![]() | 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 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | → | Archive 30 |
Your recent editing history at Lost council election cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 16:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Magnificat (Torri) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 16:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
note to self-fix excensive adsabs too.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
11:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
]. The topic is Maledomni, not Ophel (Jerusalem).
I think I know where it comes from: I went to a certain page (Ophel) and searched for another topic (Maledomni), and copied into the citation the URL created by the search, which indeed leads to the only available page about the search word in the Google version of the book. Now I've replaced it with the URL of the actual page dealing with Maledomni, so in this case the problem is solved, but the general bug remains: if there's a QUESTION MARK after google.books/ and before "id", then the bot shouldn't remove everything that comes after the page number (and replace it with #v=onepage), because it's removing the most relevant part and taking it all to the wrong page. Cheers,
Arminden (
talk)
10:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
For context, it's known that links to Google Books are not be relied upon: Wikipedia:Google Books and Wikipedia. Editors who wish their references to be useful long-term need to use other targets for their links. Nemo 12:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Folks, let's cool it down a bit. There was a page number in the URL, and removing what followed after it meant that - that page number alone was left standing, and considering that, Google Books did nothing wrong. The code/bot needed to take this aspect into consideration and not to touch URLs where a question mark follows immediately after "id" and "pg". If Google Books will cut everyone from accessing the preview, as it happens from time to time with some specific titles, it's both their loss and ours, but maybe not the (c) holders'; so far we're getting more than anyone accustomed to German or EU copyright laws can even expect to be allowed to access. Btw, if you're cut off from certain pages because of the country you're in: try changing the URL ending, say, from .co.it to .co.uk or .com or whatever comes to mind; it usually works and one gets more, or different, preview pages. Cheers, Arminden ( talk) 18:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Seems to be a rare database error. Added comment to prevent someone (or bot) from looking it up and adding wrong one.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
16:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I have added that host to the list of publisher hosts.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
01:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
The bot is still removing the url= parameter when it is a "duplicate" of an identifier, resulting in the delinking of titles in citations. Can someone please make it stop doing that so the whole bot doesn't need to be blocked again? We are past the point where anyone can claim there is community consensus for these edits; these are unauthorized bot edits. Thank you. Le v!v ich 17:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
|url=
parameter (e.g. "The genome of an ancient Rouran individual ..." and "Historical Dictionary of Medieval China"), among other problems (e.g. changing the target of some URLs). Also, I'm not sure that all the removed URLs were duplicates (e.g. the one to Amazon Books). Overall, I just don't see any of the 9 approved tasks on Citation Bot's userpage as authorizing the changes made in this edit today.
Le
v!v
ich
16:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
|doi-access=free
if appropriate, which is another way the bot helps having more links rather than less.
Nemo
21:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
de-links several citation titles, which is exactly what that edit did. What part of WP:Citing sources are you referring to? Can you quote? Le v!v ich 21:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
$this->forget($url_type);
line (which I suppose removes the url) in
template.php at github was commented out prior to the bot being unblocked in August, but only for the s2cid identifier; the line was not commented out for the other identifiers (such as the ones in these examples). It seems pretty straightforward to comment out the corresponding line for the other identifiers and thus stop the bot from removing the |url=
parameter.
Le
v!v
ich
05:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
it generally is not important to cite a databaseand so on: we love PubMed, but it is just one choice among dozens to provide an abstract or a search engine result (unlike PubMed Central, which has the full text and has an auto-linking identifier parameter). Nemo 07:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
{{ fixed}}
Persuant to WP:BOTAPPEAL, I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#Citation_bot regarding this bot's continued approval. AntiCompositeNumber ( talk) 19:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
{{ fixed}} - discussion seems to have closed. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 12:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
The bot's edits include actions that are currently the subject of an RfC at
WP:VPPR#Issues raised by Citation bot. Halfway through the runtime of that RfC it is impossible to say whether these actions such as removing links from titles will garner consensus to be allowed. What did you think: I'll run them now before they are possibly forbidden in a few weeks? Don't take us content editors for naive please. --
Francis Schonken (
talk)
05:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC) – ammended 05:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--
Francis Schonken (
talk)
05:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
{{ fixed}} - discussion seems to have closed. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 12:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
.com redirects to people's local country. But local countries do not re-direct back to .com or anyone else's local country. That is why .com is preferred: everyone get's their local copy.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
13:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
The bot has now twice changed the title of the journal Neue musikalische Presse in the article
Johannes Brahms. German adjectives are in lower case and this is no exception according to the source:
https://www.ripm.org/?page=JournalInfo&ABB=NMP. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk)
03:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Same here, for French. Simply skip everything that has non-English |language=
, they’re more likely to be false positives than true ones. —
Tacsipacsi (
talk)
23:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Upon trying to 'Expand citations' on an article I eventually got a weird message, GIT pull in progress
. What does it mean?
Abductive (
reasoning)
03:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
{{ fixed}} with a better error message. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 17:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3580 Should be deployed soon.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
12:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Is there any reason, other than American pride, that URLs to google.co.uk are being all changed to google.com? Seems a bit petty to be honest. As examples see [13], [14] and [15] which are all English subjects referred to by books published in England. It is just annoying when you get up to half a dozen entries per day in your watchlist which are pointless fiddling. Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 13:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Something broke in the capitalization logic. Those shouldn't have been touched.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
14:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3585
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
21:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3585
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
21:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Not every publication with an ISSN is a journal. Certain series of books have an ISSN as well. Therefore a citation with an ISSN should not automatically be changed into a "cite journal".
|deadlink=
to |titlelink=
|deadlink=
to |url-status=
and change the value of the parameter appropriately, or the bot should leave |deadlink=
alone
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3624
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
22:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
This is pointless. Why is this bot doing this? ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯
05:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3630 will fix that once deployed AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 12:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
|isbn=
and |ISBN=
are equal alisaes
A change was made to the article I was preparing in MY sandpit and aginst the version history was the commentas follows:
Alter: template type. Remove Template type redirect. | You can use this bot yourself. Report bugs here. | Suggested by AManWithNoPlan | via #UCB_toolbar undo Tag: Reverted)
Could someone please explain to me what this mean? What this a bot or was it another user (i.e. AManWithNoPlan)? Thank you. Blammy1 ( talk) 15:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Does the bot check if it was the last editor of an article before doing any (duplicate) work? Especially calls to external databases? Abductive ( reasoning) 18:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
{{ notabug}}, but is listed on the GitHub issues page. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 20:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Citations of the form
Should in my view be expanded routinely to separate lines:
Reason: legibility by humans, makes human inspection much easier
Negative side effects: None. Files are not larger nor are they slower to process.
If anyone knows of an automated procedure doing the opposite (collapsing citations) please let me know so I can address that too. Thank you. deisenbe ( talk) 09:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
{{ wont fix}} This is textbook WP:CONTEXTBOT/ WP:CITEVAR issues. A WP:SCRIPT may fly (see WP:SCRIPTREQ), but the misuse of such a script would be a good way to get you banned/blocked. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 17:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3623 Once deployed, should fix it.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
13:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Same here, for French. Simply skip everything that has non-English |language=
, they’re more likely to be false positives than true ones. —
Tacsipacsi (
talk)
23:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
|language=
does not refer to the title of the work but to the content, so it is more than possible for English short works to show up in non-English works, and vice versa. --
Izno (
talk)
15:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)@ Izno: Yes, it’s the language of the work, but in my experience non-English journals rarely have English titles (I see journals in whatever language with Latin titles every now and then, but otherwise the titles’ languages usually correspond to the content’s languages). In any case, not fixing an incorrect title (false negative) is a much smaller issue than incorrectly “fixing” a correct title (false positive). An automatic bot should only fix things it can confidently fix. — Tacsipacsi ( talk) 20:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
See the correction that I made here. The bot changed a citation of a book to a citation of a review of the book (the review was published in the journal Nature):
These links no longer work
What's the new format? Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 18:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Fixed - report more like capitaliztions .
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
23:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3602
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
23:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3602
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
23:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3602
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
23:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
This will ignore that groups DOIs
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3614
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
14:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
After completing a run on a category or other group of pages, the bot should include in its last edit summary a note that the run is complete. Abductive ( reasoning) 21:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
In this
diff see |title=Secreto | ; Stud Record | ; Bloodstock Stallion Book | ; Racing Post
.. the | ;
is a
vertical bar that ideally would changed to {{
pipe}}
(unclear if this is the same as {{
!}}
). There are two other reserved characters for the title field: [ = [ ; = {{bracket}}
and ] = ] ; = ??
- is this something CitationBot could convert? --
Green
C
02:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
The Bot is linking a journal to Irish Greyhound Review book for The 75 Years History of the Irish Greyhound Derby. I don't know why. Example of a page affected
1938 UK & Ireland Greyhound Racing Year. Many thanks
Racingmanager (
talk)
07:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Please note following my earlier bug report that I did not enter the wrong issn number on the 100+ articles that you indicated, I have the book in front of me and can confirm that the ISSN is 0709-0609. Looking on Google maybe a Canadian issn has been mixed up with an Irish issn but that does not change the fact that I entered the correct ISSN on all of the pages> Also I can't see anything on Google with an ISSN number of 0332-3536. Many thanks Racingmanager ( talk) 17:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
{{ notabug}}
The bot didn't do that BTW, that was
a manual edit of mine, but I did expect the bot to convert things correctly after me.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
19:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
When the duplicate are the same, just remove the duplicate, instead of marking it as a duplicate. To be clear here, the PMIDs weren't exactly the same (some had a stray /), but the DOIs were.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
02:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Likely covers a lot of Las Something too.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
01:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
|mr=
Same as stripping PMC from |pmc=
essentially.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
03:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Done all 19 pages linked from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Journals_cited_by_Wikipedia/Sandbox # # #
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3656
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
19:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
This is a common miscapitalization, and I need to manually clean it up every few weeks.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
23:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Excerpt from the documentation:
agency: The news agency (wire service) that provided the content; examples: Associated Press, Reuters, Agence France-Presse. Do not use for sources published on the agency's own website; e.g. apnews.com or reuters.com; instead, use work or publisher. May be wikilinked if relevant.
Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a website, book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, etc.).
|work=
and equivalent, when it is directly cited (rather than as an agency). --
Izno (
talk)
02:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
|work=Reuters
.
|work=BBC News
because |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/...
; omit |publisher=
because BBC and BBC News are substantially the same.
The bug fix for Agency discussed at
User_talk:Citation_bot/Archive_23#Agency prevents the bot from changing work to agency but doesn't fix it when agency should be changed to work (for example, due to previous runs of the bot).
Do you have a
diff? This is likely a database/metadata issue.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
06:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Citation bot: 'Talk%3ADomain coloring'
). The bot also failed to completely fill in (and maybe incorrectly filled in) uses of {{
cite arxiv}}.
Not sure what your problem is with the Bot, it work for me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3ADomain_coloring&type=revision&diff=986942210&oldid=986942172
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
21:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Citation bot: 'Talk%3ADomain coloring'
). That might be a GET vs POST thing. Also odd is that this time, it set year=2020, but last time it gave year=2002 (but that's probably just a result of the previous GIGO). --
Pokechu22 (
talk)
22:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
It's actually the {{
pp}} that stops it. Rare to see that on a semi-protected page.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
16:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Achieved after stripping &ved=2ahUKEwig4sbnsebsAhVKXKwKHYNoDJQ4FBAWMAF6BAgJEAE&usg=AOvVaw2eKB_kEGskwK4Rvld3KoW4
and %3Fseq%3D1
from the URL.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
21:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
I will investigate if this is a bug or just random database failures.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
19:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
First, many thanks to everyone who works on these bots. I don't really consider a few anecdotal inappropriate changes to be bugs but I do have a question. I’m not familiar with what’s under the hood, but would it be plausible to maintain a list of specific parameter+value pairs for bot exclusion to avoid what might become common yet sub-optimal corrections? For example, in this case, I noticed the bot just made a few changes on Al Gore: a cite news was switched from agency=Reuters to work=Reuters and another from publisher=BBC News to work=BBC News. (I don't see that agency is even available for cite news but I presume publisher is more appropriate for both.) Since major news organizations such as these are probably frequently cited, it might be beneficial to not have them all changed to work. A list of parm+value specific exclusions would essentially be a whitelist, used to prevent bot edits. Presumably, there would be a proposed vs vetted list. I apologize in advance if this has already been discussed and archived long ago; it’s been 15 years since I was deep into regex/parsers but it’s hard to not think of possible tweaks. Zatsugaku ( talk) 17:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
|agency=
applies when a newspaper or other source 'reprints' a story that it got from a news agency. When the source is the agency as is the case at
Al Gore, the agency is the work. |agency=
is a valid {{
cite news}}
parameter; see
template doc.How can the bot add a s2cid to the article Heart after it added a s2cid a few days before, and with only OAbot editing in the interim? None of the refs were the same. Abductive ( reasoning) 01:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
"west"
and a ref named west
.
Abductive (
reasoning)
21:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Covers many journals in the JMIR series WP:JCW/Publisher10#Journal of Medical Internet Research Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 02:31, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
cs1|2 does not have a parameter named |local=Campinas
. Presumably this is intended to be |location=
. It is certainly not |nocat=
which should probably never be used in mainspace (it is also on the short list to be deprecated and removed because we have a better parameter name: |no-tracking=
).
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 00:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
does this bot work in farsi.wikipedia or is there another or similiar or better bot? Baratiiman ( talk) 13:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Affects a bunch of
EPJ journals.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
04:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with bugs in Citation bot, but I noticed today that the metadata in the doi database for publications in IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity consistently misspells it Appiled. There haven't been many copies of these errors that have propagated to Wikipedia but I found one in Superconducting magnetic energy storage. So if citation bot gets any data from this source, it might want to check for this misspelling. — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
{{ fixed}}
At WP:BRFA I have proposed a cosmetic bot task that replaces to-be-deprecated all-run-together parameter name forms with their canonical hyphenated name forms. In discussion at the BRFA, an editor has suggested that the task should not be approved until all tools that use the all-run-together parameter name forms have been updated to use hyphenated parameter name forms. I have spent some time trolling through Citation bot's recent edits and have found no indication that all-run-together parameter names are used but neither did I find any cases of hyphenated parameter name use. When adding new parameters to a cs1|2 citation and when given a choice between hyphenated and all-run-together, which does Citation bot choose? If the all-run-together form, can that be changed to the hyphenated form?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
|title=
to |chapter=
in {{
cite dictionary}}
(a redirect to {{
cite encyclopedia}}
) without also renaming |url=
to |chapter-url=
As an aside, for {{cite dictionary}}
|entry=
and |entry-url=
are likely better choices than |chapter=
and |chapter-url=
:
{{cite dictionary |entry-url=https://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/grovemusic/view/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.001.0001/omo-9781561592630-e-1002258563 |entry=Twain, Shania |first=David B. |last=Pruett |dictionary=[[The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians|Oxford Music Online]] |doi=10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.A2258563}}
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 12:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I've also been having this same exact problem lately! --
Woko Sapien (
talk)
13:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Consistently getting "502 Bad Gateway" now on all modes of activating the bot. Abductive ( reasoning) 21:29, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
|last=
and |first=
→→→ |last1=
and |first1=
|last2/first2=
are used. It's cosmetic, so shouldn't be done on its own, but it's a good change when it's done.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
11:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
The
{{Cite Journal}} template documentation has several examples (and empty copyable implementation proposals for the template) using |last=
/|first=
, at least one even in combination with |last2=
/|first2=
. I don't think the bot should "correct" what is acceptable for the template documentation. An easy way forward would seem to update the template documentation, so that only "canonical" forms of the parameter names are shown in the examples. I don't think it is up to the bot to force an update to the template documentation by edits that seem mind-boggling to editors such as the OP of this section. If bot-edit-initiators want to continue these edits, I suggest they follow due process for a template documentation update first (if nobody protests a
WP:BOLD edit to that documentation may suffice). Sorry if, in the end, that gives the bot less to do, while editors will more likely follow streamlined documentation examples from then on. --
Francis Schonken (
talk)
13:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
|last=
and |last1=
as canonical, even in the presence of |last2=
. |last=
and |last1=
are, and always have been, equal aliases. In days of old when cs1|2 used {{
citation/core}}
there was a hierarchy when choosing from among simultaneous use of the various parameters for the meta-parameter |Surname1=
:
Surname1={{{last|{{{last1|{{{author|{{{author1|{{{authors|{{{surname|{{{surname1|}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
|last3=
in a citation, then you would naturally seek |last2=
and |last1=
within the same citation. Those changes makes reviewing citations that much easier. No different than normalizing |editor-last=
to |editor1-last=
when you have |editor2-last=
present.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
15:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
|last=
/|first=
/|given=
/|surname=
(with or without enumerator) to the corresponding |author-last=
/|author-first=
/|author-given=
/|author-surname=
parameter if editor-
, translator-
, contributor-
or interviewer-
parameters with -last
/-first
/-given
/-surname
/-link
/-mask
postfixes are also present in a citation...|last/first=
are clearly referring to authors, and adding 7 to 14 bites of text per author, amounting to
several thousand bites of clutter serves no purpose.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
21:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
|1=
to |999=
would be so much shorter... ;->|last=
/|first=
are nicely short and it is good that we have them as typing shorthands while editing.|author-last=
and |editor-last=
(although even these parameter names are far from perfect) than |last=
and |editor-last=
.|l=
(author-last), |f=
(author-first), |t=
(title), |d=
(date), |w=
(work), |b=
(publisher), |v=
(volume), |i=
(issue), |e=
(edition), |p=
(pages), |u=
(url), etc., but they would have to be reliably picked up and expanded by bots within a couple of hours for this to be useful.)
https://search.crossref.org/?from_ui=&q=10.1007%2F978-3-319-28085-1_677 weird. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 02:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Changing a IDBSN10 to an ISBN13 is does not need to be "Correct"ed though it could be "Convert"ed. An ISBN10 is perfectly valid I will often use when printed in a book and an ISBN13 is not given. Please sort out the derogatory summary. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 06:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't know if anything can be done about this but maybe there should be an exception list for obvious errors like these, where the authorship of a book has been parsed incorrectly [caused by a cataloguing error at Google Books?], leading to a silly result. The case where it arose can be seen at this diff (my reversions), if anyone wants details. The sources are scanned C18 and C19 books so not compliant with modern standards. Disgraceful! ;-^ -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 12:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
{{ fixed}}. Blacklisted the bad authors. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 14:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Citation bot. I've just come across this edit. While it is, in principle, correct to replace a backtick with an apostrophe, in this case it is precisely the backtick that was used in the source. I don't have an opinion here, but I'm wondering, how far should we go in normalising source titles? – Uanfala (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
In ciation of "title=Left Handed Incandescent Light Bulbs?", Citation bot attempted to clean up empty entries ie. "last=" etc., but killed along the "last1=Eisenbraun", causing a template error.
It would be better if Citation bot can detect whether it made any syntax errors, and roll-back if it did.
For the citation: title=Engineering Rules: Global Standard Setting since 1880; isbn=978-1-4214-4003-3; publisher=JHU Press
google books stated puclishing date of "30 March 2021" which is slightly out of reality. (Yes some publishers intentionally do that)
So I left the date entries empty, but Citation bot inserted "date=30 March 2021". Google Books contains a lot of wrong data, please do not automatically bring them.
This edit has been reverted. The names of some titles should be italicized and others not. This change made titles which should not be italicized into italicized versions, and that was not an improvement. Maybe a different parameter could be used, but this wasn't the right one. -- Valjean ( talk) 15:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
|agency=
is appropriate when an agency's work is reprinted in another source (typically a newspaper). When citing the agency's work directly, |work=
gets the name of the agency.Citation bot is not working. The OAuth dialog is not coming via the web interface, nothing happens (only throbber). Grimes2 ( talk) 12:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
They don't impact the layout of the page or do anything meaningful that I can see. If the bot is only changing something like swapping out "lang=en" for "language=English", then I propose that you don't make those kinds of edits to a page unless the bot is also making a change that will in some way change the functioning or appearance of the page. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 06:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
|language=
from a WikiMedia-supported language code to the language name, it would be better if it didn't. Templates copied from en.wiki to other-language wikis will render |language=<code>
in that wiki's language.{{
cite journal}}
template when the cited source is not a journal. To do that properly requires that the bot knows what kind of periodical is being cited. Simply renaming the |work=
alias to match the template name is, as the example shows, not always a correct action.|work=
L'Acadie Nouvelle
is a newspaper and not a journal, then the underlying issue is you used a {{
cite journal}} instead of {{
cite newspaper}}.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
12:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
{{cite journal |work=<magazine name> |...}}
to {{cite journal |journal=<magazine name> |...}}
, that change is cosmetic and unless accompanied by substantive, non-cosmetic, changes should not be made. Even when accompanied by substantive changes, the {{cite journal |journal=<magazine name> |...}}
'fix' is not a fix, and won't highlight anything because such fixes will likely be lost among the substantive changes. The correct fix for this example is {{cite magazine |magazine=<magazine name> |...}}
or for your example {{cite news |newspaper=<newspaper name> |...}}
. To do that, the bot must know that
Record Collector is a magazine and that
L'Acadie Nouvelle is a newspaper. When the bot does not know, it should not make these 'fixes'. There is actually nothing wrong with |work=[[Record Collector]]
and |work=[[L'Acadie Nouvelle]]
. The thing that is wrong is the use of {{
cite journal}}
for these periodicals.Let me say, first, that I'm quite happy with most of Citation bot's edits nowadays, so much so that I check, on average, only one out of two that pops up in my watchlist. I'm contributing to this talk page section while a few days ago I saw a WP:COSMETICBOT edit, this one, which I wasn't going to mention if it was an outlier, but since someone started a topic on such edits,... -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 10:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
|work=
family of parameters, so we change |work=
to |magazine=
in {{
cite magazine}} to help prevents such future errors of someone adding |magazine=
. We change the evil template {{
cite}} to {{
citation}} because {{
cite}} looks like it is member of the {{
cite journal}} family of templates, but it is really part of the {{
citation}} family, and thus renders much differently: this change makes the inconsistent citations more obvious to editors and thus encourages future non-cosmetic edits to fix this problem. |first=
to |first1=
when |first2=
is present makes future editors lives easier when they are editing (a very very small amount I admit). Removing of duplicate empty parameters makes editing easier and prevents future problems ("I should fill in that |author1=
because it is empty" which is good, but sadly |last1=
is already set in that template). Replacing {{
cite-web}} and {{
web cite}} with {{
cite web}} helps teach editors the right templates and introduces them to the whole CS1/CS2 family. So, I would say that setting a good example for editors is not purely cosmetic - the underlying source code of the wikipages and the rendered pages are both products of wikipedia - in that it helps prevent future edits from going wrong. I wonder exactly where the line should be drawn.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
12:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
This is ultimately a cosmetic issue, if you have cite journal, then the work cited should be a journal. If you have a cite magazine, the work cited should be a magazine. The bot remedies the discrepancy. If there's an underlying issue, then all you have to do it update the {{
cite journal}} to a {{
cite magazine}}, and the bot will instead convert |journal=
to |magazine=
. Compare
|journal=
→ Smith, J. (2016). "Article". Nintendo Power. 65 (135): 60−67.|magazine=
→ Smith, J. (2016). "Article". Nintendo Power. 65 (135): 60−67.|journal=
→ Smith, J. (2016). "Article". Nintendo Power. Vol. 65, no. 135. pp. 60−67.|magazine=
→ Smith, J. (2016). "Article". Nintendo Power. Vol. 65, no. 135. pp. 60−67.In both cases, the visual output is unaffected, and readers see the exact same thing. All the bot does is make the journal/magazine discrepancy disappear. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 20:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
{{ notabug}}
Applies to basically every |identifier=
http://...identifier.org/foobar
→ |identifier=foobar
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
19:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Why would the bot need a second edit to remove a parameter it missed on its immediately preceding edit to Upton, Merseyside? Abductive ( reasoning) 19:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello and thanks for all the good work. I'm wondering about the reason for this edit, where the bot unlinked the publisher. I've been systematically fixing certain bad links, many of which refer to publishers; should I be unlinking these articles instead? Certes ( talk) 10:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
|publisher=
, not |journal=
.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
11:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)|journal=Publication - University of Alaska, [[Alaska Cooperative Extension Service|Cooperative Extension Service]] (USA)
and |journal=Publication - University of Alaska, Cooperative Extension Service (USA)
are wrong – should be |publisher=University of Alaska, Cooperative Extension Service
; |last=Fairbanks)|first=Morgan, R. (University of Alaska
is not the author's name; |date=1991-01-01
is not the date of the cited document (July 2015).{{ fixed}} I belive. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 14:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
See this edit. Citation bot removes quoation marks around cite titles ('...' in this case, but I've seen "...", too), even though the original source title also contains them, given that the title itself is a quote. I could not immediately find a MOS entry that speaks against this formatting, so I don't think CB should perform changes on these instances. IceWelder [ ✉] 09:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Bist du bei mir#Citation templates, second bullet of the OP. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 10:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
|publication-place=
parameter into a |location=
parameter in a citation
I received this complaint about Citation bot's behavior on my talk page:
Abductive (
reasoning)
09:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
*Don't replace publication-place
Hi Abductive, in this edit ( [47]) you changed a|publication-place=
parameter into a|location=
parameter in a citation. Please don't do that, they are not the same. By changing the parameter you are invalidating the information in the citation.|publication-place=
is, obviously, for the publication place, and|location=
is for the written-at-place. (The mixup is likely because in the past|location=
was a parameter used for both.) Thanks. -- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 09:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
|location=
and |publication-place=
are alias of each other, and the only place there's a distinction is in cite conference to indicate the location of the conference vs the location of the publisher.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
13:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)|foobar1=
to |foobar5=
instad of the other way around.
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3693
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
16:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Thiyya and Ezhava is separate cast new kerala government order. Please approval Thiyyar page Nandanavijayan ( talk) 15:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
There has been an edit war between User:JCW-CleanerBot and User:Citation Bot over at Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous:
I have added a comment to the journal name asking Citation Bot to please stop changing the name so this edit war stops. This is the second Citation Bot bug I have had to deal with over at Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous SkylabField ( talk) 18:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
|journal=
to a book / not recognizing that it is the title of the series because the metadata includes the fluff of ": (An|The) Official..." .
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
19:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm asking the bot to check the category 2019 in British television through this link. I click "process pages in category" and then nothing happens. No error message, nothing. Has happened before as well. Any ideas?-- 5 albert square ( talk) 20:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
{{ fixed}} for now.
The citation bot changed {{ cite}} to {{ citation}} in IBM System/370, changing the rendering to cs2. While I prefer cs2, doing this automatically seems to violate WP:CITEVAR. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 03:22, 18 December 2020 (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 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | → | Archive 30 |
Your recent editing history at Lost council election cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 16:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Magnificat (Torri) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 16:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
note to self-fix excensive adsabs too.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
11:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
]. The topic is Maledomni, not Ophel (Jerusalem).
I think I know where it comes from: I went to a certain page (Ophel) and searched for another topic (Maledomni), and copied into the citation the URL created by the search, which indeed leads to the only available page about the search word in the Google version of the book. Now I've replaced it with the URL of the actual page dealing with Maledomni, so in this case the problem is solved, but the general bug remains: if there's a QUESTION MARK after google.books/ and before "id", then the bot shouldn't remove everything that comes after the page number (and replace it with #v=onepage), because it's removing the most relevant part and taking it all to the wrong page. Cheers,
Arminden (
talk)
10:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
For context, it's known that links to Google Books are not be relied upon: Wikipedia:Google Books and Wikipedia. Editors who wish their references to be useful long-term need to use other targets for their links. Nemo 12:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Folks, let's cool it down a bit. There was a page number in the URL, and removing what followed after it meant that - that page number alone was left standing, and considering that, Google Books did nothing wrong. The code/bot needed to take this aspect into consideration and not to touch URLs where a question mark follows immediately after "id" and "pg". If Google Books will cut everyone from accessing the preview, as it happens from time to time with some specific titles, it's both their loss and ours, but maybe not the (c) holders'; so far we're getting more than anyone accustomed to German or EU copyright laws can even expect to be allowed to access. Btw, if you're cut off from certain pages because of the country you're in: try changing the URL ending, say, from .co.it to .co.uk or .com or whatever comes to mind; it usually works and one gets more, or different, preview pages. Cheers, Arminden ( talk) 18:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Seems to be a rare database error. Added comment to prevent someone (or bot) from looking it up and adding wrong one.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
16:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I have added that host to the list of publisher hosts.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
01:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
The bot is still removing the url= parameter when it is a "duplicate" of an identifier, resulting in the delinking of titles in citations. Can someone please make it stop doing that so the whole bot doesn't need to be blocked again? We are past the point where anyone can claim there is community consensus for these edits; these are unauthorized bot edits. Thank you. Le v!v ich 17:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
|url=
parameter (e.g. "The genome of an ancient Rouran individual ..." and "Historical Dictionary of Medieval China"), among other problems (e.g. changing the target of some URLs). Also, I'm not sure that all the removed URLs were duplicates (e.g. the one to Amazon Books). Overall, I just don't see any of the 9 approved tasks on Citation Bot's userpage as authorizing the changes made in this edit today.
Le
v!v
ich
16:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
|doi-access=free
if appropriate, which is another way the bot helps having more links rather than less.
Nemo
21:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
de-links several citation titles, which is exactly what that edit did. What part of WP:Citing sources are you referring to? Can you quote? Le v!v ich 21:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
$this->forget($url_type);
line (which I suppose removes the url) in
template.php at github was commented out prior to the bot being unblocked in August, but only for the s2cid identifier; the line was not commented out for the other identifiers (such as the ones in these examples). It seems pretty straightforward to comment out the corresponding line for the other identifiers and thus stop the bot from removing the |url=
parameter.
Le
v!v
ich
05:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
it generally is not important to cite a databaseand so on: we love PubMed, but it is just one choice among dozens to provide an abstract or a search engine result (unlike PubMed Central, which has the full text and has an auto-linking identifier parameter). Nemo 07:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
{{ fixed}}
Persuant to WP:BOTAPPEAL, I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#Citation_bot regarding this bot's continued approval. AntiCompositeNumber ( talk) 19:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
{{ fixed}} - discussion seems to have closed. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 12:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
The bot's edits include actions that are currently the subject of an RfC at
WP:VPPR#Issues raised by Citation bot. Halfway through the runtime of that RfC it is impossible to say whether these actions such as removing links from titles will garner consensus to be allowed. What did you think: I'll run them now before they are possibly forbidden in a few weeks? Don't take us content editors for naive please. --
Francis Schonken (
talk)
05:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC) – ammended 05:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--
Francis Schonken (
talk)
05:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
{{ fixed}} - discussion seems to have closed. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 12:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
.com redirects to people's local country. But local countries do not re-direct back to .com or anyone else's local country. That is why .com is preferred: everyone get's their local copy.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
13:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
The bot has now twice changed the title of the journal Neue musikalische Presse in the article
Johannes Brahms. German adjectives are in lower case and this is no exception according to the source:
https://www.ripm.org/?page=JournalInfo&ABB=NMP. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk)
03:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Same here, for French. Simply skip everything that has non-English |language=
, they’re more likely to be false positives than true ones. —
Tacsipacsi (
talk)
23:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Upon trying to 'Expand citations' on an article I eventually got a weird message, GIT pull in progress
. What does it mean?
Abductive (
reasoning)
03:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
{{ fixed}} with a better error message. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 17:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3580 Should be deployed soon.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
12:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Is there any reason, other than American pride, that URLs to google.co.uk are being all changed to google.com? Seems a bit petty to be honest. As examples see [13], [14] and [15] which are all English subjects referred to by books published in England. It is just annoying when you get up to half a dozen entries per day in your watchlist which are pointless fiddling. Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 13:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Something broke in the capitalization logic. Those shouldn't have been touched.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
14:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3585
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
21:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3585
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
21:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Not every publication with an ISSN is a journal. Certain series of books have an ISSN as well. Therefore a citation with an ISSN should not automatically be changed into a "cite journal".
|deadlink=
to |titlelink=
|deadlink=
to |url-status=
and change the value of the parameter appropriately, or the bot should leave |deadlink=
alone
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3624
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
22:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
This is pointless. Why is this bot doing this? ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯
05:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3630 will fix that once deployed AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 12:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
|isbn=
and |ISBN=
are equal alisaes
A change was made to the article I was preparing in MY sandpit and aginst the version history was the commentas follows:
Alter: template type. Remove Template type redirect. | You can use this bot yourself. Report bugs here. | Suggested by AManWithNoPlan | via #UCB_toolbar undo Tag: Reverted)
Could someone please explain to me what this mean? What this a bot or was it another user (i.e. AManWithNoPlan)? Thank you. Blammy1 ( talk) 15:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Does the bot check if it was the last editor of an article before doing any (duplicate) work? Especially calls to external databases? Abductive ( reasoning) 18:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
{{ notabug}}, but is listed on the GitHub issues page. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 20:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Citations of the form
Should in my view be expanded routinely to separate lines:
Reason: legibility by humans, makes human inspection much easier
Negative side effects: None. Files are not larger nor are they slower to process.
If anyone knows of an automated procedure doing the opposite (collapsing citations) please let me know so I can address that too. Thank you. deisenbe ( talk) 09:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
{{ wont fix}} This is textbook WP:CONTEXTBOT/ WP:CITEVAR issues. A WP:SCRIPT may fly (see WP:SCRIPTREQ), but the misuse of such a script would be a good way to get you banned/blocked. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 17:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3623 Once deployed, should fix it.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
13:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Same here, for French. Simply skip everything that has non-English |language=
, they’re more likely to be false positives than true ones. —
Tacsipacsi (
talk)
23:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
|language=
does not refer to the title of the work but to the content, so it is more than possible for English short works to show up in non-English works, and vice versa. --
Izno (
talk)
15:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)@ Izno: Yes, it’s the language of the work, but in my experience non-English journals rarely have English titles (I see journals in whatever language with Latin titles every now and then, but otherwise the titles’ languages usually correspond to the content’s languages). In any case, not fixing an incorrect title (false negative) is a much smaller issue than incorrectly “fixing” a correct title (false positive). An automatic bot should only fix things it can confidently fix. — Tacsipacsi ( talk) 20:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
See the correction that I made here. The bot changed a citation of a book to a citation of a review of the book (the review was published in the journal Nature):
These links no longer work
What's the new format? Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 18:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Fixed - report more like capitaliztions .
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
23:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3602
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
23:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3602
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
23:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3602
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
23:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
This will ignore that groups DOIs
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3614
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
14:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
After completing a run on a category or other group of pages, the bot should include in its last edit summary a note that the run is complete. Abductive ( reasoning) 21:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
In this
diff see |title=Secreto | ; Stud Record | ; Bloodstock Stallion Book | ; Racing Post
.. the | ;
is a
vertical bar that ideally would changed to {{
pipe}}
(unclear if this is the same as {{
!}}
). There are two other reserved characters for the title field: [ = [ ; = {{bracket}}
and ] = ] ; = ??
- is this something CitationBot could convert? --
Green
C
02:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
The Bot is linking a journal to Irish Greyhound Review book for The 75 Years History of the Irish Greyhound Derby. I don't know why. Example of a page affected
1938 UK & Ireland Greyhound Racing Year. Many thanks
Racingmanager (
talk)
07:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Please note following my earlier bug report that I did not enter the wrong issn number on the 100+ articles that you indicated, I have the book in front of me and can confirm that the ISSN is 0709-0609. Looking on Google maybe a Canadian issn has been mixed up with an Irish issn but that does not change the fact that I entered the correct ISSN on all of the pages> Also I can't see anything on Google with an ISSN number of 0332-3536. Many thanks Racingmanager ( talk) 17:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
{{ notabug}}
The bot didn't do that BTW, that was
a manual edit of mine, but I did expect the bot to convert things correctly after me.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
19:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
When the duplicate are the same, just remove the duplicate, instead of marking it as a duplicate. To be clear here, the PMIDs weren't exactly the same (some had a stray /), but the DOIs were.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
02:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Likely covers a lot of Las Something too.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
01:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
|mr=
Same as stripping PMC from |pmc=
essentially.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
03:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Done all 19 pages linked from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Journals_cited_by_Wikipedia/Sandbox # # #
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3656
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
19:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
This is a common miscapitalization, and I need to manually clean it up every few weeks.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
23:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Excerpt from the documentation:
agency: The news agency (wire service) that provided the content; examples: Associated Press, Reuters, Agence France-Presse. Do not use for sources published on the agency's own website; e.g. apnews.com or reuters.com; instead, use work or publisher. May be wikilinked if relevant.
Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a website, book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, etc.).
|work=
and equivalent, when it is directly cited (rather than as an agency). --
Izno (
talk)
02:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
|work=Reuters
.
|work=BBC News
because |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/...
; omit |publisher=
because BBC and BBC News are substantially the same.
The bug fix for Agency discussed at
User_talk:Citation_bot/Archive_23#Agency prevents the bot from changing work to agency but doesn't fix it when agency should be changed to work (for example, due to previous runs of the bot).
Do you have a
diff? This is likely a database/metadata issue.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
06:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Citation bot: 'Talk%3ADomain coloring'
). The bot also failed to completely fill in (and maybe incorrectly filled in) uses of {{
cite arxiv}}.
Not sure what your problem is with the Bot, it work for me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3ADomain_coloring&type=revision&diff=986942210&oldid=986942172
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
21:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Citation bot: 'Talk%3ADomain coloring'
). That might be a GET vs POST thing. Also odd is that this time, it set year=2020, but last time it gave year=2002 (but that's probably just a result of the previous GIGO). --
Pokechu22 (
talk)
22:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
It's actually the {{
pp}} that stops it. Rare to see that on a semi-protected page.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
16:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Achieved after stripping &ved=2ahUKEwig4sbnsebsAhVKXKwKHYNoDJQ4FBAWMAF6BAgJEAE&usg=AOvVaw2eKB_kEGskwK4Rvld3KoW4
and %3Fseq%3D1
from the URL.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
21:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
I will investigate if this is a bug or just random database failures.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
19:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
First, many thanks to everyone who works on these bots. I don't really consider a few anecdotal inappropriate changes to be bugs but I do have a question. I’m not familiar with what’s under the hood, but would it be plausible to maintain a list of specific parameter+value pairs for bot exclusion to avoid what might become common yet sub-optimal corrections? For example, in this case, I noticed the bot just made a few changes on Al Gore: a cite news was switched from agency=Reuters to work=Reuters and another from publisher=BBC News to work=BBC News. (I don't see that agency is even available for cite news but I presume publisher is more appropriate for both.) Since major news organizations such as these are probably frequently cited, it might be beneficial to not have them all changed to work. A list of parm+value specific exclusions would essentially be a whitelist, used to prevent bot edits. Presumably, there would be a proposed vs vetted list. I apologize in advance if this has already been discussed and archived long ago; it’s been 15 years since I was deep into regex/parsers but it’s hard to not think of possible tweaks. Zatsugaku ( talk) 17:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
|agency=
applies when a newspaper or other source 'reprints' a story that it got from a news agency. When the source is the agency as is the case at
Al Gore, the agency is the work. |agency=
is a valid {{
cite news}}
parameter; see
template doc.How can the bot add a s2cid to the article Heart after it added a s2cid a few days before, and with only OAbot editing in the interim? None of the refs were the same. Abductive ( reasoning) 01:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
"west"
and a ref named west
.
Abductive (
reasoning)
21:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Covers many journals in the JMIR series WP:JCW/Publisher10#Journal of Medical Internet Research Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 02:31, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
cs1|2 does not have a parameter named |local=Campinas
. Presumably this is intended to be |location=
. It is certainly not |nocat=
which should probably never be used in mainspace (it is also on the short list to be deprecated and removed because we have a better parameter name: |no-tracking=
).
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 00:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
does this bot work in farsi.wikipedia or is there another or similiar or better bot? Baratiiman ( talk) 13:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Affects a bunch of
EPJ journals.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
04:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with bugs in Citation bot, but I noticed today that the metadata in the doi database for publications in IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity consistently misspells it Appiled. There haven't been many copies of these errors that have propagated to Wikipedia but I found one in Superconducting magnetic energy storage. So if citation bot gets any data from this source, it might want to check for this misspelling. — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
{{ fixed}}
At WP:BRFA I have proposed a cosmetic bot task that replaces to-be-deprecated all-run-together parameter name forms with their canonical hyphenated name forms. In discussion at the BRFA, an editor has suggested that the task should not be approved until all tools that use the all-run-together parameter name forms have been updated to use hyphenated parameter name forms. I have spent some time trolling through Citation bot's recent edits and have found no indication that all-run-together parameter names are used but neither did I find any cases of hyphenated parameter name use. When adding new parameters to a cs1|2 citation and when given a choice between hyphenated and all-run-together, which does Citation bot choose? If the all-run-together form, can that be changed to the hyphenated form?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
|title=
to |chapter=
in {{
cite dictionary}}
(a redirect to {{
cite encyclopedia}}
) without also renaming |url=
to |chapter-url=
As an aside, for {{cite dictionary}}
|entry=
and |entry-url=
are likely better choices than |chapter=
and |chapter-url=
:
{{cite dictionary |entry-url=https://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/grovemusic/view/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.001.0001/omo-9781561592630-e-1002258563 |entry=Twain, Shania |first=David B. |last=Pruett |dictionary=[[The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians|Oxford Music Online]] |doi=10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.A2258563}}
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 12:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I've also been having this same exact problem lately! --
Woko Sapien (
talk)
13:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Consistently getting "502 Bad Gateway" now on all modes of activating the bot. Abductive ( reasoning) 21:29, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
|last=
and |first=
→→→ |last1=
and |first1=
|last2/first2=
are used. It's cosmetic, so shouldn't be done on its own, but it's a good change when it's done.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
11:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
The
{{Cite Journal}} template documentation has several examples (and empty copyable implementation proposals for the template) using |last=
/|first=
, at least one even in combination with |last2=
/|first2=
. I don't think the bot should "correct" what is acceptable for the template documentation. An easy way forward would seem to update the template documentation, so that only "canonical" forms of the parameter names are shown in the examples. I don't think it is up to the bot to force an update to the template documentation by edits that seem mind-boggling to editors such as the OP of this section. If bot-edit-initiators want to continue these edits, I suggest they follow due process for a template documentation update first (if nobody protests a
WP:BOLD edit to that documentation may suffice). Sorry if, in the end, that gives the bot less to do, while editors will more likely follow streamlined documentation examples from then on. --
Francis Schonken (
talk)
13:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
|last=
and |last1=
as canonical, even in the presence of |last2=
. |last=
and |last1=
are, and always have been, equal aliases. In days of old when cs1|2 used {{
citation/core}}
there was a hierarchy when choosing from among simultaneous use of the various parameters for the meta-parameter |Surname1=
:
Surname1={{{last|{{{last1|{{{author|{{{author1|{{{authors|{{{surname|{{{surname1|}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
|last3=
in a citation, then you would naturally seek |last2=
and |last1=
within the same citation. Those changes makes reviewing citations that much easier. No different than normalizing |editor-last=
to |editor1-last=
when you have |editor2-last=
present.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
15:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
|last=
/|first=
/|given=
/|surname=
(with or without enumerator) to the corresponding |author-last=
/|author-first=
/|author-given=
/|author-surname=
parameter if editor-
, translator-
, contributor-
or interviewer-
parameters with -last
/-first
/-given
/-surname
/-link
/-mask
postfixes are also present in a citation...|last/first=
are clearly referring to authors, and adding 7 to 14 bites of text per author, amounting to
several thousand bites of clutter serves no purpose.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
21:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
|1=
to |999=
would be so much shorter... ;->|last=
/|first=
are nicely short and it is good that we have them as typing shorthands while editing.|author-last=
and |editor-last=
(although even these parameter names are far from perfect) than |last=
and |editor-last=
.|l=
(author-last), |f=
(author-first), |t=
(title), |d=
(date), |w=
(work), |b=
(publisher), |v=
(volume), |i=
(issue), |e=
(edition), |p=
(pages), |u=
(url), etc., but they would have to be reliably picked up and expanded by bots within a couple of hours for this to be useful.)
https://search.crossref.org/?from_ui=&q=10.1007%2F978-3-319-28085-1_677 weird. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 02:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Changing a IDBSN10 to an ISBN13 is does not need to be "Correct"ed though it could be "Convert"ed. An ISBN10 is perfectly valid I will often use when printed in a book and an ISBN13 is not given. Please sort out the derogatory summary. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 06:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't know if anything can be done about this but maybe there should be an exception list for obvious errors like these, where the authorship of a book has been parsed incorrectly [caused by a cataloguing error at Google Books?], leading to a silly result. The case where it arose can be seen at this diff (my reversions), if anyone wants details. The sources are scanned C18 and C19 books so not compliant with modern standards. Disgraceful! ;-^ -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 12:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
{{ fixed}}. Blacklisted the bad authors. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 14:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Citation bot. I've just come across this edit. While it is, in principle, correct to replace a backtick with an apostrophe, in this case it is precisely the backtick that was used in the source. I don't have an opinion here, but I'm wondering, how far should we go in normalising source titles? – Uanfala (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
In ciation of "title=Left Handed Incandescent Light Bulbs?", Citation bot attempted to clean up empty entries ie. "last=" etc., but killed along the "last1=Eisenbraun", causing a template error.
It would be better if Citation bot can detect whether it made any syntax errors, and roll-back if it did.
For the citation: title=Engineering Rules: Global Standard Setting since 1880; isbn=978-1-4214-4003-3; publisher=JHU Press
google books stated puclishing date of "30 March 2021" which is slightly out of reality. (Yes some publishers intentionally do that)
So I left the date entries empty, but Citation bot inserted "date=30 March 2021". Google Books contains a lot of wrong data, please do not automatically bring them.
This edit has been reverted. The names of some titles should be italicized and others not. This change made titles which should not be italicized into italicized versions, and that was not an improvement. Maybe a different parameter could be used, but this wasn't the right one. -- Valjean ( talk) 15:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
|agency=
is appropriate when an agency's work is reprinted in another source (typically a newspaper). When citing the agency's work directly, |work=
gets the name of the agency.Citation bot is not working. The OAuth dialog is not coming via the web interface, nothing happens (only throbber). Grimes2 ( talk) 12:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
They don't impact the layout of the page or do anything meaningful that I can see. If the bot is only changing something like swapping out "lang=en" for "language=English", then I propose that you don't make those kinds of edits to a page unless the bot is also making a change that will in some way change the functioning or appearance of the page. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 06:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
|language=
from a WikiMedia-supported language code to the language name, it would be better if it didn't. Templates copied from en.wiki to other-language wikis will render |language=<code>
in that wiki's language.{{
cite journal}}
template when the cited source is not a journal. To do that properly requires that the bot knows what kind of periodical is being cited. Simply renaming the |work=
alias to match the template name is, as the example shows, not always a correct action.|work=
L'Acadie Nouvelle
is a newspaper and not a journal, then the underlying issue is you used a {{
cite journal}} instead of {{
cite newspaper}}.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
12:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
{{cite journal |work=<magazine name> |...}}
to {{cite journal |journal=<magazine name> |...}}
, that change is cosmetic and unless accompanied by substantive, non-cosmetic, changes should not be made. Even when accompanied by substantive changes, the {{cite journal |journal=<magazine name> |...}}
'fix' is not a fix, and won't highlight anything because such fixes will likely be lost among the substantive changes. The correct fix for this example is {{cite magazine |magazine=<magazine name> |...}}
or for your example {{cite news |newspaper=<newspaper name> |...}}
. To do that, the bot must know that
Record Collector is a magazine and that
L'Acadie Nouvelle is a newspaper. When the bot does not know, it should not make these 'fixes'. There is actually nothing wrong with |work=[[Record Collector]]
and |work=[[L'Acadie Nouvelle]]
. The thing that is wrong is the use of {{
cite journal}}
for these periodicals.Let me say, first, that I'm quite happy with most of Citation bot's edits nowadays, so much so that I check, on average, only one out of two that pops up in my watchlist. I'm contributing to this talk page section while a few days ago I saw a WP:COSMETICBOT edit, this one, which I wasn't going to mention if it was an outlier, but since someone started a topic on such edits,... -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 10:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
|work=
family of parameters, so we change |work=
to |magazine=
in {{
cite magazine}} to help prevents such future errors of someone adding |magazine=
. We change the evil template {{
cite}} to {{
citation}} because {{
cite}} looks like it is member of the {{
cite journal}} family of templates, but it is really part of the {{
citation}} family, and thus renders much differently: this change makes the inconsistent citations more obvious to editors and thus encourages future non-cosmetic edits to fix this problem. |first=
to |first1=
when |first2=
is present makes future editors lives easier when they are editing (a very very small amount I admit). Removing of duplicate empty parameters makes editing easier and prevents future problems ("I should fill in that |author1=
because it is empty" which is good, but sadly |last1=
is already set in that template). Replacing {{
cite-web}} and {{
web cite}} with {{
cite web}} helps teach editors the right templates and introduces them to the whole CS1/CS2 family. So, I would say that setting a good example for editors is not purely cosmetic - the underlying source code of the wikipages and the rendered pages are both products of wikipedia - in that it helps prevent future edits from going wrong. I wonder exactly where the line should be drawn.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
12:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
This is ultimately a cosmetic issue, if you have cite journal, then the work cited should be a journal. If you have a cite magazine, the work cited should be a magazine. The bot remedies the discrepancy. If there's an underlying issue, then all you have to do it update the {{
cite journal}} to a {{
cite magazine}}, and the bot will instead convert |journal=
to |magazine=
. Compare
|journal=
→ Smith, J. (2016). "Article". Nintendo Power. 65 (135): 60−67.|magazine=
→ Smith, J. (2016). "Article". Nintendo Power. 65 (135): 60−67.|journal=
→ Smith, J. (2016). "Article". Nintendo Power. Vol. 65, no. 135. pp. 60−67.|magazine=
→ Smith, J. (2016). "Article". Nintendo Power. Vol. 65, no. 135. pp. 60−67.In both cases, the visual output is unaffected, and readers see the exact same thing. All the bot does is make the journal/magazine discrepancy disappear. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 20:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
{{ notabug}}
Applies to basically every |identifier=
http://...identifier.org/foobar
→ |identifier=foobar
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
19:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Why would the bot need a second edit to remove a parameter it missed on its immediately preceding edit to Upton, Merseyside? Abductive ( reasoning) 19:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello and thanks for all the good work. I'm wondering about the reason for this edit, where the bot unlinked the publisher. I've been systematically fixing certain bad links, many of which refer to publishers; should I be unlinking these articles instead? Certes ( talk) 10:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
|publisher=
, not |journal=
.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
11:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)|journal=Publication - University of Alaska, [[Alaska Cooperative Extension Service|Cooperative Extension Service]] (USA)
and |journal=Publication - University of Alaska, Cooperative Extension Service (USA)
are wrong – should be |publisher=University of Alaska, Cooperative Extension Service
; |last=Fairbanks)|first=Morgan, R. (University of Alaska
is not the author's name; |date=1991-01-01
is not the date of the cited document (July 2015).{{ fixed}} I belive. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 14:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
See this edit. Citation bot removes quoation marks around cite titles ('...' in this case, but I've seen "...", too), even though the original source title also contains them, given that the title itself is a quote. I could not immediately find a MOS entry that speaks against this formatting, so I don't think CB should perform changes on these instances. IceWelder [ ✉] 09:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Bist du bei mir#Citation templates, second bullet of the OP. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 10:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
|publication-place=
parameter into a |location=
parameter in a citation
I received this complaint about Citation bot's behavior on my talk page:
Abductive (
reasoning)
09:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
*Don't replace publication-place
Hi Abductive, in this edit ( [47]) you changed a|publication-place=
parameter into a|location=
parameter in a citation. Please don't do that, they are not the same. By changing the parameter you are invalidating the information in the citation.|publication-place=
is, obviously, for the publication place, and|location=
is for the written-at-place. (The mixup is likely because in the past|location=
was a parameter used for both.) Thanks. -- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 09:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
|location=
and |publication-place=
are alias of each other, and the only place there's a distinction is in cite conference to indicate the location of the conference vs the location of the publisher.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
13:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)|foobar1=
to |foobar5=
instad of the other way around.
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3693
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
16:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Thiyya and Ezhava is separate cast new kerala government order. Please approval Thiyyar page Nandanavijayan ( talk) 15:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
There has been an edit war between User:JCW-CleanerBot and User:Citation Bot over at Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous:
I have added a comment to the journal name asking Citation Bot to please stop changing the name so this edit war stops. This is the second Citation Bot bug I have had to deal with over at Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous SkylabField ( talk) 18:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
|journal=
to a book / not recognizing that it is the title of the series because the metadata includes the fluff of ": (An|The) Official..." .
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
19:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm asking the bot to check the category 2019 in British television through this link. I click "process pages in category" and then nothing happens. No error message, nothing. Has happened before as well. Any ideas?-- 5 albert square ( talk) 20:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
{{ fixed}} for now.
The citation bot changed {{ cite}} to {{ citation}} in IBM System/370, changing the rendering to cs2. While I prefer cs2, doing this automatically seems to violate WP:CITEVAR. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 03:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)