![]() | 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 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | → | Archive 30 |
This bot replaces "first=" and "last=" in author names with "first1=" and "last1=", even when there is only one author. It is considered poor style to use a 1 when not also using at least a 2. Can somebody fix this problem? Antinoos69 ( talk) 16:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Disregard if this is what the URL expander is, I wasn't certain. --~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)
neko-chan
nyan
00:57, 22 December 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 ( [2]) 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)
|location=
and |place=
are aliases of each other, but |publication-place=
is not. The publication place and written-at-place are both bibliographical information and they are presented in citations when relevant, that's why we have parameters and code to distinguish between them where necessary. --
Matthiaspaul (
talk)
15:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)|written-place=
) to stop the (historical) mess.|publication-place=
to indicate that the given place is in fact a publication place, because s/he knows that it is a publication place rather than a written-at-place, this is a good thing helping to improve the quality of information in a citation and not something anyone should override. Ideally, the opposite should happen, move |location=
information into |publication-place=
if it is known to be a publication place, but this is something that no bot could do, because it needs a human checking the source if the provided information is a publication place or a written-at-place.|publication-place=
by |location=
is an obvious bug that needs to be fixed. It is the same as if the bot would replace |publication-date=
by |date=
or |editor=
by |author=
or similar, it is invalidating the information in the citation.|publication-place=
and |location=
are not aliases of each other. The only alias for |publication-place=
is |publicationplace=
; the only alias for |location=
is |place=
. The bot should treat parameters according to their purposes, not try to emulate historical quirks in citation templates which only exist to maintain compatibility with legacy citations. The reason for why we have |location=
and |publication-place=
rather than (something like) |written-place=
and |publication-place=
has reasons lying in the often odd development history of our citation templates using ambiguous parameter names — mistakes we have learnt from in the past and are trying hard to correct and not to repeat. We are moving forward, not backward.
Linking to fractions of journals goes against that style guides and is almost always the wrong thing. In this case, link should be change to a publisher.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
00:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
{{ notabug}}
I have activated citation bot in my gadgets and have clicked save, but when I click the citations box while editing all it gives me is a diff with no changes made. This is the case whether there is a template
<ref>{{cite news |url=https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/scott-walker-takes-new-job-says-he-won-t-run/article_0b5d0ea7-2284-594b-8f61-79d3035ef966.html }}</ref>
or not:
<ref>https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/scott-walker-takes-new-job-says-he-won-t-run/article_0b5d0ea7-2284-594b-8f61-79d3035ef966.html</ref>
Sdrqaz ( talk) 22:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
|osti=
link to the preprint version of a published paper. The full reference to which it added the link was something like "<ref>Author biography from {{
cite journal| ...}}</ref>". The osti preprint did not contain the author biography from the published paper, so it was a useless addition to the reference. More harmfully, that link (or possibly a similar preprint link added later as a url by OABOT) caused another editor to think the reference was wrong and remove it from one of the claims it referenced.
We add less than the OABOT does. It would have added the same thing.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
12:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
<!-- CB: @Editors, please check: |osti=123 -->
|osti=<!-- CB: @Editors, please check: OSTI 1234-->
for over a decade, has probably led to a large undiscovered pool of bad sourcing in Wikipedia. The fact that it's widespread and long-term doesn't make it a good thing and is not a justification for continuing to do it once problems have been discovered. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
This bot doesn't seem to take into account the fact that a journal or magazine may have a number within a volume AND an overall issue number. In such situations, one may wish to cite a reference using the format "vol. 21, no. 5 (No. 347)", which unfortunately isn't readily accomodated by existing "cite" templates (at least as far as I have been able to ascertain). In the example given, it would therefore be necessary to set "number=5 (No. 347)", which this bot would then change to "number=347", thus discarding some useful information. If there is no alternative method of including both numbers in a citation, could the owner please consider preventing the bot from making such changes, thanks?
( Edwin of Northumbria ( talk) 03:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC))
{{ notabug}} since no examples. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 13:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, I have tightened up the PMID code.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
22:19, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Specific to this journal.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
07:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
I am sorry, I reverted your edits on Salafi jihadism, can you please do them again but without reverting my edits. Thanks Kiro Bassem ( talk) 05:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
{{ fixed}}
There's probably a few safety things that need to be taken care of to make sure this doesn't decapitalize acronyms and such. Likely
|last#/first#=
, leaves |author#=
alone|last#/first#=
in a citation are capitalized|last2/first2=
or more to kick in, leave citations with only one author alone.Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 02:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Probably affects ... A: ...
too.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
05:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Citation Bot often removes page numbers from Google Books URLs. Is this a bug?
Jarble (
talk)
17:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
These are the two tags removed by Citation bot:
|archive-url=
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/federal-government-spent-millions-to-ramp-up-mask-readiness-but-that-isnt-helping-now/2020/04/03/d62dda5c-74fa-11ea-a9bd-9f8b593300d0_story.html
|archive-date=December 21, 2020
{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/federal-government-spent-millions-to-ramp-up-mask-readiness-but-that-isnt-helping-now/2020/04/03/d62dda5c-74fa-11ea-a9bd-9f8b593300d0_story.html |title=Federal government spent millions to ramp up mask readiness, but that isn't helping now |last=Swaine |first=Jon |date=April 3, 2020 |work=[[The Washington Post]] |url-status=live |archive-url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/federal-government-spent-millions-to-ramp-up-mask-readiness-but-that-isnt-helping-now/2020/04/03/d62dda5c-74fa-11ea-a9bd-9f8b593300d0_story.html |archive-date=December 21, 2020}}
{{
cite news}}
: Check |archive-url=
value (
help)CS1 maint: url-status (
link)|url=
holds the same value as |archive-url=
so |archive-url=
does not point to an archived snapshot of |url=
. When |url=
dies, in this case, |archive-url=
will also die. What is the point of that?
That would be okay, see:
Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_73#Edition_and_pages_extra_text_as_errors
--
Matthiaspaul (
talk)
23:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
to
Added ASIN and edition to list of "Hey! It is a book" parameters.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
22:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
@ AManWithNoPlan: Our thread has been archived but I'd like to bring this up again. You said that the issue I described was not a bug. I do understand that someone purposefully implemented this removal, but I still think that it should be de-implemented. I've seen the bot do the described change multiple times since the last discussion, most recently here. The quote-title format is not uncommon and I do not believe that there are more titles that misuse the quote marks than there are actually quoted titles. Your proposed workaround of tagging every single such title seems like more unnecessary maintenance work. In the rare cases of quote marks actually being misused, they can still be fixed by hand, no workaround required. IceWelder [ ✉] 22:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
{{ fixed}}
In the template "cite news," the field "agency=" is for news agencies such as
Reuters,
Associated Press and
UPI. The bot changed "agency=" to "website=" for a Reuters cite, which is incorrect:
[23]. --
Tenebrae (
talk)
21:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
!API call failed: The authorization headers in your request are not valid: Nonce already used: 1ff9ed985e5606960cae0e173a525eb4 !Unhandled write error.
Not really sure what that suddenly started. Looks like something on wikipedia changed. I got in on another bot too.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
18:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
|pmc-embargo-date=
for expired embargos so cs1|2 adds
Category:CS1 maint: PMC embargo expired which will cause gnomes to delete |pmc-embargo-date=
so the bot will add |pmc-embargo-date=
... You see where this goes...
Should have used this
diff: |pmc-embargo-date=April 1, 1860
...
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 23:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
You misunderstand. The bot removed an archive url that was the same as the non-archive url.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
13:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
|archive-url=
and |archive-date=
, bot should also remove |url-status=
because, by itself, that parameter has no purpose.|publisher=
to |work=
but left in an incorrect form, such as [[New York Times]]
or New York Times.com
instead of [[The New York Times]]
. Also, |agency=''(Boston Globe)''
was corrected to |agency=(Boston Globe)
, but should be further corrected to |agency=The Boston Globe
, with "The" and without parentheses.
Also posted at
User talk:AManWithNoPlan#Please stop using Citation bot to flip news corporations from publisher to work. Feel free to delete this posting if it doesn't belong here. —
Anomalocaris (
talk)
11:13, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
|work=New York Times.com
most definitely is an error: there is no such website, newspaper, agency, organization, or other entity. The fact that
Izno thinks that other citations near the one that includes |agency=(Boston Globe)
look like garbage has no bearing on the need for such markup to be corrected to |agency=The Boston Globe
. Cheers! —
Anomalocaris (
talk)
23:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
|work=New York Times.com
most definitely is an error: there is no such website, newspaper, agency, organization, or other entity
, we routinely have |work=New York Times
. You may think that is suboptimal, but it also is not an error. The .com after the end is a natural extension..com
willy-nilly. The website of The New York Times is at nytimes.com. The website of the
Republican National Committee is at gop.com; we would never use anything anything like "Republican National Committee.com", following your model. It is Wikipedia style to name newspapers as they name themselves, viz, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times. The word "The" is often omitted when the name of the newspaper is used before another noun to modify it, e.g. "in a New York Times editorial from January 1, 1900". But it's not supposed to be omitted in a reference. This is not a matter of taste. I am sorry if you found any of this snide. It might be fair to say that the tone is snide, but if so, it was unintentional. You can't read my mind, so it it is not fair to say that I have a snide attitude. Kindly keep my attitude out of this discussion, and let's stick to the facts. I have no opinion on whether or not citations near the one involving a story credited to (The) Boston Globe are garbage. I haven't inspected them. Their quality has no bearing on the correctness of the Boston Globe citation. (Here I'm using Boston Globe to modify "citation", so it's best to omit the definite article. Cheers! —
Anomalocaris (
talk)
00:46, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
|journal=The New York Times
while the other half as |newspaper=Los Angeles Times
is pretty silly. Normalizing to all The ... , or all |journal=
is a synonym for |work=
it's probably best to avoid using it except in {{
Cite journal}}
, which is, of course, reserved for peer-reviewed academic journals. (2) It is wrong to include the word "The" in publications that don't use them. There is no such newspaper as The Los Angeles Times. When I am editing articles for other reasons, I generally correct any missing The in The New York Times and other papers, and remove spurious the The in Los Angeles Times and other papers. There are other editors who do likewise. It's not a matter of taste. Cheers! —
Anomalocaris (
talk)
05:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Here is a much worse example: in
the edit 17:43, 25 December 2020 of
List of journalists killed in India, within {{
Cite web}}
, the pathological markup
was carefully modified to
fixing the non-issue of numbering the unnumbered |last=
and |first=
, while ignoring the real issue that all of these parameters are completely wrong. It should be
and the |author=
parameter might arguably better be |agency=
or omitted altogether. —
Anomalocaris (
talk)
02:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Which task # are these tasks under? Levivich harass/ hound 16:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
* {{citation
|last=Franklin|first=Alfred|title=Histoire de la bibliotheque mazarine|year=1969|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=uZst3Cw62qIC&pg=PA249|accessdate=6 November 2019|publisher=Slatkine |id=GGKEY:ZXAXTFKG8NF}}
which renders:
However, the result was that an {{
sfn}} link like {{sfn|Franklin|p=249}}
no longer worked:
[1]
Preferrably the bot would have also changed the {{
sfn}} link to {{sfn|Franklin|1969|p=249}}
, which would work:
[1]
Aymatth2 ( talk) 18:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
|date=
and |volume=
, not |journal=
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
04:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
How common of a problem is this?
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
01:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
URL redirect is buying us time.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
13:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Ever since the DNS change. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 11:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Does citation bot have a feature to add a |title=
when one is missing ie. determine a reasonable title for a given URL? --
Green
C
15:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T261300 asked for help. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 11:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Yngvadottir: Thanks! See next bug report as well, same problem with
ABC News,
CBS News,
NBC News. —
Anomalocaris (
talk)
10:10, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
|publisher=
to |work=
for a variety of business organizations that are actually publishers, not websites or newspapers or magazines or works. According to
ABC News,
BBC News,
CBS News,
NBC News,
Reuters these are all businesses! They are not websites! They are not magazines! They are not TV or radio programs! Note: You seem to be correctly leaving
Fox News as a |publisher=
. Thank you for that.|work=
or any of its aliases to |publisher=
for
ABC News,
BBC News,
CBS News,
NBC News. When the news item is on Reuters' website, it's |publisher=Reuters
, otherwise it's |agency=Reuters
. I'm not sure if "you" (the bot) are sophisticated enough to deal with this.
Also posted at
User talk:AManWithNoPlan#Please stop using Citation bot to flip news corporations from publisher to work. Feel free to delete this posting if it doesn't belong here. —
Anomalocaris (
talk)
11:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
{{
Cite press release}}
with |publisher=Harvard University
— even if the press release is found at harvard.edu.
The Harvard Gazette is a former newspaper and now just a website from Harvard, and for anything there, we would use {{
Cite news}}
with |newspaper=The Harvard Gazette
.
CBS News was founded September 18, 1927, long before the Internet. It is an organization, and the fact that its official website at cbsnews.com has a very similar name does not change anything. What's on cbsnews.com is presumptively published by CBS News, just as what's on harvard.edu is presumptively published by Harvard University.publisher=
in these cases and set it to be BBC. In the case of Reuters, the publisher is Reuters and the work is reuters.com. But I admit that the model starts to break down at e.g. Harvard, because undeniably the publisher is Harvard University but to say that harvard.edu is the work does stretch credulity. I suppose what I am saying is that the bot shouldn't change all instances of publisher= to work= but it could flag up anomalies for attention. And maybe it could bifurcate the major sources like ABC, BBC and CBC? Which all goes to underline
Sdkb's point that we need a consensus on what italicisation we want: my starting point would be to ask if there is a house style in major journals like Nature that we should emulate? --
John Maynard Friedman (
talk)
10:58, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Hearst, Vice Media, Axel Springer are publishers (or media companies if you prefer). San Francisco Chronicle, Die Welt, Vice are works. The BBC is a media company that has multiple divisions (like BBC News and BBC Radio), each of which produces multiple works (like BBC News Online and Today). -- NaBUru38 ( talk) 12:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
|work=
is always required (|website=
and |newspaper=
, etc., are aliases of it); Wikipedia only cites published works (see
WP:V and
WP:CITE); it does not cite companies, persons, or other entities, only works by them. The |publisher=
should be added, as additional source-identification information, only if significantly different from the title of the work (do |work=The New York Times
not |work=The New York Times
|publisher=The New York Times Company
). If the name of the website is ABC News then that is in fact the title of the work, despite that also being part of the name of publisher. (It's also harmless to do |work=ABCNews.Go.com
, though that's a bit sloppy.) The actual publisher is ABC News Internet Ventures, a division of ABC News Network, a division of American Broadcasting Company, a division of Walt Disney Television, a division of the Walt Disney Company (most or all of which also have corporate postfixes like "Inc." in their full names). None of these names need appear in a citation, because they are either redundant with the |work=
at the lower levels, or too lost in financial-holdings arrangements, at the upper levels, to be meaningful to the reader in relation to a citation. (In most contexts, anyway. In a WP article about Disney or one of its other properties, it might in fact be pertinent to indicate that Disney is the ultimate publisher, either with that parameter or with a free-form note, so the reader has a clear indication of the source's lack of complete independence from the subject.) —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
17:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)To centralize discussion and avoid further WP:TALKFORK problems, I note that there's an older thread about this at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 74#Italics 2, an basically a duplicate of this one at the bot operator's talk page. In the latter, Anomalocaris has said a bunch of outlandish stuff:
You are using Citation bot to change
|publisher=
to|work=
for a variety of business organizations that are actually publishers, not websites or newspapers or magazines or works. According to ABC News, BBC News, CBS News, NBC News, and Reuters these are all businesses! They are not websites! They are not magazines! They are not TV or radio programs! Note: You seem to be correctly leaving Fox News as a|publisher=
. Thank you for that.You should be flipping these the other way, changing
|work=
or any of its aliases to|publisher=
for ABC News, BBC News, CBS News, NBC News. When the news item is on Reuters' website, it's|publisher=Reuters
, otherwise it's|agency=Reuters
.Also, you are using Citation bot to change certain newspapers/websites correctly from
|publisher=
to|work=
, but in some cases leaving them in an incorrect form, such as[[New York Times]]
orNew York Times.com
instead of[[The New York Times]]
. Also,|agency=''(Boston Globe)''
was corrected to|agency=(Boston Globe)
, but should be further corrected to|agency=The Boston Globe
, with "The" and without parentheses.
This is just flat-out mistaken in almost every respect. Anomalocaris, you are engaging in a simplistic
false dichotomy, an incorrect belief that if a company's name is (in part) "ABC News" that this means that can't also be the name of the publication. It simply is not true. "
ABC News,
BBC News,
CBS News,
NBC News, and
Reuters ... are not websites!" is not a correct statement: The title of
https://abcnews.go.com is ABC News; the title of
https://www.bbc.com/news and its corresponding video channel on YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/user/bbcnews are both BBC News; the title of
https://www.cbsnews.com is CBS News; the title of
https://www.nbcnews.com is NBC News; the title of
https://www.reuters.com is Reuters. The names of the respective publishers (minus corporate designations like Inc., Ltd, and LLP) are:
ABC News Internet Ventures,
British Broadcasting Company (conventionally just given as "BBC"),
CBS Interactive (division of
CBS Entertainment Group, division of
ViacomCBS),
National Broadcasting Company (conventionally just "NBC", division of
NBCUniversal), and
Reuters (division of
Thomson Reuters). So, the only one of these in which the immediate publisher's name actually coincides with the publication name is Reuters and Reuters. In all of these cases all that is needed is |work=
, because the publisher names are so similar to the work names as to be redundant.
Next, the purpose of |agency=
is being completely misunderstood here. It is only for newswires, and only when they are acting as such in the context of this specific citation. Reuters and Associated Press and Agence France-Presse are often agencies for other publications, but they also publish material under their own names, so whether one of these is an agency in a particular citation depends on the details of that citation; it is not a blanket matter. While it's correct that |agency=(Boston Globe)
is misformatted, |agency=The Boston Globe
is also wrong, because that is a newspaper (|work=The Boston Globe
, not a content-syndicating news agency. If you've got a situation where the original publisher was The Boston Globe but you found the content somewhere else, e.g. a newspaper archives site, then the way to
WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT is |work=The Boston Globe
|via=NameOfArchiveSite
. Please, just actually read the citation template documentation and
Help:CS1, and do what it says instead of trying to come up with ways to avoid doing what it says. (Same applies, really, to all policy, guideline, process, and documentation matters).
If this bot started changing |work=
to |publisher=
as Anomalocaris suggests, then I and several others would move to shut the bot down as doing difficult-to-fix, mass-level harm to citation data. PS: Yes, Springer is a publisher; if we had to cite their website (e.g. for
WP:ABOUTSELF basics about the company), that's probably best done as |work=Springer.com
. It's not something we would normally cite otherwise, since it is not a news source, journal, or other such publication in the more usual sense. If the bot is blanket-changing all publishers to works that would obviously be a mistake, but in any of the cases highlighted above (ABC News, BBC News, etc.), such a change is correct. If there are cases of |work=ABC News
|publisher=ABC News
, those should be reduced to |work=ABC News
(especially since the publisher name is not actually "ABC News" to begin with). Another side point that's been covered before: When any website is cited by WP, it is cited as a published work (by definition), not as a shop or server or corporate entity or whatever else the same name might refer to outside of a citation-to-published-work context, where it gets italicized, even if it would not be italicized in running text as a service or company or whatever.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
19:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
|work=
is always required (|website=
is an alias of it), this is plain false. Work is not always required, as many things are not published as part of larger works.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
18:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
|work=
parameter (or one of it aliases) does not apply, then |title=
is the work. So, yes, the work is always required, just not necessarily in the form of the parameter by that name. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
19:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
<title>...</title>
element, and it is ABC News. It is true that in general Wikipedians really don't care if you use |work=ABCNews.Go.com
instead of |work=ABC News
, that's completely immaterial to this discussion. The confusion you are having is that
ABC News is also the name of the news division of
American Broadcasting Company (a division in turn of
Walt Disney Television, a division of
Walt Disney Company). Exact or close-enough correspondence between the work and publisher name is pretty common, and it simply doesn't matter. It is not a magically special case. In such cases, we omit the publisher as redundant, because what we are citing is the work; we are not citing an entity (we only provide the publishing entity as additional information to help correctly identify the source). An argument could be made in this case to do |work=ABC News
|publisher=American Broadcasting Company
(or |work=ABCNews.Go.com
|publisher=American Broadcasting Company
, if you really really wanna), since American Broadcasting Company is an actual legal entity, while it's not clear that ABC News, the division, remains one at all (it may well simply be a property/trademark at this point). —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
20:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)|publisher=
to |work=
or vice versa?
Levivich
harass/
hound
19:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)The conclusion was in line with WP:CITALICSRFC and the use of work/website instead of publisher was upheld. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 18:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Documentation excerpt
place: For news stories with a dateline, that is, the location where the story was written. In earlier versions of the template this was the publication place, and for compatibility, will be treated as the publication place if the publication-place parameter is absent; see that parameter for further information. Alias: location
publication-place: Geographical place of publication; generally not wikilinked; omit when the name of the work includes the publication place; examples: The Boston Globe, The Times of India. Displays after the title. If only one of publication-place, place, or location is defined, it will be treated as the publication place and will show after the title; if publication-place and place or location are defined, then place or location is shown before the title prefixed with "written at" and publication-place is shown after the title.
|location=
is the parameter to specify the written-at-place whereas |publication-place=
is the correct parameter to specify the publication place. This applies to all CS1/CS2 templates.|publication-place=
s/he actually meant to specify the publication place whereas if we find |location=
in a citation, this is the dedicated parameter to specify the written-at-place but for quirky reasons burried in the historical development of the citation templates (trying to masquerade the underlying problem), the visible output of the templates differs only if both parameters are given. Ideally, we would have a semantically more meaningful parameter name for the written-at-place parameter as well (I suggested something like |write-place=
, |writing-place=
or |written-place=
), but it won't be possible to automatically convert |location=
to that new parameter because of the misleading use in historical citations. So every citation will have to be changed manually. However, given that it is difficult to fix, the bot should stop replacing the correct parameter |publication-place=
by the potentially incorrect parameter |location=
, as it removes vital information, weakens the quality of a citation and its machine-readability, and adds citations to the pool of those that need to be manually fixed eventually.|publication-date=
and |publication-place=
, then revise the bot to parse all of the parameters before making changes?
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (
talk)
02:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
User_talk:Citation_bot/Archive_19#Erroneous_move_of_publication-place_to_location
User_talk:Citation_bot/Archive_24#publication-place_vs_location. |publication-place=
(for the publication place) is NOT an alias of |location=
(for the written-to-place), so please stop replacing |publication-place=
by |location=
. It is potentially invalidating citations. Or do we have to block the bot for this? --
Matthiaspaul (
talk)
23:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
|publicationplace=
is an alias of |publication-place=
, like |location=
is an alias of |place=
, but these two groups of parameters are not aliases of each other, and they shouldn't because they are for two different properties of a source.
Is this common for the word TAXON?
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
14:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
And link the final entry.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
06:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Please discontinue hyphenation changes pending the outcome of this RfC. Nikkimaria ( talk) 01:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Any of |volume/issue/page(s)=0
should be TNT'd and filled by the bot.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
18:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Would help clear out
Category:CS1 maint: ref=harv. And as a very low priority fix, this should probably only be done (in bot mode) when other changes are made. It's fine to suggest in manual mode.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
18:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Please discontinue hyphenation changes pending the outcome of this RfC. Nikkimaria ( talk) 01:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Please can the edit summary be pruned. At least remove the advert.
I'm getting this error
https://i.gyazo.com/dfc834e1a85b283c73df08600339e801.png
OAuth callback URL not found in cache. This is probably an error in how the application makes requests to the server.
Hi Headbomb, In order to complete your request, Citation bot needs permission to perform the following actions on your behalf on all projects of this site: Interact with pages Edit existing pages
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 00:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
|pmc=
and internal wikilink from |title=
to |title=
; default when this happens is that cs1|2 used the external link but shows |title=
with wikilink markup and URL–wikilink conflict error message
|doi-access=free
also
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
01:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Instead of Journal of African Earth Sciences (And the Middle East) Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 02:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
{{ fixed}} AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 13:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
@ AManWithNoPlan: A bot run of 40,000+ articles? Really? If there's a limit on mortals for how many articles you can request at once (which seems to be around ~1000), it should apply equally to everyone. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 05:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
{{ fixed}}
i will look into it. The void template is not intented for use outside of template space like that.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
02:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Is the intention to add a JSTOR link to citations that already have them? [41] [42] [43] The result is two identical links in the same note, which seems unnecessary. I'm not sure what the solution is, though, since the title linking to the article is pretty standard, if having the identifier visible (rather than just as part of the URL) is desirable. I hope I can be forgiven, though, if I'm not sure I see why the link alone isn't sufficient. Regardless, just wanted to bring this redundancy to your attention. Thanks. blameless 01:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
{{ notabug}}
|agency=
to |work=
for Yonhap News Agency and UPI own websites
See this diff to see the citations that the bot missed
Playing around on toolforge, I stumbled onto the fact that several references labeled as dead are actually a syntax error of having " http://%5b" added to the front of the good link. One example here: Special:Diff/1008791334 It also has a few cousins which I can provide if this is something you want to explore further, if CitationBot is capable of seeing these and correcting. Slywriter ( talk) 02:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I will write code to look the existing templates on the page and see if there is a general trend and follow that. Sorting it impossible, since the meta-data does what it does. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 19:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Citation bot: Please either fix or remove this bot which is making the redundant change of "p" to "page". DMBanks1 ( talk) 20:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
|p=
instead of |page=
in a {{
cite web}} template, and reverts the bot's change to the more readable parameter name. I was surprised to see that the template documentation does not actually deprecate |p=
; I think it probably should be deprecated, but maybe that is more a matter for
Help talk:Citation style 1 than for here. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
08:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)|p=
and |pp=
are short-hand. The bot normalizes them to the easier to understand standard forms |page=
and |pages=
. Similar to converting |accessdate=
to the standard form |access-date=
.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
12:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Please discontinue hyphenation changes pending the outcome of this RfC. Nikkimaria ( talk) 01:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
orig-year added to list of minor changes {{ fixed}}. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 13:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
to. [46]
to [48]
Unless you are linking to the actual image on the front cover, I think that new link better reflect the reference. And, with the new google books, the old link no longer works that way anyway.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
16:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
{{ notabug}} since only page numbers and search terms are stable urls AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 18:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
{{
fixed}} by disabling the google books oclc and lccn API calls. Looks like a google problem.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
21:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
|issue=
). This is PhytoKeys specific, and a run against all existing PhytoKeys citations is needed to fix these errors.
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976ARNPS..26...26./exportcitation
{{
wontfix}} because -- No CrossRef record found for doi '10.1112/blms.12460' --
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
19:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
curl -LH "Accept: application/x-bibtex"
http://dx.doi.org/10.1112/blms.12460
retrieves a valid-looking CrossRef record. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
19:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
|publisher=Scientific American, a division of Nature America
to citations that have |magazine=
Scientific American
|id=
but leaves a set of <small></small> tags in the |id=
field.
Not a bug, these are not the same identifiers, even if they point to the same landing pages (in this case). See
User talk:Citation bot/Archive 16#Adding superfluous DOI when JSTOR is present and elsewhere.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
23:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Edit made to Dave LaRock article under this bot's account on March 20th substituted correct URL with an incorrect one
|page=832–834
is replaced with |pages=832–4
instead of |pages=832–834
. The former exception from the general rule in
MOS:NUMRANGE for page ranges for specific citation styles ("may be used ... where a citation style formally requires it") has been
removed some time ago (after
this discussion), but even before that it was not formally required by the {{
Citation}}
template, so this sort of replacements was at least questionable even then. I would say that the bot should rather do the opposite.
That you for pointing out this edge case. Those page ranges are terrible.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
16:52, 6 April 2021 (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 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | → | Archive 30 |
This bot replaces "first=" and "last=" in author names with "first1=" and "last1=", even when there is only one author. It is considered poor style to use a 1 when not also using at least a 2. Can somebody fix this problem? Antinoos69 ( talk) 16:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Disregard if this is what the URL expander is, I wasn't certain. --~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)
neko-chan
nyan
00:57, 22 December 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 ( [2]) 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)
|location=
and |place=
are aliases of each other, but |publication-place=
is not. The publication place and written-at-place are both bibliographical information and they are presented in citations when relevant, that's why we have parameters and code to distinguish between them where necessary. --
Matthiaspaul (
talk)
15:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)|written-place=
) to stop the (historical) mess.|publication-place=
to indicate that the given place is in fact a publication place, because s/he knows that it is a publication place rather than a written-at-place, this is a good thing helping to improve the quality of information in a citation and not something anyone should override. Ideally, the opposite should happen, move |location=
information into |publication-place=
if it is known to be a publication place, but this is something that no bot could do, because it needs a human checking the source if the provided information is a publication place or a written-at-place.|publication-place=
by |location=
is an obvious bug that needs to be fixed. It is the same as if the bot would replace |publication-date=
by |date=
or |editor=
by |author=
or similar, it is invalidating the information in the citation.|publication-place=
and |location=
are not aliases of each other. The only alias for |publication-place=
is |publicationplace=
; the only alias for |location=
is |place=
. The bot should treat parameters according to their purposes, not try to emulate historical quirks in citation templates which only exist to maintain compatibility with legacy citations. The reason for why we have |location=
and |publication-place=
rather than (something like) |written-place=
and |publication-place=
has reasons lying in the often odd development history of our citation templates using ambiguous parameter names — mistakes we have learnt from in the past and are trying hard to correct and not to repeat. We are moving forward, not backward.
Linking to fractions of journals goes against that style guides and is almost always the wrong thing. In this case, link should be change to a publisher.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
00:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
{{ notabug}}
I have activated citation bot in my gadgets and have clicked save, but when I click the citations box while editing all it gives me is a diff with no changes made. This is the case whether there is a template
<ref>{{cite news |url=https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/scott-walker-takes-new-job-says-he-won-t-run/article_0b5d0ea7-2284-594b-8f61-79d3035ef966.html }}</ref>
or not:
<ref>https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/scott-walker-takes-new-job-says-he-won-t-run/article_0b5d0ea7-2284-594b-8f61-79d3035ef966.html</ref>
Sdrqaz ( talk) 22:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
|osti=
link to the preprint version of a published paper. The full reference to which it added the link was something like "<ref>Author biography from {{
cite journal| ...}}</ref>". The osti preprint did not contain the author biography from the published paper, so it was a useless addition to the reference. More harmfully, that link (or possibly a similar preprint link added later as a url by OABOT) caused another editor to think the reference was wrong and remove it from one of the claims it referenced.
We add less than the OABOT does. It would have added the same thing.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
12:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
<!-- CB: @Editors, please check: |osti=123 -->
|osti=<!-- CB: @Editors, please check: OSTI 1234-->
for over a decade, has probably led to a large undiscovered pool of bad sourcing in Wikipedia. The fact that it's widespread and long-term doesn't make it a good thing and is not a justification for continuing to do it once problems have been discovered. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
This bot doesn't seem to take into account the fact that a journal or magazine may have a number within a volume AND an overall issue number. In such situations, one may wish to cite a reference using the format "vol. 21, no. 5 (No. 347)", which unfortunately isn't readily accomodated by existing "cite" templates (at least as far as I have been able to ascertain). In the example given, it would therefore be necessary to set "number=5 (No. 347)", which this bot would then change to "number=347", thus discarding some useful information. If there is no alternative method of including both numbers in a citation, could the owner please consider preventing the bot from making such changes, thanks?
( Edwin of Northumbria ( talk) 03:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC))
{{ notabug}} since no examples. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 13:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, I have tightened up the PMID code.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
22:19, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Specific to this journal.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
07:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
I am sorry, I reverted your edits on Salafi jihadism, can you please do them again but without reverting my edits. Thanks Kiro Bassem ( talk) 05:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
{{ fixed}}
There's probably a few safety things that need to be taken care of to make sure this doesn't decapitalize acronyms and such. Likely
|last#/first#=
, leaves |author#=
alone|last#/first#=
in a citation are capitalized|last2/first2=
or more to kick in, leave citations with only one author alone.Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 02:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Probably affects ... A: ...
too.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
05:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Citation Bot often removes page numbers from Google Books URLs. Is this a bug?
Jarble (
talk)
17:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
These are the two tags removed by Citation bot:
|archive-url=
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/federal-government-spent-millions-to-ramp-up-mask-readiness-but-that-isnt-helping-now/2020/04/03/d62dda5c-74fa-11ea-a9bd-9f8b593300d0_story.html
|archive-date=December 21, 2020
{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/federal-government-spent-millions-to-ramp-up-mask-readiness-but-that-isnt-helping-now/2020/04/03/d62dda5c-74fa-11ea-a9bd-9f8b593300d0_story.html |title=Federal government spent millions to ramp up mask readiness, but that isn't helping now |last=Swaine |first=Jon |date=April 3, 2020 |work=[[The Washington Post]] |url-status=live |archive-url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/federal-government-spent-millions-to-ramp-up-mask-readiness-but-that-isnt-helping-now/2020/04/03/d62dda5c-74fa-11ea-a9bd-9f8b593300d0_story.html |archive-date=December 21, 2020}}
{{
cite news}}
: Check |archive-url=
value (
help)CS1 maint: url-status (
link)|url=
holds the same value as |archive-url=
so |archive-url=
does not point to an archived snapshot of |url=
. When |url=
dies, in this case, |archive-url=
will also die. What is the point of that?
That would be okay, see:
Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_73#Edition_and_pages_extra_text_as_errors
--
Matthiaspaul (
talk)
23:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
to
Added ASIN and edition to list of "Hey! It is a book" parameters.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
22:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
@ AManWithNoPlan: Our thread has been archived but I'd like to bring this up again. You said that the issue I described was not a bug. I do understand that someone purposefully implemented this removal, but I still think that it should be de-implemented. I've seen the bot do the described change multiple times since the last discussion, most recently here. The quote-title format is not uncommon and I do not believe that there are more titles that misuse the quote marks than there are actually quoted titles. Your proposed workaround of tagging every single such title seems like more unnecessary maintenance work. In the rare cases of quote marks actually being misused, they can still be fixed by hand, no workaround required. IceWelder [ ✉] 22:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
{{ fixed}}
In the template "cite news," the field "agency=" is for news agencies such as
Reuters,
Associated Press and
UPI. The bot changed "agency=" to "website=" for a Reuters cite, which is incorrect:
[23]. --
Tenebrae (
talk)
21:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
!API call failed: The authorization headers in your request are not valid: Nonce already used: 1ff9ed985e5606960cae0e173a525eb4 !Unhandled write error.
Not really sure what that suddenly started. Looks like something on wikipedia changed. I got in on another bot too.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
18:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
|pmc-embargo-date=
for expired embargos so cs1|2 adds
Category:CS1 maint: PMC embargo expired which will cause gnomes to delete |pmc-embargo-date=
so the bot will add |pmc-embargo-date=
... You see where this goes...
Should have used this
diff: |pmc-embargo-date=April 1, 1860
...
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 23:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
You misunderstand. The bot removed an archive url that was the same as the non-archive url.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
13:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
|archive-url=
and |archive-date=
, bot should also remove |url-status=
because, by itself, that parameter has no purpose.|publisher=
to |work=
but left in an incorrect form, such as [[New York Times]]
or New York Times.com
instead of [[The New York Times]]
. Also, |agency=''(Boston Globe)''
was corrected to |agency=(Boston Globe)
, but should be further corrected to |agency=The Boston Globe
, with "The" and without parentheses.
Also posted at
User talk:AManWithNoPlan#Please stop using Citation bot to flip news corporations from publisher to work. Feel free to delete this posting if it doesn't belong here. —
Anomalocaris (
talk)
11:13, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
|work=New York Times.com
most definitely is an error: there is no such website, newspaper, agency, organization, or other entity. The fact that
Izno thinks that other citations near the one that includes |agency=(Boston Globe)
look like garbage has no bearing on the need for such markup to be corrected to |agency=The Boston Globe
. Cheers! —
Anomalocaris (
talk)
23:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
|work=New York Times.com
most definitely is an error: there is no such website, newspaper, agency, organization, or other entity
, we routinely have |work=New York Times
. You may think that is suboptimal, but it also is not an error. The .com after the end is a natural extension..com
willy-nilly. The website of The New York Times is at nytimes.com. The website of the
Republican National Committee is at gop.com; we would never use anything anything like "Republican National Committee.com", following your model. It is Wikipedia style to name newspapers as they name themselves, viz, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times. The word "The" is often omitted when the name of the newspaper is used before another noun to modify it, e.g. "in a New York Times editorial from January 1, 1900". But it's not supposed to be omitted in a reference. This is not a matter of taste. I am sorry if you found any of this snide. It might be fair to say that the tone is snide, but if so, it was unintentional. You can't read my mind, so it it is not fair to say that I have a snide attitude. Kindly keep my attitude out of this discussion, and let's stick to the facts. I have no opinion on whether or not citations near the one involving a story credited to (The) Boston Globe are garbage. I haven't inspected them. Their quality has no bearing on the correctness of the Boston Globe citation. (Here I'm using Boston Globe to modify "citation", so it's best to omit the definite article. Cheers! —
Anomalocaris (
talk)
00:46, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
|journal=The New York Times
while the other half as |newspaper=Los Angeles Times
is pretty silly. Normalizing to all The ... , or all |journal=
is a synonym for |work=
it's probably best to avoid using it except in {{
Cite journal}}
, which is, of course, reserved for peer-reviewed academic journals. (2) It is wrong to include the word "The" in publications that don't use them. There is no such newspaper as The Los Angeles Times. When I am editing articles for other reasons, I generally correct any missing The in The New York Times and other papers, and remove spurious the The in Los Angeles Times and other papers. There are other editors who do likewise. It's not a matter of taste. Cheers! —
Anomalocaris (
talk)
05:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Here is a much worse example: in
the edit 17:43, 25 December 2020 of
List of journalists killed in India, within {{
Cite web}}
, the pathological markup
was carefully modified to
fixing the non-issue of numbering the unnumbered |last=
and |first=
, while ignoring the real issue that all of these parameters are completely wrong. It should be
and the |author=
parameter might arguably better be |agency=
or omitted altogether. —
Anomalocaris (
talk)
02:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Which task # are these tasks under? Levivich harass/ hound 16:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
* {{citation
|last=Franklin|first=Alfred|title=Histoire de la bibliotheque mazarine|year=1969|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=uZst3Cw62qIC&pg=PA249|accessdate=6 November 2019|publisher=Slatkine |id=GGKEY:ZXAXTFKG8NF}}
which renders:
However, the result was that an {{
sfn}} link like {{sfn|Franklin|p=249}}
no longer worked:
[1]
Preferrably the bot would have also changed the {{
sfn}} link to {{sfn|Franklin|1969|p=249}}
, which would work:
[1]
Aymatth2 ( talk) 18:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
|date=
and |volume=
, not |journal=
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
04:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
How common of a problem is this?
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
01:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
URL redirect is buying us time.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
13:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Ever since the DNS change. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 11:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Does citation bot have a feature to add a |title=
when one is missing ie. determine a reasonable title for a given URL? --
Green
C
15:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T261300 asked for help. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 11:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Yngvadottir: Thanks! See next bug report as well, same problem with
ABC News,
CBS News,
NBC News. —
Anomalocaris (
talk)
10:10, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
|publisher=
to |work=
for a variety of business organizations that are actually publishers, not websites or newspapers or magazines or works. According to
ABC News,
BBC News,
CBS News,
NBC News,
Reuters these are all businesses! They are not websites! They are not magazines! They are not TV or radio programs! Note: You seem to be correctly leaving
Fox News as a |publisher=
. Thank you for that.|work=
or any of its aliases to |publisher=
for
ABC News,
BBC News,
CBS News,
NBC News. When the news item is on Reuters' website, it's |publisher=Reuters
, otherwise it's |agency=Reuters
. I'm not sure if "you" (the bot) are sophisticated enough to deal with this.
Also posted at
User talk:AManWithNoPlan#Please stop using Citation bot to flip news corporations from publisher to work. Feel free to delete this posting if it doesn't belong here. —
Anomalocaris (
talk)
11:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
{{
Cite press release}}
with |publisher=Harvard University
— even if the press release is found at harvard.edu.
The Harvard Gazette is a former newspaper and now just a website from Harvard, and for anything there, we would use {{
Cite news}}
with |newspaper=The Harvard Gazette
.
CBS News was founded September 18, 1927, long before the Internet. It is an organization, and the fact that its official website at cbsnews.com has a very similar name does not change anything. What's on cbsnews.com is presumptively published by CBS News, just as what's on harvard.edu is presumptively published by Harvard University.publisher=
in these cases and set it to be BBC. In the case of Reuters, the publisher is Reuters and the work is reuters.com. But I admit that the model starts to break down at e.g. Harvard, because undeniably the publisher is Harvard University but to say that harvard.edu is the work does stretch credulity. I suppose what I am saying is that the bot shouldn't change all instances of publisher= to work= but it could flag up anomalies for attention. And maybe it could bifurcate the major sources like ABC, BBC and CBC? Which all goes to underline
Sdkb's point that we need a consensus on what italicisation we want: my starting point would be to ask if there is a house style in major journals like Nature that we should emulate? --
John Maynard Friedman (
talk)
10:58, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Hearst, Vice Media, Axel Springer are publishers (or media companies if you prefer). San Francisco Chronicle, Die Welt, Vice are works. The BBC is a media company that has multiple divisions (like BBC News and BBC Radio), each of which produces multiple works (like BBC News Online and Today). -- NaBUru38 ( talk) 12:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
|work=
is always required (|website=
and |newspaper=
, etc., are aliases of it); Wikipedia only cites published works (see
WP:V and
WP:CITE); it does not cite companies, persons, or other entities, only works by them. The |publisher=
should be added, as additional source-identification information, only if significantly different from the title of the work (do |work=The New York Times
not |work=The New York Times
|publisher=The New York Times Company
). If the name of the website is ABC News then that is in fact the title of the work, despite that also being part of the name of publisher. (It's also harmless to do |work=ABCNews.Go.com
, though that's a bit sloppy.) The actual publisher is ABC News Internet Ventures, a division of ABC News Network, a division of American Broadcasting Company, a division of Walt Disney Television, a division of the Walt Disney Company (most or all of which also have corporate postfixes like "Inc." in their full names). None of these names need appear in a citation, because they are either redundant with the |work=
at the lower levels, or too lost in financial-holdings arrangements, at the upper levels, to be meaningful to the reader in relation to a citation. (In most contexts, anyway. In a WP article about Disney or one of its other properties, it might in fact be pertinent to indicate that Disney is the ultimate publisher, either with that parameter or with a free-form note, so the reader has a clear indication of the source's lack of complete independence from the subject.) —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
17:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)To centralize discussion and avoid further WP:TALKFORK problems, I note that there's an older thread about this at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 74#Italics 2, an basically a duplicate of this one at the bot operator's talk page. In the latter, Anomalocaris has said a bunch of outlandish stuff:
You are using Citation bot to change
|publisher=
to|work=
for a variety of business organizations that are actually publishers, not websites or newspapers or magazines or works. According to ABC News, BBC News, CBS News, NBC News, and Reuters these are all businesses! They are not websites! They are not magazines! They are not TV or radio programs! Note: You seem to be correctly leaving Fox News as a|publisher=
. Thank you for that.You should be flipping these the other way, changing
|work=
or any of its aliases to|publisher=
for ABC News, BBC News, CBS News, NBC News. When the news item is on Reuters' website, it's|publisher=Reuters
, otherwise it's|agency=Reuters
.Also, you are using Citation bot to change certain newspapers/websites correctly from
|publisher=
to|work=
, but in some cases leaving them in an incorrect form, such as[[New York Times]]
orNew York Times.com
instead of[[The New York Times]]
. Also,|agency=''(Boston Globe)''
was corrected to|agency=(Boston Globe)
, but should be further corrected to|agency=The Boston Globe
, with "The" and without parentheses.
This is just flat-out mistaken in almost every respect. Anomalocaris, you are engaging in a simplistic
false dichotomy, an incorrect belief that if a company's name is (in part) "ABC News" that this means that can't also be the name of the publication. It simply is not true. "
ABC News,
BBC News,
CBS News,
NBC News, and
Reuters ... are not websites!" is not a correct statement: The title of
https://abcnews.go.com is ABC News; the title of
https://www.bbc.com/news and its corresponding video channel on YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/user/bbcnews are both BBC News; the title of
https://www.cbsnews.com is CBS News; the title of
https://www.nbcnews.com is NBC News; the title of
https://www.reuters.com is Reuters. The names of the respective publishers (minus corporate designations like Inc., Ltd, and LLP) are:
ABC News Internet Ventures,
British Broadcasting Company (conventionally just given as "BBC"),
CBS Interactive (division of
CBS Entertainment Group, division of
ViacomCBS),
National Broadcasting Company (conventionally just "NBC", division of
NBCUniversal), and
Reuters (division of
Thomson Reuters). So, the only one of these in which the immediate publisher's name actually coincides with the publication name is Reuters and Reuters. In all of these cases all that is needed is |work=
, because the publisher names are so similar to the work names as to be redundant.
Next, the purpose of |agency=
is being completely misunderstood here. It is only for newswires, and only when they are acting as such in the context of this specific citation. Reuters and Associated Press and Agence France-Presse are often agencies for other publications, but they also publish material under their own names, so whether one of these is an agency in a particular citation depends on the details of that citation; it is not a blanket matter. While it's correct that |agency=(Boston Globe)
is misformatted, |agency=The Boston Globe
is also wrong, because that is a newspaper (|work=The Boston Globe
, not a content-syndicating news agency. If you've got a situation where the original publisher was The Boston Globe but you found the content somewhere else, e.g. a newspaper archives site, then the way to
WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT is |work=The Boston Globe
|via=NameOfArchiveSite
. Please, just actually read the citation template documentation and
Help:CS1, and do what it says instead of trying to come up with ways to avoid doing what it says. (Same applies, really, to all policy, guideline, process, and documentation matters).
If this bot started changing |work=
to |publisher=
as Anomalocaris suggests, then I and several others would move to shut the bot down as doing difficult-to-fix, mass-level harm to citation data. PS: Yes, Springer is a publisher; if we had to cite their website (e.g. for
WP:ABOUTSELF basics about the company), that's probably best done as |work=Springer.com
. It's not something we would normally cite otherwise, since it is not a news source, journal, or other such publication in the more usual sense. If the bot is blanket-changing all publishers to works that would obviously be a mistake, but in any of the cases highlighted above (ABC News, BBC News, etc.), such a change is correct. If there are cases of |work=ABC News
|publisher=ABC News
, those should be reduced to |work=ABC News
(especially since the publisher name is not actually "ABC News" to begin with). Another side point that's been covered before: When any website is cited by WP, it is cited as a published work (by definition), not as a shop or server or corporate entity or whatever else the same name might refer to outside of a citation-to-published-work context, where it gets italicized, even if it would not be italicized in running text as a service or company or whatever.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
19:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
|work=
is always required (|website=
is an alias of it), this is plain false. Work is not always required, as many things are not published as part of larger works.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
18:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
|work=
parameter (or one of it aliases) does not apply, then |title=
is the work. So, yes, the work is always required, just not necessarily in the form of the parameter by that name. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
19:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
<title>...</title>
element, and it is ABC News. It is true that in general Wikipedians really don't care if you use |work=ABCNews.Go.com
instead of |work=ABC News
, that's completely immaterial to this discussion. The confusion you are having is that
ABC News is also the name of the news division of
American Broadcasting Company (a division in turn of
Walt Disney Television, a division of
Walt Disney Company). Exact or close-enough correspondence between the work and publisher name is pretty common, and it simply doesn't matter. It is not a magically special case. In such cases, we omit the publisher as redundant, because what we are citing is the work; we are not citing an entity (we only provide the publishing entity as additional information to help correctly identify the source). An argument could be made in this case to do |work=ABC News
|publisher=American Broadcasting Company
(or |work=ABCNews.Go.com
|publisher=American Broadcasting Company
, if you really really wanna), since American Broadcasting Company is an actual legal entity, while it's not clear that ABC News, the division, remains one at all (it may well simply be a property/trademark at this point). —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
20:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)|publisher=
to |work=
or vice versa?
Levivich
harass/
hound
19:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)The conclusion was in line with WP:CITALICSRFC and the use of work/website instead of publisher was upheld. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 18:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Documentation excerpt
place: For news stories with a dateline, that is, the location where the story was written. In earlier versions of the template this was the publication place, and for compatibility, will be treated as the publication place if the publication-place parameter is absent; see that parameter for further information. Alias: location
publication-place: Geographical place of publication; generally not wikilinked; omit when the name of the work includes the publication place; examples: The Boston Globe, The Times of India. Displays after the title. If only one of publication-place, place, or location is defined, it will be treated as the publication place and will show after the title; if publication-place and place or location are defined, then place or location is shown before the title prefixed with "written at" and publication-place is shown after the title.
|location=
is the parameter to specify the written-at-place whereas |publication-place=
is the correct parameter to specify the publication place. This applies to all CS1/CS2 templates.|publication-place=
s/he actually meant to specify the publication place whereas if we find |location=
in a citation, this is the dedicated parameter to specify the written-at-place but for quirky reasons burried in the historical development of the citation templates (trying to masquerade the underlying problem), the visible output of the templates differs only if both parameters are given. Ideally, we would have a semantically more meaningful parameter name for the written-at-place parameter as well (I suggested something like |write-place=
, |writing-place=
or |written-place=
), but it won't be possible to automatically convert |location=
to that new parameter because of the misleading use in historical citations. So every citation will have to be changed manually. However, given that it is difficult to fix, the bot should stop replacing the correct parameter |publication-place=
by the potentially incorrect parameter |location=
, as it removes vital information, weakens the quality of a citation and its machine-readability, and adds citations to the pool of those that need to be manually fixed eventually.|publication-date=
and |publication-place=
, then revise the bot to parse all of the parameters before making changes?
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (
talk)
02:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
User_talk:Citation_bot/Archive_19#Erroneous_move_of_publication-place_to_location
User_talk:Citation_bot/Archive_24#publication-place_vs_location. |publication-place=
(for the publication place) is NOT an alias of |location=
(for the written-to-place), so please stop replacing |publication-place=
by |location=
. It is potentially invalidating citations. Or do we have to block the bot for this? --
Matthiaspaul (
talk)
23:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
|publicationplace=
is an alias of |publication-place=
, like |location=
is an alias of |place=
, but these two groups of parameters are not aliases of each other, and they shouldn't because they are for two different properties of a source.
Is this common for the word TAXON?
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
14:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
And link the final entry.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
06:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Please discontinue hyphenation changes pending the outcome of this RfC. Nikkimaria ( talk) 01:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Any of |volume/issue/page(s)=0
should be TNT'd and filled by the bot.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
18:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Would help clear out
Category:CS1 maint: ref=harv. And as a very low priority fix, this should probably only be done (in bot mode) when other changes are made. It's fine to suggest in manual mode.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
18:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Please discontinue hyphenation changes pending the outcome of this RfC. Nikkimaria ( talk) 01:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Please can the edit summary be pruned. At least remove the advert.
I'm getting this error
https://i.gyazo.com/dfc834e1a85b283c73df08600339e801.png
OAuth callback URL not found in cache. This is probably an error in how the application makes requests to the server.
Hi Headbomb, In order to complete your request, Citation bot needs permission to perform the following actions on your behalf on all projects of this site: Interact with pages Edit existing pages
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 00:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
|pmc=
and internal wikilink from |title=
to |title=
; default when this happens is that cs1|2 used the external link but shows |title=
with wikilink markup and URL–wikilink conflict error message
|doi-access=free
also
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
01:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Instead of Journal of African Earth Sciences (And the Middle East) Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 02:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
{{ fixed}} AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 13:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
@ AManWithNoPlan: A bot run of 40,000+ articles? Really? If there's a limit on mortals for how many articles you can request at once (which seems to be around ~1000), it should apply equally to everyone. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 05:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
{{ fixed}}
i will look into it. The void template is not intented for use outside of template space like that.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
02:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Is the intention to add a JSTOR link to citations that already have them? [41] [42] [43] The result is two identical links in the same note, which seems unnecessary. I'm not sure what the solution is, though, since the title linking to the article is pretty standard, if having the identifier visible (rather than just as part of the URL) is desirable. I hope I can be forgiven, though, if I'm not sure I see why the link alone isn't sufficient. Regardless, just wanted to bring this redundancy to your attention. Thanks. blameless 01:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
{{ notabug}}
|agency=
to |work=
for Yonhap News Agency and UPI own websites
See this diff to see the citations that the bot missed
Playing around on toolforge, I stumbled onto the fact that several references labeled as dead are actually a syntax error of having " http://%5b" added to the front of the good link. One example here: Special:Diff/1008791334 It also has a few cousins which I can provide if this is something you want to explore further, if CitationBot is capable of seeing these and correcting. Slywriter ( talk) 02:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I will write code to look the existing templates on the page and see if there is a general trend and follow that. Sorting it impossible, since the meta-data does what it does. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 19:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Citation bot: Please either fix or remove this bot which is making the redundant change of "p" to "page". DMBanks1 ( talk) 20:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
|p=
instead of |page=
in a {{
cite web}} template, and reverts the bot's change to the more readable parameter name. I was surprised to see that the template documentation does not actually deprecate |p=
; I think it probably should be deprecated, but maybe that is more a matter for
Help talk:Citation style 1 than for here. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
08:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)|p=
and |pp=
are short-hand. The bot normalizes them to the easier to understand standard forms |page=
and |pages=
. Similar to converting |accessdate=
to the standard form |access-date=
.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
12:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Please discontinue hyphenation changes pending the outcome of this RfC. Nikkimaria ( talk) 01:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
orig-year added to list of minor changes {{ fixed}}. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 13:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
to. [46]
to [48]
Unless you are linking to the actual image on the front cover, I think that new link better reflect the reference. And, with the new google books, the old link no longer works that way anyway.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
16:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
{{ notabug}} since only page numbers and search terms are stable urls AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 18:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
{{
fixed}} by disabling the google books oclc and lccn API calls. Looks like a google problem.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
21:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
|issue=
). This is PhytoKeys specific, and a run against all existing PhytoKeys citations is needed to fix these errors.
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976ARNPS..26...26./exportcitation
{{
wontfix}} because -- No CrossRef record found for doi '10.1112/blms.12460' --
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
19:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
curl -LH "Accept: application/x-bibtex"
http://dx.doi.org/10.1112/blms.12460
retrieves a valid-looking CrossRef record. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
19:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
|publisher=Scientific American, a division of Nature America
to citations that have |magazine=
Scientific American
|id=
but leaves a set of <small></small> tags in the |id=
field.
Not a bug, these are not the same identifiers, even if they point to the same landing pages (in this case). See
User talk:Citation bot/Archive 16#Adding superfluous DOI when JSTOR is present and elsewhere.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
23:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Edit made to Dave LaRock article under this bot's account on March 20th substituted correct URL with an incorrect one
|page=832–834
is replaced with |pages=832–4
instead of |pages=832–834
. The former exception from the general rule in
MOS:NUMRANGE for page ranges for specific citation styles ("may be used ... where a citation style formally requires it") has been
removed some time ago (after
this discussion), but even before that it was not formally required by the {{
Citation}}
template, so this sort of replacements was at least questionable even then. I would say that the bot should rather do the opposite.
That you for pointing out this edge case. Those page ranges are terrible.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
16:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)