensive in catching references with unstructured citations like this? (Where I had to manually remove everything and replace with cite journal + doi.) Nemo 16:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, dearchived because I'm still looking for good examples to treat: special:diff/907215103, special:diff/907215476, special:Diff/907219641.
<ref>[https://doi.org/10.5752/P.2175-5841.2011v9n22p396 Abumanssur, Edin Sued. 2011. “A conversão ao pentecostalismo em comunidades tradicionais.” Horizonte 9 (22): 396–415. DOI: doi.org/10.5752/P.2175-5841.2011v9n22p396 <span></span>].</ref> <ref>M.C. Curthoys, M. C., and H. S. Jones, "Oxford athleticism, 1850–1914: a reappraisal." ''History of Education'' 24.4 (1995): 305–317. [http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0046760950240403?journalCode=thed20 online]</ref> <ref>Aday, S. (2010), "[http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/123303811/abstract Chasing the bad news: An analysis of 2005 Iraq and Afghanistan war coverage on NBC and Fox News channel]", ''Journal of Communication'' 60 (1), pp. 144–164</ref> * Brockliss, Laurence W B, ''The University of Oxford: A History'', [[Oxford University Press]] (Oxford, 2016); 11th century to present; {{doi|10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199243563.001.0001}} online
We can also send an entire line to Citoid and it will use the CrossRef service to get suggestions on what that might be. Sometimes the result is far off, but we can try and make sure it's similar enough. Nemo 10:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
{{ wontfix}} because of risks of deleting notes, etc. and CITEVAR rules. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 15:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
A quite weird instance, it does seem that on the reference there are 2 titles used because the press release discusses multiple things so the actual given title is "Bombardier Announces Financial Results for the Third Quarter Ended September 30, 2015 <br><br>Government of Québec Partners with Bombardier for $1 billion in C Series as Certification Nears". However I think this is clearly unwanted because it adds unnsecary blank lines in the reflist. --
Redalert2fan (
talk)
12:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
These edits are done to prevent future errors. The better parameter is website not work for this citation, so we fix it now.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
14:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
|work=
parameters should really be the title of the journal, magazine, or newspaper. Calling it a website makes a stupid use of the wrong template even stupider, and will no doubt encourage users to fill it in with the url or hostname instead of the actual title of the collective work. I think switching the name of the parameter in this way is a bad idea. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
01:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Never seen that before. Probably should also detect and fix this too.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
20:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
This is because people think journals with a PMC/PMID entry are published by '
National Center for Biotechnology Information,
U.S. National Library of Medicine'.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
03:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/2054
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
14:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/2054
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
14:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Only stable JSTORs that match specific patterns are processed. I will have to look into adding more Regex.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
21:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/2053
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
14:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
{{
webarchive}}
templates, archive-url additions and deletions, fixing bad encoding, updating IABot database, URLs on Commons, etc.. --
Green
C
14:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Ugh there's another one, onlinelibrarystatic.wiley.com/store/ Nemo 18:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I find the bot an extremely good idea; many thanks to its developers! Here is one feature request: the bot should also apply to snippets such as
{{Citation|mr=MR0258885}}
by referring to MathSciNet (in this case to ( [111]) and retrieve the information from there (or possibly retrieve the doi from there and then proceed as usual). Thanks for considering this extension! Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 09:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Am I seeing it in action? special:diff/908301084 at least fixed the case. Thanks, Nemo 21:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
I can't seem to make the bot edit for a few hours now. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 01:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
{{ fixed}}
When you ask the bot to run on say Category:Foobar, the entire category will enter the job queue and get processed. So if means if you have something like
Extended content
|
---|
You could very well have 10:00 Foobar A1 is being processed 10:01 Foobar A2 is being processed 10:02 Foobar A3 is being processed 10:03 Foobar A4 is being processed 10:04 Foobar A5 is being processed 10:05 Foobar A6 is being processed 10:06 Foobar A7 is being processed 10:07 Foobar A8 is being processed 10:08 Foobar A9 is being processed 10:10 Foobar A10 is being processed 10:11 Foobar A11 is being processed 10:12 Foobar A12 is being processed 10:13 Foobar A13 is being processed 10:14 Foobar A14 is being processed 10:15 Foobar A15 is being processed 10:16 Foobar A16 is being processed 10:17 Foobar B is being processed 10:18 Foobar C1 is being processed ... 13:14 Foobar C235 is being processed 13:15 Foobar D is being processed Leading to massive delays for User B and User D. A fairer queuing process would be to put each request into a bin
And cycle between active 'bins' until each get empty. So you'd have a queue that looks like 10:00 Foobar A1 is being processed 10:01 Foobar B1 is being processed 10:02 Foobar C1 is being processed 10:03 Foobar D1 is being processed 10:04 Foobar A2 is being processed 10:05 Foobar B2 is being processed 10:06 Foobar A2 is being processed 10:07 Foobar B2 is being processed ... 10:35 Foobar A16 is being processed 10:36 Foobar B16 is being processed 10:36 Foobar B17 is being processed 10:36 Foobar B18 is being processed 10:36 Foobar B19 is being processed ... 13:15 Foobar C235 is being processed |
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 21:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I would have to think about that. It your description of the current mode of operation is off; but, there could be improvements done. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 22:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
On top of binning, there could be some parallel processing of some kind, like having multiple instances of Citation bot running on the tool server, and when one of them was ready to make an edit, it would get queued. This way if you run on an article that takes ~10 minutes to process, other articles could still get dealt with. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 23:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
url=
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/...
), but those often number in the thousands.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
17:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I suggest you do not run it in slow mode. Disables AdsAbs and zotero AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 18:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Some statistics on the busiest months, just for context:
Extended content
|
---|
MariaDB [enwiki_p]> select substr(rev_timestamp, 1, 6) as date, count(rev_id) AS count from revision_userindex where rev_actor=307 group by date having count > 2000; +--------+-------+ | date | count | +--------+-------+ | 200810 | 2260 | | 200812 | 47504 | | 200903 | 2963 | | 200904 | 16344 | | 200905 | 7279 | | 201001 | 4072 | | 201003 | 4356 | | 201012 | 4251 | | 201103 | 2818 | | 201105 | 2398 | | 201302 | 2453 | | 201303 | 2244 | | 201403 | 2935 | | 201410 | 2059 | | 201708 | 6116 | | 201805 | 3245 | | 201808 | 6531 | | 201809 | 10076 | | 201810 | 7365 | | 201811 | 11001 | | 201812 | 10289 | | 201901 | 19332 | | 201902 | 47795 | | 201903 | 28010 | | 201906 | 7557 | | 201907 | 26383 | +--------+-------+ 26 rows in set (5 min 21.82 sec) |
Nemo 09:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
This is getting really, really annoying to have request constantly timeout for hours because large categories are being requested. Please prioritize this. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 09:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Today it feels better for me: I managed to use the gadget with very good response times even as Headbomb was doing some batches. Nemo 12:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Flagging as {{
fixed}} for now. Will loop back as needed. Continue discussion under white list topic as needed.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
15:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
What's the point of all those search.proquest.com links? When I click one from an otherwise complete citation template, I'm not even presented with a title for the resource, so I can't be sure whether the link points to something else entirely. I see they're sometimes pasted as part of some ready made textual citation with a "Retrieved from" link, so I doubt the editors were actually interested in keeping such links. Are they fine to remove? Nemo 18:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
|id=
instead of placing the paywalled URL in |url=
, but agree with
AManWithNoPlan that there’s no need to remove the link altogether.
Umimmak (
talk)
20:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
|id=
seems indeed superior to me. Is that something we can do systematically?
Nemo
21:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC){{ fixed}} AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 15:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
To be clear, this isn't simply stripping 'on JSTOR' form the title, but rather reseting it entirely.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
02:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Code did not realize that encyclopeAdia was alias.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
15:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
10.5555 is a test doi prefix and will never resolve. On Wikipedia, the vast majority of them are for
JSTOR Global Plants. In fact, nearly all 10.5555/... DOIs can probably be removed and converted to |url=
https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/...
. They should check if that url resolves however, since there are some 10.5555 DOIs that are tests for other things.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
09:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
|doi-broken-date=
, e.g.
[115] ...
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
16:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Not fixed. At least not fully. I had to manually TNT
[117] +
[118].
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
18:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Kinda duplicate with one above, but this should be generalized behaviour, not just specific to 10.5555 broken DOIs. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 16:12, 9 August 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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
> Using pubmed API to retrieve publication details: ! Error in PubMed search: No response from Entrez server > Using Zotero translation server to retrieve details from URLs. > Using Zotero translation server to retrieve details from identifiers.
> Expand individual templates by API calls
> Checking CrossRef database for doi. > Searching PubMed... nothing found. > Checking AdsAbs database > AdsAbs search 7087/25000: title:"XXXY syndrome" > Searching PubMed... ! Unable to do PMID search ! Unable to do PMID search nothing found.
Seems to be working now. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 07:23, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1900 AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 23:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Hardcoded or softcoded ones.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
18:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
See here where the bot adds a URL to a reference that has a doi and a pmid. I thought that in such cases a URL was not desired. -- Randykitty ( talk) 09:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
{{ notabug}}, since FREE links are added. Links that are the same as an identifier are removed. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 17:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
It seems that this once was a website for the station but now it redirects to multiple spam websites. "Loading" nevertheless does not seem like a title we should accept in other cases as well. --
Redalert2fan (
talk)
10:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
title = マートン&ゴメス大暴れ 先制3ランだダメ押し打だ title = 阪神ドラ2石崎が仮契約151キロ超えだ title = JNR/JR 25年の大アルバム title =トラ番担当記者コラム
and many more
-- Redalert2fan ( talk) 11:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
|newspaper=The Japan Times Online
when |publisher=The Japan Times
; see
this edit. The correct action here is to rename |publisher=
to |newspaper=
and not add |publisher=
.|title=
is primarily CJK script, in the best of all possible worlds, replace |title=
with |script-title=<language code>:<title text>
. Yeah, this is a best of all possible worlds thing because it isn't always easy or even possible to know what the language is. At the next release of
Module:Citation/CS1, |script-title=
will require a valid language code for non-Latin scripts (a limited list) so writing |script-title=
without the language code will just result in a profusion of errors.
The bot is incorrectly capitalizing non-English journal names (as here). The correctly formatted Ekolist: revija o okolju and Acta geographica Slovenica were changed to the incorrect Ekolist: Revija O Okolju and Acta Geographica Slovenica. Doremo ( talk) 05:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
To discuss go to https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T226088
I pointed them to the root cause and they they {{ fixed}} it. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 23:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
When a url is not a free copy, then it must be removed IF there is another identifier according Wikipedia style guides (we don’t do this with google books, but we should). Also, if the url matches the doi, then it should be removed.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
21:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1915
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
17:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
If you do a multiple bot run, you will have a list of stuff like
Written to Hoyt Vandenberg diff | history ... Written to Hubert Winthrop Young diff | history ... Written to Humanity and Paper Balloons diff | history
So to reviewing for diffs, you search for "diff | history" in the page, and you press Ctrl+G (in Firefox) to jump around. However, because Title in
Written to Title diff | history
isn't of fixed length, you need to spend time aligning your mouse with the diff link. Now this isn't the worse thing in the world, but if you have a list of 100 diffs, that's making a task that could take 20 seconds take 5 minutes. So instead, I suggest either of
[ diff | history] Written to Title
Written [ diff | history] to Title
Written to Title [ diff | history]
As better presentation that would allow for the more efficient reviewing of multiple diffs. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 18:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
{{ fixed}}
Instead of
> Expanding 'Jakob Ackeret'; will commit edits. --------------- [17:56:00] Processing page ' Jakob Ackeret' — — history
This could be combined in one single line
--------------- [17:56:00] Processing page ' Jakob Ackeret' — — history; will commit edits
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 18:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Good catch. It was already fixed in the other API interfaces. https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1914 AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 16:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
{{ fixed}}
This is possibly GIGO. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 18:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
JR is in this case short for Japan Rail. --
Redalert2fan (
talk)
18:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1911
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
15:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
headbomb Why deadlink? That seems like asking for trouble. Dead links often end up pointing to the wrong thing. FindArticles.com and such.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
16:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
https://(...)/10.1234/987654321{{deadlink}}
, it could maybe be parsed as a DOI link were {{
deadlink}} not there, even if the full url didn't resolve. I figured that if the link was dead, there would be nothing to be parsed and it wouldn't expand. Maybe I'm wrong there.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
18:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Not sure which fixes are making it to tool server at this time. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 17:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
It looks like you got unlucky.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
00:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
What happens is when a page is no longer avaiable on japantimes.co.jp you get redirected to
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/article-expired/ which states: "The article you have been looking for has expired and is not longer available on our system. This is due to newswire licensing terms." and has the title "Article expired". This is not clearly not the title we are looking for. --
Redalert2fan (
talk)
23:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
GIGO. Literally nothing we can do. We have complained to crossref and the publisher and they promised to fix the data someday.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
20:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
"OpenId transaction in progress" diff -- Redalert2fan ( talk) 20:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
{{ fixed}}
This is proper behavior since Wikipedia style guides mandate non-fancy punctuation be used.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
03:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Looking at this diff, the bot appears to be removing the via= and subscription= parameters from citations. I personally find those useful, but I'm not too fussed about it. However, the bot has only carried out a partial removal; other citations that include the first of these have not been touched. Is this intentional? Vanamonde ( Talk) 23:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
{{ notabug}}
Up to until an hour running the bot on bare URLs from nature.com (such as https://www.nature.com/articles/nature05769) worked. Now we get "Operation timed out after 10000 milliseconds with 0 bytes received". Have they blocked/blacklisted/throttled us? See for example with existing identifiers in template and bare URL ( t) Josve05a ( c) 20:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Works fine in the case of a doi redundancy
[68], btw.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
01:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
This would be particularly helpful for batch runs.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
01:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Looks like need to deal with
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5671934?reload=true&arnumber=5671934 vs without all the extra stuff.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
22:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
All these URLs are broken: insource:"www.sciencedirect.com" insource:/science\/article\/B....-.{7}-../. Nemo 19:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
{{ fixed}} I think
{{ notabug}}
This account has made tens of thousands of edits by proxy using the Citation bot. It is still ongoing while I'm writing this. The account itself has made only 11 edits so far.
It is obvious that this 'Marianne Zimmerman' account is a bot, since it is working around the clock, 24/7. The account is not labeled as such, and has not been authorized by the Bot Approvals Group. In itself not a big deal, because the account has been making only positive edits and has not caused disruption. Still, it is technically violating policy, and I'm wondering why a bot would use another bot to make bot edits. That seems rather silly. I hope the author of the 'Marianne bot' can come forward so that we can work things out. Cheers, Manifestation ( talk) 12:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
@ Smith609: would it be possible to have an onwiki page of blacklisted users for citation bot? Now that activation requires authentication, having an admin-editable page of "blacklisted" users would help in situations like this (while not requiring a full block of the activator). — xaosflux Talk 13:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Ctrl/Cmd + F
, and search for "Marianne". Safe for a few pauses, the bot had been running non-stop for 20 days straight, with no one noticing until now. -
Manifestation (
talk)
16:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
This:
[http://www.intechopen.com/books/aerospace-technologies-advancements/a-real-options-approach-to-valuing-the-risk-transfer-in-a-multi-year-procurement-contract A Real Options Approach to valuing the Risk Transfer in a Multi-Year Procurement Contract]. Arnold, Scot, and Marius Vassiliou (2010). Ch. 25 in Thawar T. Arif (ed), Aerospace Technologies Advancements. Zagreb, Croatia: INTECH. {{ISBN|978-953-7619-96-1}}
Becomes this:
{{cite journal|url=http://www.intechopen.com/books/aerospace-technologies-advancements/a-real-options-approach-to-valuing-the-risk-transfer-in-a-multi-year-procurement-contract|title= A Real Options Approach to valuing the Risk Transfer in a Multi-Year Procurement Contract]. Arnold, Scot, and Marius Vassiliou (2010). Ch. 25 in Thawar T. Arif (ed), Aerospace Technologies Advancements. Zagreb, Croatia: INTECH. {{ISBN|978-953-7619-96-1}}|journal= Aerospace Technologies Advancements|doi= 10.5772/7170|date= January 2010|last1= Vassiliou|first1= Marius S.|last2= Arnold|first2= Scot A.}}
{{
cite journal}}
: URL–wikilink conflict (
help); templatestyles stripmarker in |title=
at position 229 (
help)— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
The edit summary the bot produced was:
"Add: issue. Removed accessdate with no specified URL. Removed parameters. | You can
use this bot yourself.
Report bugs here. |
User-activated."
Perhaps before "Removed accessdate ..." could be added something like "Removed URL that matched DOI." or "Removed nonfree URL." (or at least "Removed URL.").
Rayhartung (
talk)
12:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Please see this diff: [76] where the edit summary is: "Add: date. Removed parameters." The actual change made was: publication-date=August 2018 was changed to date=August 2018. While a part of the parameter was removed no full parameters were removed and no new date was added making the summary a bit inaccurate. If possible could the summary for edits like these be changed to something that describes the specific action a more closely? -- Redalert2fan ( talk) 20:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
The bot ran 2 times on the following pages; diff 1 and diff 2 on this page only dates were added. diff 3 and diff 4 multiple actions were performed on this 2nd page. -- Redalert2fan ( talk) 20:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
The date can easily be determined through the webarchive url. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 09:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Started since
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1947 was merged. --
Redalert2fan (
talk)
14:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick fix! -- Redalert2fan ( talk) 16:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
If/when deployed, it's worth re-running on all pages in Category:Pages with citations having redundant parameters, which swelled a bit today (thanks Trappist the monk for reporting). Nemo 16:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Should be generalized to cover every http(s)://www.sciencedirect.com(proxycrap)/ possible. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 16:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
|series=
already present. That should be enough to figure out that adding a |journal=
to that likely doesn't make much sense.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
20:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)Could the bot drivers be requested to not add line breaks where |ref=
or |mode=
are on the same line with (that is, immediately following) "{{cite xxx" or "{{citation"? These parameters change the behavior of those templates in very significant ways, effectively changing the template. Having these parameters deeper into the argument makes them less visible, and creates confusion. Where an editor sees fit to put them on the same line, that should be respected. ♦
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk)
22:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
See the |volume=24/2
--> |volume=24
+ |issue=2
type of stuff.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
19:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
|volume=18/19
→ |volume=18–19
however.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
23:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)At [82] cite web was changed to cite thesis. Also type = Thesis was added. but at [83] Cite web was changed to Cite document. As far as I can see the only difference before was c vs C in cite. Further do we need type = Thesis if we have cite thesis? -- Redalert2fan ( talk) 19:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
|type=thesis
differentiates it from |type=dissertation
. (tiny difference).
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
21:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of July 2019 (
link) throws an error, and there are no such errors found on Wikipedia.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
18:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I just ran the bot on this revision of TRAPPIST-1 giving these results. In the API output this section caught my eye;
> Remedial work to prepare citations > Trying to convert ID parameter to parameterized identifiers. > Trying to convert ID parameter to parameterized identifiers. ~ Renamed "date" -> "CITATION_BOT_PLACEHOLDER_date" ~ Renamed "CITATION_BOT_PLACEHOLDER_date" -> "date" > Trying to convert ID parameter to parameterized identifiers. ~ Renamed "year" -> "CITATION_BOT_PLACEHOLDER_year" ~ Renamed "CITATION_BOT_PLACEHOLDER_year" -> "year" ~ Renamed "date" -> "CITATION_BOT_PLACEHOLDER_date" ~ Renamed "CITATION_BOT_PLACEHOLDER_date" -> "date"
In the end no dates were changed or added. Is this intended behavior or is there some accidental double work going on? -- Redalert2fan ( talk) 11:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1964
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
20:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Running the bot another time (3rd time), it also finds PMC ID:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Pestalotiopsis&diff=prev&oldid=907103709 (
t)
Josve05a (
c)
14:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Currently when a run is completed you get:
Could the number of pages edited also be added to this? Giving:
Or some sort of a variation of that?
-- Redalert2fan ( talk) 18:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Or a summary with diffs
Batch completed, 145 page(s) processed, 2 page(s) skipped, 24 edit(s) made.
Report issues/suggestions.
[
diff |
history]
Hoyt Vandenberg – Add: title. Converted bare reference to cite template.
[diff | history] Title2 – Edit summary
[diff | history] Title3 – Edit summary
[diff | history] Title4 – Skipped, page is fully protected!
[diff | history] Title5 – Edit summary
...
[diff | history] Title25 – Skipped, {{
bots|deny=Citation bot}}
found!
[diff | history] Title26 – Edit summary
To get the best results, see our helpful
user guide!
Suppressing the | You can use this bot yourself. Report bugs here. | Activated by User:Username part of the edit summary. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 19:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Page 1|Page 2|Page 3|...|Page N
).
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
06:53, 20 July 2019 (UTC){{ fixed}} AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 13:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
[86] I'm getting these all the time now and I think they arguably make the citation sections worse. There's no way that [edit: general readers] know to click on the linked "doi" when the citation's title itself is unlinked. I'll note that the {{ cite journal}} documentation examples keep the url parameter even when a doi is provided.
Where is the consensus to make this edit en masse? czar 13:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
|url=
is then freed up to be used for freely-available full text versions-of-record of the paper hosted on an author's website, or similar. If the DOI version is free, you can use |doi-access=free
to mark it as free, etc.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
17:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Please see the usage page for why {{ notabug}} AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 15:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Proxies for www.sciencedirect.com which we currently link somewhere: quarry:query/37794. Nemo 00:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I checked an older version and it did it back in the day too. Will investigate.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
16:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1974
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
16:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Comes from a (redirect to a) cookie consent popup. --
Redalert2fan (
talk)
21:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
The bot is incorrectly changing non-English capitalization (as
here, where društva za should be lower case).
Doremo (
talk)
02:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
|title=WebCite query result
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1990
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
11:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
|date=2011-10-01 - 2011-12-17
|date=1 October – 17 December 2011
or |date=October 1 – December 17, 2011
Probably time to fix that blank publisher removal.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
12:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
|coauthor=
.
Keith D (
talk)
17:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I just undid your edit. Seeing as the template does not support |doi=
.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
17:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Yet another reason to drop urls and us doi instead as discussed above. Probably science direct being grumpy.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
16:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/2034
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
11:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/2031
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
02:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/2033
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
11:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/2032
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
11:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
This mostly due to the (Clifton, NJ) thing in one but not the other. Probably should be a hardcoded exception/equivalence. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 04:16, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
{{Cite book |last=Laustsen |first=Anders |last2=Bak |first2=Rasmus O. |editor=Yonglun Luo |date=2019 |title=CRISPR Gene Editing: Methods and Protocols |chapter=Electroporation-Based CRISPR/Cas9 Gene Editing Using Cas9 Protein and Chemically Modified sgRNAs |location=New York |publisher=Springer |pages=127–134 |doi=10.1007/978-1-4939-9170-9_9 |pmid=30912044 |isbn=978-1-4939-9169-3}}
|series=Methods in Molecular Biology
and |volume=1961
. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
01:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC){{
cite journal}}
, the next release of
Module:Citation/CS1 suite will require {{cite journal}}
to have |journal=
.
See also
User talk:Citation bot/Archive 17#Untitled new bug.
Jonatan Svensson Glad (
talk)
19:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Full run (sadly tests can not save) Time: 43.14 minutes, Memory: 42.01MB AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 14:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
It can work if the article is split in half and run the bot two times for each half. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
The bot is incorrectly capitalizing non-English journal names, as here, where razgledi should not be capitalized. Doremo ( talk) 07:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
See this edit. I would like the bot to automatedly do this without having to summon the bot.
See this edit. I would like the bot to automatedly do this without having to summon the bot.
This is not a bot bug. Is it possible to program the bot to automatedly restore the required proper attribution in accordance with WP:MEDCOPY? If this bot can't be programmed to do this then which bot on Wikipedia can be programmed to do this? QuackGuru ( talk) 17:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
BU RoBOT disabled. There may be something useful to salvage. QuackGuru ( talk) 20:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
{{ wontfix}} this bot is a poor choice. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 20:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Can the bot be slightly more comprehensive in catching references with unstructured citations like this? (Where I had to manually remove everything and replace with cite journal + doi.) Nemo 16:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, dearchived because I'm still looking for good examples to treat: special:diff/907215103, special:diff/907215476, special:Diff/907219641.
<ref>[https://doi.org/10.5752/P.2175-5841.2011v9n22p396 Abumanssur, Edin Sued. 2011. “A conversão ao pentecostalismo em comunidades tradicionais.” Horizonte 9 (22): 396–415. DOI: doi.org/10.5752/P.2175-5841.2011v9n22p396 <span></span>].</ref> <ref>M.C. Curthoys, M. C., and H. S. Jones, "Oxford athleticism, 1850–1914: a reappraisal." ''History of Education'' 24.4 (1995): 305–317. [http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0046760950240403?journalCode=thed20 online]</ref> <ref>Aday, S. (2010), "[http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/123303811/abstract Chasing the bad news: An analysis of 2005 Iraq and Afghanistan war coverage on NBC and Fox News channel]", ''Journal of Communication'' 60 (1), pp. 144–164</ref> * Brockliss, Laurence W B, ''The University of Oxford: A History'', [[Oxford University Press]] (Oxford, 2016); 11th century to present; {{doi|10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199243563.001.0001}} online
We can also send an entire line to Citoid and it will use the CrossRef service to get suggestions on what that might be. Sometimes the result is far off, but we can try and make sure it's similar enough. Nemo 10:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
{{ wontfix}} because of risks of deleting notes, etc. and CITEVAR rules. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 15:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
A quite weird instance, it does seem that on the reference there are 2 titles used because the press release discusses multiple things so the actual given title is "Bombardier Announces Financial Results for the Third Quarter Ended September 30, 2015 <br><br>Government of Québec Partners with Bombardier for $1 billion in C Series as Certification Nears". However I think this is clearly unwanted because it adds unnsecary blank lines in the reflist. --
Redalert2fan (
talk)
12:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
These edits are done to prevent future errors. The better parameter is website not work for this citation, so we fix it now.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
14:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
|work=
parameters should really be the title of the journal, magazine, or newspaper. Calling it a website makes a stupid use of the wrong template even stupider, and will no doubt encourage users to fill it in with the url or hostname instead of the actual title of the collective work. I think switching the name of the parameter in this way is a bad idea. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
01:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Never seen that before. Probably should also detect and fix this too.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
20:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
This is because people think journals with a PMC/PMID entry are published by '
National Center for Biotechnology Information,
U.S. National Library of Medicine'.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
03:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/2054
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
14:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/2054
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
14:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Only stable JSTORs that match specific patterns are processed. I will have to look into adding more Regex.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
21:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/2053
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
14:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
{{
webarchive}}
templates, archive-url additions and deletions, fixing bad encoding, updating IABot database, URLs on Commons, etc.. --
Green
C
14:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Ugh there's another one, onlinelibrarystatic.wiley.com/store/ Nemo 18:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I find the bot an extremely good idea; many thanks to its developers! Here is one feature request: the bot should also apply to snippets such as
{{Citation|mr=MR0258885}}
by referring to MathSciNet (in this case to ( [111]) and retrieve the information from there (or possibly retrieve the doi from there and then proceed as usual). Thanks for considering this extension! Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 09:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Am I seeing it in action? special:diff/908301084 at least fixed the case. Thanks, Nemo 21:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
I can't seem to make the bot edit for a few hours now. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 01:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
{{ fixed}}
When you ask the bot to run on say Category:Foobar, the entire category will enter the job queue and get processed. So if means if you have something like
Extended content
|
---|
You could very well have 10:00 Foobar A1 is being processed 10:01 Foobar A2 is being processed 10:02 Foobar A3 is being processed 10:03 Foobar A4 is being processed 10:04 Foobar A5 is being processed 10:05 Foobar A6 is being processed 10:06 Foobar A7 is being processed 10:07 Foobar A8 is being processed 10:08 Foobar A9 is being processed 10:10 Foobar A10 is being processed 10:11 Foobar A11 is being processed 10:12 Foobar A12 is being processed 10:13 Foobar A13 is being processed 10:14 Foobar A14 is being processed 10:15 Foobar A15 is being processed 10:16 Foobar A16 is being processed 10:17 Foobar B is being processed 10:18 Foobar C1 is being processed ... 13:14 Foobar C235 is being processed 13:15 Foobar D is being processed Leading to massive delays for User B and User D. A fairer queuing process would be to put each request into a bin
And cycle between active 'bins' until each get empty. So you'd have a queue that looks like 10:00 Foobar A1 is being processed 10:01 Foobar B1 is being processed 10:02 Foobar C1 is being processed 10:03 Foobar D1 is being processed 10:04 Foobar A2 is being processed 10:05 Foobar B2 is being processed 10:06 Foobar A2 is being processed 10:07 Foobar B2 is being processed ... 10:35 Foobar A16 is being processed 10:36 Foobar B16 is being processed 10:36 Foobar B17 is being processed 10:36 Foobar B18 is being processed 10:36 Foobar B19 is being processed ... 13:15 Foobar C235 is being processed |
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 21:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I would have to think about that. It your description of the current mode of operation is off; but, there could be improvements done. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 22:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
On top of binning, there could be some parallel processing of some kind, like having multiple instances of Citation bot running on the tool server, and when one of them was ready to make an edit, it would get queued. This way if you run on an article that takes ~10 minutes to process, other articles could still get dealt with. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 23:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
url=
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/...
), but those often number in the thousands.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
17:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I suggest you do not run it in slow mode. Disables AdsAbs and zotero AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 18:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Some statistics on the busiest months, just for context:
Extended content
|
---|
MariaDB [enwiki_p]> select substr(rev_timestamp, 1, 6) as date, count(rev_id) AS count from revision_userindex where rev_actor=307 group by date having count > 2000; +--------+-------+ | date | count | +--------+-------+ | 200810 | 2260 | | 200812 | 47504 | | 200903 | 2963 | | 200904 | 16344 | | 200905 | 7279 | | 201001 | 4072 | | 201003 | 4356 | | 201012 | 4251 | | 201103 | 2818 | | 201105 | 2398 | | 201302 | 2453 | | 201303 | 2244 | | 201403 | 2935 | | 201410 | 2059 | | 201708 | 6116 | | 201805 | 3245 | | 201808 | 6531 | | 201809 | 10076 | | 201810 | 7365 | | 201811 | 11001 | | 201812 | 10289 | | 201901 | 19332 | | 201902 | 47795 | | 201903 | 28010 | | 201906 | 7557 | | 201907 | 26383 | +--------+-------+ 26 rows in set (5 min 21.82 sec) |
Nemo 09:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
This is getting really, really annoying to have request constantly timeout for hours because large categories are being requested. Please prioritize this. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 09:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Today it feels better for me: I managed to use the gadget with very good response times even as Headbomb was doing some batches. Nemo 12:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Flagging as {{
fixed}} for now. Will loop back as needed. Continue discussion under white list topic as needed.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
15:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
What's the point of all those search.proquest.com links? When I click one from an otherwise complete citation template, I'm not even presented with a title for the resource, so I can't be sure whether the link points to something else entirely. I see they're sometimes pasted as part of some ready made textual citation with a "Retrieved from" link, so I doubt the editors were actually interested in keeping such links. Are they fine to remove? Nemo 18:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
|id=
instead of placing the paywalled URL in |url=
, but agree with
AManWithNoPlan that there’s no need to remove the link altogether.
Umimmak (
talk)
20:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
|id=
seems indeed superior to me. Is that something we can do systematically?
Nemo
21:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC){{ fixed}} AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 15:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
To be clear, this isn't simply stripping 'on JSTOR' form the title, but rather reseting it entirely.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
02:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Code did not realize that encyclopeAdia was alias.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
15:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
10.5555 is a test doi prefix and will never resolve. On Wikipedia, the vast majority of them are for
JSTOR Global Plants. In fact, nearly all 10.5555/... DOIs can probably be removed and converted to |url=
https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/...
. They should check if that url resolves however, since there are some 10.5555 DOIs that are tests for other things.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
09:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
|doi-broken-date=
, e.g.
[115] ...
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
16:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Not fixed. At least not fully. I had to manually TNT
[117] +
[118].
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
18:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Kinda duplicate with one above, but this should be generalized behaviour, not just specific to 10.5555 broken DOIs. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 16:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)