![]() | 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 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
This is super annoying. There's no reasons for those pages to be skipped. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 03:28, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Basically find
Replace
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 19:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
@
User:Whoop whoop pull up @
User:Headbomb
Is this because too many people use gadgets? example; .
OCLC
14003250. {{
cite book}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help). --
SilverMatsu (
talk)
02:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
|publisher=nytimes.com
→ |work=nytimes.com
|publisher=nytimes.com
→ |newspaper=[[The New York Times]]
, and|work=nytimes.com
→ |newspaper=[[The New York Times]]
, and|website=nytimes.com
→ |newspaper=[[The New York Times]]
When citations already include Official Charts Company as the publication name, there is no need for this bot to add "OfficialCharts.com" into them. Not only is it repetitive to include, but that form is also malformatted as ".com" isn't technically part of the organization's name, even when used in their URL. SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 16:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
|agency=
is the wrong parameter. That parameter is generally for organizations like
Associated Press,
Reuters, etc when work from the agency is redistributed by another source (typically a newspaper). Use |website=[[Official Charts Company]]
.|publisher=[[Official Charts Company]]
. The Official Charts Company is not a website. The website/work here is Official Charts.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
19:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)|journal=Undefined
Hallo suche Personen die mich unterstützen können. Ich mache Psychiarieerfahrungen. An wen wendet man sich bei staatlicher Willkür wie bekommt man Aufklärung und öffentliches Interesse? Meine Emailadresse ist [redacted] Lg Andreas 2A02:3033:41B:8EC0:D954:CA9:734B:C6E7 ( talk) 16:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
|title = An error occured!
into the template.curl -A " " -s "https://globaldatalab.org/shdi/shdi/POL/?levels=1%2B4&years=2019%2B2015%2B2010%2B2005%2B2000%2B1995" | grep -oP "(?<=<title>).*(?=</title>)"
The grepping of the title is a terrible idea. That leads to all the citations with titles of "Wiley's Online Library" and similar. The incorrect spelling of "occured" is now recognized.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
14:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Added to list of series. On that specific page I added a comment to prevent the adding of the page range. I will also add code to reject page ranges the start with "i" and end with something over 100.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
14:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
[https://www.dw.com/en/germany-wont-seek-eu-wide-ban-on-swastikas/a-2330716 DW 29 January 2007]
{{cite web| url = https://www.dw.com/en/germany-wont-seek-eu-wide-ban-on-swastikas/a-2330716| title = DW 29 January 2007}}
(
diff)
{{cite web| url = https://www.dw.com/en/germany-wont-seek-eu-wide-ban-on-swastikas/a-2330716| title = DW 29 January 2007| website = [[Deutsche Welle]]}}
(
diff){{cite web |url = https://www.dw.com/en/germany-wont-seek-eu-wide-ban-on-swastikas/a-2330716 |title = Germany Won't Seek EU-Wide Ban on Swastikas |date= 29 January 2007 |work = [[Deutsche Welle]]}}
(
diff)So my question is whether, accepting how poorly fed it was, could or should CitationBot have got closer to the right answer? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 11:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
My big job has stalled after 1433/2195 pages. The last edit [7] was an hour ago. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
In the Wikipedia article on Carnarvonshire Railway, below all the expected text matter, is a compilation of what I imagine to be an attempt to produce a line route-map that is unfinished. Can you investigate?
Xenophon Philosopher ( talk) 22:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
|title=UCLA - International Institute ..::.. Error
, |title=404
, and (this is especially egregious) |title=Compare Payday Loans | Find the Best Loan Deal
even though the arhived links are valid.
Removing the link to Hesperia (journal) on Crocus was presumably an error. I restored it but the bot might need tweaking to prevent this happening again - presubably it didnt like the lik being to the name of the journal, not to its desscription - which I linked to this time -- Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 18:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
[[Hesperia (journal)|Hesperia]]: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens
, but rather [[Hesperia (journal)|Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens]]
. Though you could also simply have [[Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens]]
.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
18:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I realize the original text was wrong, but apostrophe is equally wrong. I also realize this might be hard to fix.
GA-RT-22 (
talk)
19:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
http://www.pcgamer.com/nidhogg-devs-flywrench-is-finally-nearly-out/ "author" : [ "Tom Sykes", "published" ] ],
I will add fix for this. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 13:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I know this is a minor bug, but it bugs me. I know that the bot is written to make an attempt to duplicate the formatting already present in the ref. How it could have failed here, I don't know. But more importantly, it should default to the consensus ref formatting: space,pipe,parametername,=,parametervalue. (Spaces before pipes, no spaces around the equals signs or anywhere else, except perhaps before the curly end brackets if there already was a space there.)
Abductive (
reasoning)
03:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Is there a convincing reason for the bot to make this change?
template:cite news does not give it as preferred to work=
. Whether some modern source is or is not a newspaper can be arguable, so why ask questions when you don't know the answer? Do you keep a massive table of which news sources are [physical] newspapers and which only have a web presence? Or which stories only ever appeared on the website but never made it into print? It seems to me that it is not broken so doesn't need fixing. --
John Maynard Friedman (
talk)
11:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
And consequently we get totally pointless, annoying and counter-policy cosmetic edits like this one. Please stop. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 10:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Why has @ AManWithNoPlan set the bot loose on a set of 2,850 pages which so far seems to consist entirely of user sandboxes?
It doesn't seem to me to be appropriate for one editor to edit so many sandboxes. WP:USERPAGE#Editing_of_other_editors'_user_and_user_talk_pages discourages such editing.
I also don't see the utility of these edits. I just checked 5 successive edits in this batch, nd in ech ce the last edit was from 2017/2018 ( [11] 2018, [12] 2018, [13] 2017, [14] 2017, [15] 2018).
The bot has limited capacity and is usually overloaded. Why is that capacity being squandered on editing stale userspace drafts, apparently without permission? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Is there a particular reason why the bot is changing references using the cite web templates for articles on Billboard's website to cite magazine? The print magazine is not being cited. Even when I corrected the change on an article, the bot came back and changed it to cite magazine again. -- Carlobunnie ( talk) 01:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Let us know if there are any new ones like this.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
15:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
|url=
and no |work=
/aliases should be turned into {{
cite web}}
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
15:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)|title=Folha Online - Especial - 2004 - Eleições - Apuração - Santos (SP) - Prefeito (1º turno)
and |title=Pagina inicial
. It's unclear what the title should be, but it's definitely not either of those things.
The citation bot updated Computer terminal at 08:10, 28 January 2022, changing
{{cite document |title=G101-A Remote Time Share Terminal with Graphic Terminal |author=S. Pardee |s2cid=27102280 |date=1971 |doi=10.1109/T-C.1971.223364 |quote=Terminal cost is currently about $10,000}}
to
{{cite journal |title=G101-A Remote Time Share Terminal with Graphic Terminal |author=S. Pardee |s2cid=27102280 |date=1971 |doi=10.1109/T-C.1971.223364 |quote=Terminal cost is currently about $10,000}}
without adding |journal=
IEEE Transactions on Computers
, much less |date=August 1971
, |issue=8
, |pages=878-881
, |publisher=
IEEE
or |volume=C-20
. it renders as
S. Pardee (1971). "G101-A Remote Time Share Terminal with Graphic Terminal". doi: 10.1109/T-C.1971.223364. S2CID 27102280.
Terminal cost is currently about $10,000{{ cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires|journal=
( help)
with the preview message
Script warning: One or more {{ cite journal}} templates have errors; messages may be hidden (help:CS1 errors|help).
and no error message on the actual citation. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 15:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
|journal=
error messages are hidden. Use your personal css to show hidden error messages. See
Help:CS1 errors § Controlling error message display for instructions.Would batch runners of this bot hold off converting all instances of {{ cite document}} to {{ cite journal}} or {{ cite web}}, please? There is a discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 81#"Cite document" needs its own template. Redirecting to cite journal is illogical and unfriendly. which I hope will have the effect of giving us a useful 'cite document' template that actually, wait for it... wait for it..., cites documents. Offline documents, online documents, you name it. Most but not all are PDFs. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 17:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Trappist the monk has produced a sandbox version of the new template, but observes that there are 9000 uses of the current cite document in use. So here is my Cunning Plan: establish the new template temporarily as {{ cite document2}}. Then our friendly local batch runners (who have already been beavering away 'correcting' instances of cite document into {{ cite journal}} or {{ cite web}} now have a third choice: the new template. Simple test: if is a pdf or has no url, then it is a genuine document that needs the new template. Existing tests for an actual journal are as present and should come first. Discards go in the cite web bin. 9000 edits later, we rename cite document2 as cite document and another bot run converts all uses to the corrected name. What could possibly go wrong? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 18:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
|last=
|first=
and |last3=
|first3=
|editor=
or |editor-last=
|editor-first=
, don't add |last3=
|first3=
without |last2=
|first2=
or |author2=
|publisher=UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS PRESS
to books that were already marked as |place=London: Methuen
. The correct change there would have been to continue to use the British publisher, |publisher=Methuen
|location=London
, rather than being schizophrenic and SHOUTY. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
23:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)| author = Dinesh Ramde, Todd Richmond | author2 =Associated Press | author2-link =Associated Press
to | agency = Dinesh Ramde, Todd Richmond | author2 =Associated Press | author2-link =Associated Press
, thereby adding the article to
Category:CS1 errors: missing name| author = Dinesh Ramde, Todd Richmond | agency =[[Associated Press]]
One of the authors is literally just the colon character.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
22:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Would you like to add a feature, to remove maintenance error: leading equal (==) in CS. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=3D_film&diff=1068666785&oldid=1066977786 This would clean the Category:CS1 maint: extra punctuation. Grimes2 ( talk) 18:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for reporting these things. Dealing with less than perfect refs and meta-data is a pain, but worth fixing.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
16:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
|author=Reuters|author2=Sami Aboudi|author3=Bill Roggio
to |agency=Reuters|author2=Sami Aboudi|author3=Bill Roggio
, which adds the article to
Category:CS1 errors: missing name
I just noticed that the bot's recent contribs list appears to show two batch jobs being run simultaneously at the request of @ AManWithNoPlan. One has 1776 pages, and the other has 1682.
That explains why the bot has been so unresponsive today to single-page requests.
How is this possible? And if it happened accidentally, why did @
AManWithNoPlan not use https://citations.toolforge.org/kill_big_job.php
to kill one of the batches?
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
18:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
wiki-link was not taken into account. should work for those too once deployed.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
09:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Can you explain why Special:Diff/1068764242, whose only effect is to replace "cite arxiv" by "cite arXiv" (twice), does not violate the prohibition against purely-cosmetic bot edits? — David Eppstein ( talk) 08:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
This might be bigger than just cite arXiv - see this edit to Joker (The Dark Knight), where the bot only changed {{ cite DVD notes}} to its redirect {{ cite AV media notes}}. GoingBatty ( talk) 15:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
The bot is nearing the end of a batch of 1776 of pages requested by @
AManWithNoPlan, many of which consist solely of changing {{cite arxiv
to {{cite arXiv
. The bot's
most recent 20 edits include only 14 from this batch, and 4 of those 14 edits make only that capitalisation fix:
[18],
[19],
[20],
[21].
These edits are pointless, because {{ cite arxiv}} is a redirect to {{ cite arXiv}}. So the capitalisation of the template name has zero effect on the rendered article: in each case, the same template is used. There is not even a boost to maintenance, because a difference in capitalisation has no impact on a search for the template.
WP:COSMETICBOT is very clear that such changes should not usually be done on their own, but may be allowed in an edit that also includes a substantive change.
This has been raised many times before, but there has been no fix. Even worse, the prevalence of this cosmetic fix in this batch makes it appear that use of the uncapitalised {{ cite arxiv}} was probably a selection criterion for this batch. This seems to be flagrant defiance of WP:COSMETICBOT, and it's only the latest in a series of similar bitches. It is very disappointing to see the bot's maintainer again misusing the bot in this way.
@ AManWithNoPlan does wonderful hard work in maintaining the bot. But these cosmetic batch jobs are a breach of bot policy, and they also squander the resources of the bot by displacing more productive jobs. Time to stop this. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
We are aware of extra doi-broken-date flags being added. Have added extra checks to latest version. Existing runs will not see them. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 00:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
The bot has changed work to newspaper without any other changes. This is purely a cosmetic change since newspaper is an alias of work. Why is this happening? Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi,
Example diff (second change). When a domain has been usurped it is replaced with |url-status=usurped
and sometimes the |title=
also contains usurped content. My bot is able to detect keywords that indicate a usurped title, but unable to determine a correct replacement title, so it adds the placeholder |title=usurped title
. This placeholder was also discussed at CS1|2 help. It would be great if Citation bot was able to recognize the placeholder and fill in a better title. It would require using |archive-url=
as the source since the |url=
is usurped. There are not a huge number (
197) but they are growing indefinitely due to the
WP:JUDI case. --
Green
C
19:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
|title=Archived copy
when it archives a URL which lacks a title. That usage is categorised in
Category:CS1 maint: archived copy as title, which currently contains over 160,000 articles.|title=Archived copy
or |title=usurped title
, the same remedy is required ... so the two should be treated as one task.|title=
. The lookup of the archived title is not part of Citation bot's current capabilities.<title>Page Title</title>
. --
Green
C
06:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
dedicated run on Category:Foobar, because:
reality checkis a form of gaslighting. Please stop your vicious bullying tactics. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Without getting into the dubious ethics of using inappropriate choice of language (or choice of inappropriate language), the reality right now is that CitationBot is frequently, almost usually, unusable by single-use requestors. I have argued and continue to argue that the batch runs need to be restrained in some way at least until we can get separate instances of the bot. There may be some resolution in sight, see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Is there a ToolForge doctor in the house? CitationBot could use some help. Headbomb may have an argument that a batch run is a batch run is a batch run, so what makes their batch run any less deserving that anyone else's (apart from being a machine-gun to kill grass-hoppers). Right now, it is simply and wildly unrealistic to add another batch run to the load: it won't achieve its own objectives in any useful timescale; it will mean that the same happens to the other batch runs; and it guarantees that individual articke requests will invariably fail rather than just usually. There is a WP article about that attitude: WP:DISRUPTIVE. Maybe it is not fair to be labelled as disruptive for just being the one who loaded the last straw, but tough. Headbomb, you need to find another bot that will do what you need, this is not an argument worth winning. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 14:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
@
Rlink2: if we give you a snazzy cape and
your own special car, please can you help out here? Your mission is to make a new bot which takes any CS1/CS2 template with |title=Archived copy
or |title=usurped title
, looks up the linked archived copy, and extracts a meaningful title from the contents of <title>Page Title</title>
.
Please come to our rescue! Your reward in
gold will be in the usual place
--
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
07:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
<title>Storms lash Hightown {{!}} ZYX News, the leading local news service for YOUR town!</title>
... which causes the cite template to have |title=Storms lash Hightown | ZYX News, the leading local news service for YOUR town!
rather than just |title=Storms lash Hightown
.|website=
parameter, unless it (or |work=
/|magazine=
/|newspaper=
is already present. It seems to me that this should be a relatively easily-coded enhancement, but please ignore this request if it's too much hassle.|
, just use "www.example.com": |website=www.example.com
.|website=www.washingtonpost.com
with |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]
) ... but |website=www.washingtonpost.com
is way more useful than no website field.
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
15:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
|website=
field. I have been admonished by multiple people don't do this. If you are unsure ask at
Help talk:Citation Style 1 first. --
Green
C
16:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
website=
, though none of the examples use the fully qualified domain. (What they do do is give an example argument that matches more to my conception of work=
, giving website=Encyclopedia of Things
, which is surely a work.) Take a contrarian example: Amazon Inc has multiple websites, simplistically language but also in product offering. So it is certainly useful, probably important, to know that the website is amazon.de, amazon.es, or amazon.co.uk. I don't know who decided that website=<domain> is deprecated but it is not policy and if its a rule, it is certainly one to be ignored when the circumstances suggest otherwise, as they do in this case. --
John Maynard Friedman (
talk)
19:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)|
and swap it to {{!}}
.
Izno (
talk)
00:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
|website=domain
is problematic for a huge variety of reasons. For example, if
[26] were archived, we wouldn't want |website=mdpi.com
, but rather |journal=Religions
. Or if
this were archived, we'd don't want |website=books.google.ca
.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
20:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
The point is those 'hard cases' are extremely common. As are cases like
which should not get |website=hueuni.edu.vn
.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
21:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
|website=hueuni.edu.vn
as long as no |publisher=
would have existed.
Jonatan Svensson Glad (
talk)
00:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)|website=hueuni.edu.vn
is wrong? That is exactly where the story was first posted. [And if we already have that much info in the citation, what is there left for a bot to do?]website=smallvillehistory.ky.us
because that leads to the gambling site, but who says we need to supply one if it is not already present? In fact we need to remove anything like a website=<domain name> because we know it is invalid. --
John Maynard Friedman (
talk) |website=Smallville History Society
is dead wrong. The Smallville History Society is not a website. It's the publisher.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
02:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
|website=Smallville History Society
does not assert that "Smallville History Society" is a website. It asserts that the URL is on the website of the Smallville History Society, which is branded as "Smallville History Society".
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
02:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
|work=News & events
for the Hue University example citation: J. I. Friedman. "The Road to the Nobel Prize". News & events. Huế University. Archived from the original on 2008-12-25. Retrieved 2008-09-29.It's not a particularly helpful part of the citation, but its not as bad as putting the url as the work and it preempts other editors from doing the wrong thing. — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I really don't see the point of encouraging editors to install the gadget when most uses of it end in failure, which has been my experience every time I've tried to use it this week. At the same time, I have no problems running refill, so it is not toolforge. Can we have a completely separate process instance for gadget users please?, and let the batch runners fight it out between themselves. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 12:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Is there a page where I can request other editors to run the bot for articles I edit? I think it will work if I can put the my(our) request in the to-do list of batch runners.-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 02:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
This has been brought up before. The conclusons were that having the bot edit {{
sfn}} was bad and that the {{
sfn}}'s were defective since they contain no year and thus are hyper-non-specific.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
23:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Yet another series of cosmetic edits by the bot, which yet again appears to have been chosen by the bot's maintainer on the basis of this cosmetic task
The bot's
latest contribs list shows a batch job of 1605 pages suggested by @
AManWithNoPlan. All of the edits which I have checked in this batch include the cosmetic change of |p=
to |page=
, which is a purely cosmetic change: in CS1/CS2 templates |p=
is an alias of |page=
, so the change has zero effect on the output of the template.
See e.g. these 16 edits which consist solely of |p=
to |page=
:
[27],
[28],
[29],
[30],
[31],
[32],
[33],
[34],
[35],
[36],
[37],
[38],
[39],
[40],
[41],
[42] ... and this edit
[43] which is just |p=
to |page=
plus trimming redundant whitespace
Per WP:COSMETICBOT, such changes may be made as part of a substantive edit, but not on their own.
I understand that avoiding cosmetic-only edits may not be easy to code for. But it's very unhelpful for anyone to use a cosmetic issue as the basis for selecting a batch, and when the bot's maintainer does that it looks like they are exploiting the bug. Not good.
@ AManWithNoPlan, please can you kill this cosmetic batch job? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
|p=
to |page=
:
[44],
[45],
[46],
[47],
[48],
[49].
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
03:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Citation bot is adding publication dates for pages on
LeatherLicensePlates.com when, AFAIK, these pages do not state said dates anywhere that is obvious - which makes me wonder *exactly* how this bot is coming up with these dates, and even wonder whether it is simply making these dates up.
On Vehicle registration plates of Nevada, which uses LeatherLicensePlates.com's Nevada page as one of its sources, Citation bot has *twice* added August 27, 2015 as the publication date for this page:
But nowhere obvious on the page does it say that the page was published August 27, 2015:
Citation bot has also added August 27, 2015 as the publication date for LeatherLicensePlates.com's Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Indiana, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, and New York pages:
Again, however, nowhere obvious on any of these pages is August 27, 2015 stated as the publication date:
Finally, Citation bot has added August 28, 2015 as the publication date for LeatherLicensePlates.com's Oregon and South Dakota pages...
...and *three times* has added this particular date as the publication date for the site's Ohio page.
Once again, though... I can't see this date stated anywhere obvious on any of these pages.
Obviously, I myself am not a bot, and my intelligence isn't artificial - but with respect where respect is due, I would *never* put a date on when a source was published if I didn't know what that date was, that date wasn't stated anywhere obvious on the source, and there was no easy way at all of determining that date.
Hence - and again with all due respect - I would quite like to know exactly how Citation bot is coming up with these particular dates for the pages on LeatherLicensePlates.com. I'd be pretty shocked if it turned out that this bot was making these dates up...
Klondike53226 ( talk) 17:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
{{cite web |title=Old Nevada License Plates {{!}} Vintage Nevada License Plates |url=http://leatherlicenseplates.com/old-nevada-license-plates-vintage-nevada-license-plates/ |website=LeatherLicensePlates.com |date=27 August 2015}}
|title=
...See my proposal at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Wishlist_Survey_2022/Citations/More_capacity_for_Citation_bot
If you support this idea, or have suggestions for improving the proposal, please post at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Wishlist_Survey_2022/Citations/More_capacity_for_Citation_bot BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
I support the idea, but I'm not sure it's anything the WMF can do anything about. Or would be willing to, given they only filled one relatively trivial request lasts year. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 19:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Why does citation bot add italicization to Associated Press and Reuters as seen here? Our own articles about those news agencies don't italicize them. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 02:58, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
|agency=
is to be used when the work of Reuters or AP (and other agencies) is republished in another publisher's work (typically a newspaper). When Reuters or AP (and other agencies) is cited directly, then the source is the 'work'. We cite the work not the corporate entity. The en.wiki articles are not italicized because the articles are about the corporate entities. In both of these cases, the corporate entities have eponymous websites that are the sources so those names go in |work=
when citing their articles directly.|via=
or |publisher=
, not |work=
. Organization names are not italicized; periodicals, edited volumes, websites, or other collections of documents are. The current name of the collection of documents that the Associated Press publishes appears to be
AP News. If "Associated Press" is being used in the work parameter, it is being used incorrectly there. If the bot is moving "Associated Press" to the work parameter without changing it to "AP News" or some similar name for the work rather than the organization, it is doing the wrong thing and should stop. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
18:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
[AP and Reuters] have eponymous websites that are the sources so those names go in |work=
when citing their articles directly.
Is there an explicit MOS or guideline that says one way or another, then? —
Fourthords |
=Λ= |
19:19, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Organization names are not capitalized(emphasis added)
|publisher=The Associated Press
(|via=The Associated Press
should not be used for work distributed from AP News because AP News is the publisher's outlet).
|muse-access=free
is present with the |muse=12345678
.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
23:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)Simplewiki is full of thousands of easily fixed CS1 errors, bare urls, and basically all the sorts of stuff that this bot is supposed to fix. Simplewiki uses the same template parameters on the cite templates, so why doesn't this bot run there? Is there something I'm missing here? Please add support for simplewiki? Mako001 (C) (T) 12:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
They are not the same citation templates. Similar, but not the same. Several years older, that migt be an issue.Are you sure about that? simple:Module:Citation/CS1 was updated 24 January 2022) and simple:Template:cite book, simple:Template:cite web, simple:Template:cite news, simple:Template:cite journal, and simple:Template:cite encyclopedia all appear to be up to date.
{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}
magic word at simple.wiki, there are 204,780 articles. If one believes the results of
this search, there are approximately 102,400 articles that use a cs1|2 template. So, roughly half of all articles use cs1|2. I suspect that that number will change as simple.wiki gains more articles.
{{
cite arxiv}}
from en.wiki.Code implemented. To avoid usage on incompatible wikis, the code has an array of safe wikis. Currently en and simple only. https://citations.toolforge.org/process_page.php?edit=toolbar&wiki_base=simple&page=Water (so wiki_base defaults to en, but can be simple). But, the bot does not have the ability to actually commit edits (Write error: We encountered a captcha, so can't be properly logged in) and barfs out the wikitext to the user, so they can hand copy and paste. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 21:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
https://simple.wikipedia.org/?title=Ecology&type=revision&diff=8044067&oldid=7992470 https://simple.wikipedia.org/?title=Apple&diff=prev&oldid=8044066 https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AManWithNoPlan/common.js
Fixed - done.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
19:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Can you edit Draft:Spider-Man (Takuya Yamashiro) please? Blackknight1234567890 ( talk) 09:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
My big batch job has stalled since this edit
[55] at 11:16, and https://citations.toolforge.org/kill_big_job.php
doesn't kill it.
@ AManWithNoPlan, please can you kill this job? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
In the article
French fries, the bot made the change above.
Reuters is not a publication, but a
news agency. Putting it in a "work" parameter italicizes it in the reference and is an error.
SchreiberBike |
⌨
00:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
|agency=
is used when citing a source produced by the agency but issued by another news source (very commonly, a newspaper). When citing a source on the agency's own website, |work=
(or |website=
) is correct.|agency=
is just as arguably correct, in other editors' opinions. The bot should not be used to unfairly overpower one editor's opinion with a bulldozer over other editors armed only with hand-trowels; that is an abuse of bot policy and should lead to the bot being blocked from editing. The bot should stick to uncontroversial cleanups. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
01:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
|agency=
is categorically incorrect when it is the work being cited. There's no arguing about that.
Izno (
talk)
04:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
|agency=
? Is it to create metadata about the type of news outlet like |tabloid=
hah. Rather, the purpose is to be paired with |work=
(eg. work=NYT agency=Reuters) so that users can track down alternative sources in case of link rot or
WP:V. If Reuters is the sole source, there is no agent involved, even though Reuters is technically a news agency it doesn't matter for our citing purposes. --
Green
C
05:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)|agency=
is for reprints of material by another agency, such as The NYT publishing a work from Reuters or The LA Times publishing a work from the AP. An agency is not an agency for itself.
Izno (
talk)
07:24, 4 March 2022 (UTC)is just as arguably correct, in other editors' opinions.Well, the official policy is to use the work parameter. if an editor thinks "agency=" is the right one, they need to have a good reason for why that is the case.
agency=
should only be used when the citation already has a work=
or newspaper=
. Think of it like a via=
. When Reuters etc are publishing in their own right, it is just a work like any other. --
John Maynard Friedman (
talk)
12:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
It may be making the change because the string "news" is contained in the URL. It is a press release from the NIH. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Whywhenwhohow (
talk •
contribs)
16:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
trans-title
trans-title
should stay italicized, per
MOS:TITLECONFORM
|publisher=
is the correct parameter to use.
when the |work=
and |publisher=
are the same, publisher is not included.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
22:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
GIGO?
The Liberator is a newspaper not a scholarly or academic journal so |newspaper=
not |journal=
. The name of the newspaper is [[The Liberator (newspaper)|The Liberator]]
not [[The Liberator (newspaper)|The Liberator]] (Boston, Massachusetts)
. If it is necessary to disambiguate a source by its location, do this:
|newspaper=[[The Liberator (newspaper)|The Liberator]] |location=Boston
Another problem not mentioned above is this part of the edit where the bot broke the google books link:
|url=
https://books.google.com/books?vid=HARVARD:32044092691898&printsec=titlepage#v=onepage
(works) → |url=
https://books.google.com/books?id=HARVARD
(does not work)— Trappist the monk ( talk) 13:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
(Boston, Massachusetts)
is not part of the newspaper's name so does not belong in |newspaper=
. When the parenthetical is included in |newspaper=
, it is a corruption of the citation's metadata. When the parenthetical is included in |newspaper=
, it is rendered in italics as if it were part of the newspaper's name. The location-of-publication is properly rendered in an upright font when used with |location=
.clip ID info, you should fix the tool or, if not your tool, report this to the tool maintainers for fixing.
|contribution=
|contribution=No sublogarithmic-time approximation scheme for bipartite vertex cover
(the correct title of a conference paper and |title=26th International Symposium on Distributed Computing (DISC), Salvador, Brazil, October 2012
(a valid form of the title of the conference, although not exactly the form reported by DBLP or by the publisher) by replacing |title=
with the paper's title, causing the title to repeat redundantly within the citation, and by removing the conference title. At the same time, it added a doi for a different journal version of the paper (not the conference version that was cited) but neglected to change any of the other parameters to match the journal version. The added s2cid, incidentally, appears to be for the journal version but with garbage metadata using a wrong publication date that is neither correct nor a match for the cited conference version (confirming my general low opinion of SS and of the uselessness of spamming their ids everywhere).
If this request can be programmed at all, then I suggest that it be limited to single-shot use, fully attended with the output checked for sanity. It would be grossly irresponsible to leave this to a 200-article batch run. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 00:15, 23 March 2022 (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 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
This is super annoying. There's no reasons for those pages to be skipped. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 03:28, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Basically find
Replace
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 19:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
@
User:Whoop whoop pull up @
User:Headbomb
Is this because too many people use gadgets? example; .
OCLC
14003250. {{
cite book}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help). --
SilverMatsu (
talk)
02:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
|publisher=nytimes.com
→ |work=nytimes.com
|publisher=nytimes.com
→ |newspaper=[[The New York Times]]
, and|work=nytimes.com
→ |newspaper=[[The New York Times]]
, and|website=nytimes.com
→ |newspaper=[[The New York Times]]
When citations already include Official Charts Company as the publication name, there is no need for this bot to add "OfficialCharts.com" into them. Not only is it repetitive to include, but that form is also malformatted as ".com" isn't technically part of the organization's name, even when used in their URL. SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 16:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
|agency=
is the wrong parameter. That parameter is generally for organizations like
Associated Press,
Reuters, etc when work from the agency is redistributed by another source (typically a newspaper). Use |website=[[Official Charts Company]]
.|publisher=[[Official Charts Company]]
. The Official Charts Company is not a website. The website/work here is Official Charts.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
19:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)|journal=Undefined
Hallo suche Personen die mich unterstützen können. Ich mache Psychiarieerfahrungen. An wen wendet man sich bei staatlicher Willkür wie bekommt man Aufklärung und öffentliches Interesse? Meine Emailadresse ist [redacted] Lg Andreas 2A02:3033:41B:8EC0:D954:CA9:734B:C6E7 ( talk) 16:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
|title = An error occured!
into the template.curl -A " " -s "https://globaldatalab.org/shdi/shdi/POL/?levels=1%2B4&years=2019%2B2015%2B2010%2B2005%2B2000%2B1995" | grep -oP "(?<=<title>).*(?=</title>)"
The grepping of the title is a terrible idea. That leads to all the citations with titles of "Wiley's Online Library" and similar. The incorrect spelling of "occured" is now recognized.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
14:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Added to list of series. On that specific page I added a comment to prevent the adding of the page range. I will also add code to reject page ranges the start with "i" and end with something over 100.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
14:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
[https://www.dw.com/en/germany-wont-seek-eu-wide-ban-on-swastikas/a-2330716 DW 29 January 2007]
{{cite web| url = https://www.dw.com/en/germany-wont-seek-eu-wide-ban-on-swastikas/a-2330716| title = DW 29 January 2007}}
(
diff)
{{cite web| url = https://www.dw.com/en/germany-wont-seek-eu-wide-ban-on-swastikas/a-2330716| title = DW 29 January 2007| website = [[Deutsche Welle]]}}
(
diff){{cite web |url = https://www.dw.com/en/germany-wont-seek-eu-wide-ban-on-swastikas/a-2330716 |title = Germany Won't Seek EU-Wide Ban on Swastikas |date= 29 January 2007 |work = [[Deutsche Welle]]}}
(
diff)So my question is whether, accepting how poorly fed it was, could or should CitationBot have got closer to the right answer? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 11:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
My big job has stalled after 1433/2195 pages. The last edit [7] was an hour ago. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
In the Wikipedia article on Carnarvonshire Railway, below all the expected text matter, is a compilation of what I imagine to be an attempt to produce a line route-map that is unfinished. Can you investigate?
Xenophon Philosopher ( talk) 22:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
|title=UCLA - International Institute ..::.. Error
, |title=404
, and (this is especially egregious) |title=Compare Payday Loans | Find the Best Loan Deal
even though the arhived links are valid.
Removing the link to Hesperia (journal) on Crocus was presumably an error. I restored it but the bot might need tweaking to prevent this happening again - presubably it didnt like the lik being to the name of the journal, not to its desscription - which I linked to this time -- Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 18:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
[[Hesperia (journal)|Hesperia]]: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens
, but rather [[Hesperia (journal)|Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens]]
. Though you could also simply have [[Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens]]
.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
18:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I realize the original text was wrong, but apostrophe is equally wrong. I also realize this might be hard to fix.
GA-RT-22 (
talk)
19:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
http://www.pcgamer.com/nidhogg-devs-flywrench-is-finally-nearly-out/ "author" : [ "Tom Sykes", "published" ] ],
I will add fix for this. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 13:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I know this is a minor bug, but it bugs me. I know that the bot is written to make an attempt to duplicate the formatting already present in the ref. How it could have failed here, I don't know. But more importantly, it should default to the consensus ref formatting: space,pipe,parametername,=,parametervalue. (Spaces before pipes, no spaces around the equals signs or anywhere else, except perhaps before the curly end brackets if there already was a space there.)
Abductive (
reasoning)
03:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Is there a convincing reason for the bot to make this change?
template:cite news does not give it as preferred to work=
. Whether some modern source is or is not a newspaper can be arguable, so why ask questions when you don't know the answer? Do you keep a massive table of which news sources are [physical] newspapers and which only have a web presence? Or which stories only ever appeared on the website but never made it into print? It seems to me that it is not broken so doesn't need fixing. --
John Maynard Friedman (
talk)
11:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
And consequently we get totally pointless, annoying and counter-policy cosmetic edits like this one. Please stop. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 10:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Why has @ AManWithNoPlan set the bot loose on a set of 2,850 pages which so far seems to consist entirely of user sandboxes?
It doesn't seem to me to be appropriate for one editor to edit so many sandboxes. WP:USERPAGE#Editing_of_other_editors'_user_and_user_talk_pages discourages such editing.
I also don't see the utility of these edits. I just checked 5 successive edits in this batch, nd in ech ce the last edit was from 2017/2018 ( [11] 2018, [12] 2018, [13] 2017, [14] 2017, [15] 2018).
The bot has limited capacity and is usually overloaded. Why is that capacity being squandered on editing stale userspace drafts, apparently without permission? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Is there a particular reason why the bot is changing references using the cite web templates for articles on Billboard's website to cite magazine? The print magazine is not being cited. Even when I corrected the change on an article, the bot came back and changed it to cite magazine again. -- Carlobunnie ( talk) 01:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Let us know if there are any new ones like this.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
15:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
|url=
and no |work=
/aliases should be turned into {{
cite web}}
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
15:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)|title=Folha Online - Especial - 2004 - Eleições - Apuração - Santos (SP) - Prefeito (1º turno)
and |title=Pagina inicial
. It's unclear what the title should be, but it's definitely not either of those things.
The citation bot updated Computer terminal at 08:10, 28 January 2022, changing
{{cite document |title=G101-A Remote Time Share Terminal with Graphic Terminal |author=S. Pardee |s2cid=27102280 |date=1971 |doi=10.1109/T-C.1971.223364 |quote=Terminal cost is currently about $10,000}}
to
{{cite journal |title=G101-A Remote Time Share Terminal with Graphic Terminal |author=S. Pardee |s2cid=27102280 |date=1971 |doi=10.1109/T-C.1971.223364 |quote=Terminal cost is currently about $10,000}}
without adding |journal=
IEEE Transactions on Computers
, much less |date=August 1971
, |issue=8
, |pages=878-881
, |publisher=
IEEE
or |volume=C-20
. it renders as
S. Pardee (1971). "G101-A Remote Time Share Terminal with Graphic Terminal". doi: 10.1109/T-C.1971.223364. S2CID 27102280.
Terminal cost is currently about $10,000{{ cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires|journal=
( help)
with the preview message
Script warning: One or more {{ cite journal}} templates have errors; messages may be hidden (help:CS1 errors|help).
and no error message on the actual citation. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 15:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
|journal=
error messages are hidden. Use your personal css to show hidden error messages. See
Help:CS1 errors § Controlling error message display for instructions.Would batch runners of this bot hold off converting all instances of {{ cite document}} to {{ cite journal}} or {{ cite web}}, please? There is a discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 81#"Cite document" needs its own template. Redirecting to cite journal is illogical and unfriendly. which I hope will have the effect of giving us a useful 'cite document' template that actually, wait for it... wait for it..., cites documents. Offline documents, online documents, you name it. Most but not all are PDFs. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 17:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Trappist the monk has produced a sandbox version of the new template, but observes that there are 9000 uses of the current cite document in use. So here is my Cunning Plan: establish the new template temporarily as {{ cite document2}}. Then our friendly local batch runners (who have already been beavering away 'correcting' instances of cite document into {{ cite journal}} or {{ cite web}} now have a third choice: the new template. Simple test: if is a pdf or has no url, then it is a genuine document that needs the new template. Existing tests for an actual journal are as present and should come first. Discards go in the cite web bin. 9000 edits later, we rename cite document2 as cite document and another bot run converts all uses to the corrected name. What could possibly go wrong? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 18:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
|last=
|first=
and |last3=
|first3=
|editor=
or |editor-last=
|editor-first=
, don't add |last3=
|first3=
without |last2=
|first2=
or |author2=
|publisher=UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS PRESS
to books that were already marked as |place=London: Methuen
. The correct change there would have been to continue to use the British publisher, |publisher=Methuen
|location=London
, rather than being schizophrenic and SHOUTY. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
23:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)| author = Dinesh Ramde, Todd Richmond | author2 =Associated Press | author2-link =Associated Press
to | agency = Dinesh Ramde, Todd Richmond | author2 =Associated Press | author2-link =Associated Press
, thereby adding the article to
Category:CS1 errors: missing name| author = Dinesh Ramde, Todd Richmond | agency =[[Associated Press]]
One of the authors is literally just the colon character.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
22:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Would you like to add a feature, to remove maintenance error: leading equal (==) in CS. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=3D_film&diff=1068666785&oldid=1066977786 This would clean the Category:CS1 maint: extra punctuation. Grimes2 ( talk) 18:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for reporting these things. Dealing with less than perfect refs and meta-data is a pain, but worth fixing.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
16:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
|author=Reuters|author2=Sami Aboudi|author3=Bill Roggio
to |agency=Reuters|author2=Sami Aboudi|author3=Bill Roggio
, which adds the article to
Category:CS1 errors: missing name
I just noticed that the bot's recent contribs list appears to show two batch jobs being run simultaneously at the request of @ AManWithNoPlan. One has 1776 pages, and the other has 1682.
That explains why the bot has been so unresponsive today to single-page requests.
How is this possible? And if it happened accidentally, why did @
AManWithNoPlan not use https://citations.toolforge.org/kill_big_job.php
to kill one of the batches?
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
18:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
wiki-link was not taken into account. should work for those too once deployed.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
09:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Can you explain why Special:Diff/1068764242, whose only effect is to replace "cite arxiv" by "cite arXiv" (twice), does not violate the prohibition against purely-cosmetic bot edits? — David Eppstein ( talk) 08:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
This might be bigger than just cite arXiv - see this edit to Joker (The Dark Knight), where the bot only changed {{ cite DVD notes}} to its redirect {{ cite AV media notes}}. GoingBatty ( talk) 15:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
The bot is nearing the end of a batch of 1776 of pages requested by @
AManWithNoPlan, many of which consist solely of changing {{cite arxiv
to {{cite arXiv
. The bot's
most recent 20 edits include only 14 from this batch, and 4 of those 14 edits make only that capitalisation fix:
[18],
[19],
[20],
[21].
These edits are pointless, because {{ cite arxiv}} is a redirect to {{ cite arXiv}}. So the capitalisation of the template name has zero effect on the rendered article: in each case, the same template is used. There is not even a boost to maintenance, because a difference in capitalisation has no impact on a search for the template.
WP:COSMETICBOT is very clear that such changes should not usually be done on their own, but may be allowed in an edit that also includes a substantive change.
This has been raised many times before, but there has been no fix. Even worse, the prevalence of this cosmetic fix in this batch makes it appear that use of the uncapitalised {{ cite arxiv}} was probably a selection criterion for this batch. This seems to be flagrant defiance of WP:COSMETICBOT, and it's only the latest in a series of similar bitches. It is very disappointing to see the bot's maintainer again misusing the bot in this way.
@ AManWithNoPlan does wonderful hard work in maintaining the bot. But these cosmetic batch jobs are a breach of bot policy, and they also squander the resources of the bot by displacing more productive jobs. Time to stop this. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
We are aware of extra doi-broken-date flags being added. Have added extra checks to latest version. Existing runs will not see them. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 00:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
The bot has changed work to newspaper without any other changes. This is purely a cosmetic change since newspaper is an alias of work. Why is this happening? Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi,
Example diff (second change). When a domain has been usurped it is replaced with |url-status=usurped
and sometimes the |title=
also contains usurped content. My bot is able to detect keywords that indicate a usurped title, but unable to determine a correct replacement title, so it adds the placeholder |title=usurped title
. This placeholder was also discussed at CS1|2 help. It would be great if Citation bot was able to recognize the placeholder and fill in a better title. It would require using |archive-url=
as the source since the |url=
is usurped. There are not a huge number (
197) but they are growing indefinitely due to the
WP:JUDI case. --
Green
C
19:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
|title=Archived copy
when it archives a URL which lacks a title. That usage is categorised in
Category:CS1 maint: archived copy as title, which currently contains over 160,000 articles.|title=Archived copy
or |title=usurped title
, the same remedy is required ... so the two should be treated as one task.|title=
. The lookup of the archived title is not part of Citation bot's current capabilities.<title>Page Title</title>
. --
Green
C
06:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
dedicated run on Category:Foobar, because:
reality checkis a form of gaslighting. Please stop your vicious bullying tactics. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Without getting into the dubious ethics of using inappropriate choice of language (or choice of inappropriate language), the reality right now is that CitationBot is frequently, almost usually, unusable by single-use requestors. I have argued and continue to argue that the batch runs need to be restrained in some way at least until we can get separate instances of the bot. There may be some resolution in sight, see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Is there a ToolForge doctor in the house? CitationBot could use some help. Headbomb may have an argument that a batch run is a batch run is a batch run, so what makes their batch run any less deserving that anyone else's (apart from being a machine-gun to kill grass-hoppers). Right now, it is simply and wildly unrealistic to add another batch run to the load: it won't achieve its own objectives in any useful timescale; it will mean that the same happens to the other batch runs; and it guarantees that individual articke requests will invariably fail rather than just usually. There is a WP article about that attitude: WP:DISRUPTIVE. Maybe it is not fair to be labelled as disruptive for just being the one who loaded the last straw, but tough. Headbomb, you need to find another bot that will do what you need, this is not an argument worth winning. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 14:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
@
Rlink2: if we give you a snazzy cape and
your own special car, please can you help out here? Your mission is to make a new bot which takes any CS1/CS2 template with |title=Archived copy
or |title=usurped title
, looks up the linked archived copy, and extracts a meaningful title from the contents of <title>Page Title</title>
.
Please come to our rescue! Your reward in
gold will be in the usual place
--
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
07:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
<title>Storms lash Hightown {{!}} ZYX News, the leading local news service for YOUR town!</title>
... which causes the cite template to have |title=Storms lash Hightown | ZYX News, the leading local news service for YOUR town!
rather than just |title=Storms lash Hightown
.|website=
parameter, unless it (or |work=
/|magazine=
/|newspaper=
is already present. It seems to me that this should be a relatively easily-coded enhancement, but please ignore this request if it's too much hassle.|
, just use "www.example.com": |website=www.example.com
.|website=www.washingtonpost.com
with |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]
) ... but |website=www.washingtonpost.com
is way more useful than no website field.
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
15:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
|website=
field. I have been admonished by multiple people don't do this. If you are unsure ask at
Help talk:Citation Style 1 first. --
Green
C
16:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
website=
, though none of the examples use the fully qualified domain. (What they do do is give an example argument that matches more to my conception of work=
, giving website=Encyclopedia of Things
, which is surely a work.) Take a contrarian example: Amazon Inc has multiple websites, simplistically language but also in product offering. So it is certainly useful, probably important, to know that the website is amazon.de, amazon.es, or amazon.co.uk. I don't know who decided that website=<domain> is deprecated but it is not policy and if its a rule, it is certainly one to be ignored when the circumstances suggest otherwise, as they do in this case. --
John Maynard Friedman (
talk)
19:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)|
and swap it to {{!}}
.
Izno (
talk)
00:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
|website=domain
is problematic for a huge variety of reasons. For example, if
[26] were archived, we wouldn't want |website=mdpi.com
, but rather |journal=Religions
. Or if
this were archived, we'd don't want |website=books.google.ca
.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
20:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
The point is those 'hard cases' are extremely common. As are cases like
which should not get |website=hueuni.edu.vn
.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
21:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
|website=hueuni.edu.vn
as long as no |publisher=
would have existed.
Jonatan Svensson Glad (
talk)
00:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)|website=hueuni.edu.vn
is wrong? That is exactly where the story was first posted. [And if we already have that much info in the citation, what is there left for a bot to do?]website=smallvillehistory.ky.us
because that leads to the gambling site, but who says we need to supply one if it is not already present? In fact we need to remove anything like a website=<domain name> because we know it is invalid. --
John Maynard Friedman (
talk) |website=Smallville History Society
is dead wrong. The Smallville History Society is not a website. It's the publisher.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
02:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
|website=Smallville History Society
does not assert that "Smallville History Society" is a website. It asserts that the URL is on the website of the Smallville History Society, which is branded as "Smallville History Society".
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
02:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
|work=News & events
for the Hue University example citation: J. I. Friedman. "The Road to the Nobel Prize". News & events. Huế University. Archived from the original on 2008-12-25. Retrieved 2008-09-29.It's not a particularly helpful part of the citation, but its not as bad as putting the url as the work and it preempts other editors from doing the wrong thing. — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I really don't see the point of encouraging editors to install the gadget when most uses of it end in failure, which has been my experience every time I've tried to use it this week. At the same time, I have no problems running refill, so it is not toolforge. Can we have a completely separate process instance for gadget users please?, and let the batch runners fight it out between themselves. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 12:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Is there a page where I can request other editors to run the bot for articles I edit? I think it will work if I can put the my(our) request in the to-do list of batch runners.-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 02:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
This has been brought up before. The conclusons were that having the bot edit {{
sfn}} was bad and that the {{
sfn}}'s were defective since they contain no year and thus are hyper-non-specific.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
23:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Yet another series of cosmetic edits by the bot, which yet again appears to have been chosen by the bot's maintainer on the basis of this cosmetic task
The bot's
latest contribs list shows a batch job of 1605 pages suggested by @
AManWithNoPlan. All of the edits which I have checked in this batch include the cosmetic change of |p=
to |page=
, which is a purely cosmetic change: in CS1/CS2 templates |p=
is an alias of |page=
, so the change has zero effect on the output of the template.
See e.g. these 16 edits which consist solely of |p=
to |page=
:
[27],
[28],
[29],
[30],
[31],
[32],
[33],
[34],
[35],
[36],
[37],
[38],
[39],
[40],
[41],
[42] ... and this edit
[43] which is just |p=
to |page=
plus trimming redundant whitespace
Per WP:COSMETICBOT, such changes may be made as part of a substantive edit, but not on their own.
I understand that avoiding cosmetic-only edits may not be easy to code for. But it's very unhelpful for anyone to use a cosmetic issue as the basis for selecting a batch, and when the bot's maintainer does that it looks like they are exploiting the bug. Not good.
@ AManWithNoPlan, please can you kill this cosmetic batch job? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
|p=
to |page=
:
[44],
[45],
[46],
[47],
[48],
[49].
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
03:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Citation bot is adding publication dates for pages on
LeatherLicensePlates.com when, AFAIK, these pages do not state said dates anywhere that is obvious - which makes me wonder *exactly* how this bot is coming up with these dates, and even wonder whether it is simply making these dates up.
On Vehicle registration plates of Nevada, which uses LeatherLicensePlates.com's Nevada page as one of its sources, Citation bot has *twice* added August 27, 2015 as the publication date for this page:
But nowhere obvious on the page does it say that the page was published August 27, 2015:
Citation bot has also added August 27, 2015 as the publication date for LeatherLicensePlates.com's Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Indiana, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, and New York pages:
Again, however, nowhere obvious on any of these pages is August 27, 2015 stated as the publication date:
Finally, Citation bot has added August 28, 2015 as the publication date for LeatherLicensePlates.com's Oregon and South Dakota pages...
...and *three times* has added this particular date as the publication date for the site's Ohio page.
Once again, though... I can't see this date stated anywhere obvious on any of these pages.
Obviously, I myself am not a bot, and my intelligence isn't artificial - but with respect where respect is due, I would *never* put a date on when a source was published if I didn't know what that date was, that date wasn't stated anywhere obvious on the source, and there was no easy way at all of determining that date.
Hence - and again with all due respect - I would quite like to know exactly how Citation bot is coming up with these particular dates for the pages on LeatherLicensePlates.com. I'd be pretty shocked if it turned out that this bot was making these dates up...
Klondike53226 ( talk) 17:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
{{cite web |title=Old Nevada License Plates {{!}} Vintage Nevada License Plates |url=http://leatherlicenseplates.com/old-nevada-license-plates-vintage-nevada-license-plates/ |website=LeatherLicensePlates.com |date=27 August 2015}}
|title=
...See my proposal at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Wishlist_Survey_2022/Citations/More_capacity_for_Citation_bot
If you support this idea, or have suggestions for improving the proposal, please post at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Wishlist_Survey_2022/Citations/More_capacity_for_Citation_bot BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
I support the idea, but I'm not sure it's anything the WMF can do anything about. Or would be willing to, given they only filled one relatively trivial request lasts year. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 19:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Why does citation bot add italicization to Associated Press and Reuters as seen here? Our own articles about those news agencies don't italicize them. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 02:58, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
|agency=
is to be used when the work of Reuters or AP (and other agencies) is republished in another publisher's work (typically a newspaper). When Reuters or AP (and other agencies) is cited directly, then the source is the 'work'. We cite the work not the corporate entity. The en.wiki articles are not italicized because the articles are about the corporate entities. In both of these cases, the corporate entities have eponymous websites that are the sources so those names go in |work=
when citing their articles directly.|via=
or |publisher=
, not |work=
. Organization names are not italicized; periodicals, edited volumes, websites, or other collections of documents are. The current name of the collection of documents that the Associated Press publishes appears to be
AP News. If "Associated Press" is being used in the work parameter, it is being used incorrectly there. If the bot is moving "Associated Press" to the work parameter without changing it to "AP News" or some similar name for the work rather than the organization, it is doing the wrong thing and should stop. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
18:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
[AP and Reuters] have eponymous websites that are the sources so those names go in |work=
when citing their articles directly.
Is there an explicit MOS or guideline that says one way or another, then? —
Fourthords |
=Λ= |
19:19, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Organization names are not capitalized(emphasis added)
|publisher=The Associated Press
(|via=The Associated Press
should not be used for work distributed from AP News because AP News is the publisher's outlet).
|muse-access=free
is present with the |muse=12345678
.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
23:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)Simplewiki is full of thousands of easily fixed CS1 errors, bare urls, and basically all the sorts of stuff that this bot is supposed to fix. Simplewiki uses the same template parameters on the cite templates, so why doesn't this bot run there? Is there something I'm missing here? Please add support for simplewiki? Mako001 (C) (T) 12:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
They are not the same citation templates. Similar, but not the same. Several years older, that migt be an issue.Are you sure about that? simple:Module:Citation/CS1 was updated 24 January 2022) and simple:Template:cite book, simple:Template:cite web, simple:Template:cite news, simple:Template:cite journal, and simple:Template:cite encyclopedia all appear to be up to date.
{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}
magic word at simple.wiki, there are 204,780 articles. If one believes the results of
this search, there are approximately 102,400 articles that use a cs1|2 template. So, roughly half of all articles use cs1|2. I suspect that that number will change as simple.wiki gains more articles.
{{
cite arxiv}}
from en.wiki.Code implemented. To avoid usage on incompatible wikis, the code has an array of safe wikis. Currently en and simple only. https://citations.toolforge.org/process_page.php?edit=toolbar&wiki_base=simple&page=Water (so wiki_base defaults to en, but can be simple). But, the bot does not have the ability to actually commit edits (Write error: We encountered a captcha, so can't be properly logged in) and barfs out the wikitext to the user, so they can hand copy and paste. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 21:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
https://simple.wikipedia.org/?title=Ecology&type=revision&diff=8044067&oldid=7992470 https://simple.wikipedia.org/?title=Apple&diff=prev&oldid=8044066 https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AManWithNoPlan/common.js
Fixed - done.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
19:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Can you edit Draft:Spider-Man (Takuya Yamashiro) please? Blackknight1234567890 ( talk) 09:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
My big batch job has stalled since this edit
[55] at 11:16, and https://citations.toolforge.org/kill_big_job.php
doesn't kill it.
@ AManWithNoPlan, please can you kill this job? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
In the article
French fries, the bot made the change above.
Reuters is not a publication, but a
news agency. Putting it in a "work" parameter italicizes it in the reference and is an error.
SchreiberBike |
⌨
00:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
|agency=
is used when citing a source produced by the agency but issued by another news source (very commonly, a newspaper). When citing a source on the agency's own website, |work=
(or |website=
) is correct.|agency=
is just as arguably correct, in other editors' opinions. The bot should not be used to unfairly overpower one editor's opinion with a bulldozer over other editors armed only with hand-trowels; that is an abuse of bot policy and should lead to the bot being blocked from editing. The bot should stick to uncontroversial cleanups. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
01:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
|agency=
is categorically incorrect when it is the work being cited. There's no arguing about that.
Izno (
talk)
04:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
|agency=
? Is it to create metadata about the type of news outlet like |tabloid=
hah. Rather, the purpose is to be paired with |work=
(eg. work=NYT agency=Reuters) so that users can track down alternative sources in case of link rot or
WP:V. If Reuters is the sole source, there is no agent involved, even though Reuters is technically a news agency it doesn't matter for our citing purposes. --
Green
C
05:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)|agency=
is for reprints of material by another agency, such as The NYT publishing a work from Reuters or The LA Times publishing a work from the AP. An agency is not an agency for itself.
Izno (
talk)
07:24, 4 March 2022 (UTC)is just as arguably correct, in other editors' opinions.Well, the official policy is to use the work parameter. if an editor thinks "agency=" is the right one, they need to have a good reason for why that is the case.
agency=
should only be used when the citation already has a work=
or newspaper=
. Think of it like a via=
. When Reuters etc are publishing in their own right, it is just a work like any other. --
John Maynard Friedman (
talk)
12:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
It may be making the change because the string "news" is contained in the URL. It is a press release from the NIH. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Whywhenwhohow (
talk •
contribs)
16:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
trans-title
trans-title
should stay italicized, per
MOS:TITLECONFORM
|publisher=
is the correct parameter to use.
when the |work=
and |publisher=
are the same, publisher is not included.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
22:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
GIGO?
The Liberator is a newspaper not a scholarly or academic journal so |newspaper=
not |journal=
. The name of the newspaper is [[The Liberator (newspaper)|The Liberator]]
not [[The Liberator (newspaper)|The Liberator]] (Boston, Massachusetts)
. If it is necessary to disambiguate a source by its location, do this:
|newspaper=[[The Liberator (newspaper)|The Liberator]] |location=Boston
Another problem not mentioned above is this part of the edit where the bot broke the google books link:
|url=
https://books.google.com/books?vid=HARVARD:32044092691898&printsec=titlepage#v=onepage
(works) → |url=
https://books.google.com/books?id=HARVARD
(does not work)— Trappist the monk ( talk) 13:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
(Boston, Massachusetts)
is not part of the newspaper's name so does not belong in |newspaper=
. When the parenthetical is included in |newspaper=
, it is a corruption of the citation's metadata. When the parenthetical is included in |newspaper=
, it is rendered in italics as if it were part of the newspaper's name. The location-of-publication is properly rendered in an upright font when used with |location=
.clip ID info, you should fix the tool or, if not your tool, report this to the tool maintainers for fixing.
|contribution=
|contribution=No sublogarithmic-time approximation scheme for bipartite vertex cover
(the correct title of a conference paper and |title=26th International Symposium on Distributed Computing (DISC), Salvador, Brazil, October 2012
(a valid form of the title of the conference, although not exactly the form reported by DBLP or by the publisher) by replacing |title=
with the paper's title, causing the title to repeat redundantly within the citation, and by removing the conference title. At the same time, it added a doi for a different journal version of the paper (not the conference version that was cited) but neglected to change any of the other parameters to match the journal version. The added s2cid, incidentally, appears to be for the journal version but with garbage metadata using a wrong publication date that is neither correct nor a match for the cited conference version (confirming my general low opinion of SS and of the uselessness of spamming their ids everywhere).
If this request can be programmed at all, then I suggest that it be limited to single-shot use, fully attended with the output checked for sanity. It would be grossly irresponsible to leave this to a 200-article batch run. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 00:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)