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 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
Many thanks to @ AManWithNoPlan for the prompt fix of this issue, reported at User talk:Citation bot/Archive_31#Bot_fails_to_fill_ref_to_bare_URL_followed_by_punctuation. The bot is now chomping its way through a list of 1,355 articles with punctuated bare URLs.
However, I just spotted a glitch. On
Belt-driven bicycle, there was a bracketed bare ref followed by a full stop: <ref>[https://www.google.com/patents/US425390].</ref>
The bot edited the page [1], but didn't fill this ref.
So I stripped the brackets etc
[2], leaving a "pure" bare ref: <ref>https://www.google.com/patents/US425390</ref>
Then I invoked the bot again, and in this edit [3] it filled the ref.
I set up some testcases at User:BrownHairedGirl/sandbox198, where the bot did not do well: it failed to fill any of 5 bracketed refs [4]. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
PS As before, feel free to experiment with that sandbox. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
{{ fixed}} AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 00:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
http://example.com/Boris-Is-A-Liar, access-date 14th. Mar., 2020.
I do that by partly-filing a {{
cite web}}, without title, then letting CB do the rest. the documentation is at
User:BrownHairedGirl/Articles with semi-bare links and {{
SemiBareRefNeedsTitle}}.
ZWS Issue fix confirmed, encoding still not. I assume thats not gonna be possible easily within reason (
info).
Aidan9382 (
talk)
17:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Running on
{{Cite journal|last1=Dasgupta|first1=Utteeyo|last2=Jha|first2=Chandan Kumar|last3=Sarangi|first3=Sudipta|title=Persistent Patterns of Behavior: Two Infectious Disease Outbreaks 350 Years Apart|journal=[[Economic Inquiry]]|volume=n/a|issue=n/a|doi=10.1111/ecin.12961|issn=1465-7295|doi-access=free}}
does nothing. But removing the title
{{Cite journal|last1=Dasgupta|first1=Utteeyo|last2=Jha|first2=Chandan Kumar|last3=Sarangi|first3=Sudipta|title= |journal=[[Economic Inquiry]]|volume=n/a|issue=n/a|doi=10.1111/ecin.12961|issn=1465-7295|doi-access=free}}
and then running has the bot properly TNT the volume/issue information. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 15:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
The difference in hyphen in the title leads to a failure of TNTing. The before hyphen is - (-), the after hyphen is ‐ (‐). Both should be considered equivalent/normalized to the plain - (-).
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
15:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
This happens on several longer articles. A systematic fix would be nice. Perhaps the bot could have a 'there's X references to be processed, I estimate processing time to be X × Y' and then only die after that threshold has be exceeded by a certain factor (like +50%/double/triple the expected processing time).
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
19:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
For the last 10 months, I have been running batch jobs using the "Linked pages" option at the bottom of the form https://citations.toolforge.org
I have several such pages for different workflows, each with a similar format: a section or two of explanatory notes, then a "lists" section where the pages are linked in a numbered list, e.g. # [[:2009 Boston City Council election]]
This system worked very well for me, because:
See e.g. User:BrownHairedGirl/Articles with new bare URL refs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs), with over 150 versions since October 2021. Here is an example of a documented batch: Special:permalink/1089218065
Then sometime on the 24th this system began to degrade. First the webform stopped recognising the lists unless I stripped out the documentation. Then in the last few hours it stopped recognising the lists even when all the docs were removed, and the only remaining content was the linked list. See e.g. the latest version of list of new articles, which the webform said contained no list. I had to reformat the list a pipe-separate lit, and submit it through the first line on the form. This is extra work for me, makes it harder to track jobs, and removes transparency.
What is going on? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 06:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
|archive=url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131017213918/http://www.in.com/jim-allister/biography-138707.html
|archiveurl=url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131017213918/http://www.in.com/jim-allister/biography-138707.html
=
and -
are adjacent to each other on a standard qwerty keyboard, the =
was likely a typo so the 'fix' should have been:
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131017213918/http://www.in.com/jim-allister/biography-138707.html
|url=
which the bot can get from the value in |archive-url=
(http://www.in.com/jim-allister/biography-138707.html
)
This edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Reasonable_accommodation&type=revision&diff=1084655807&oldid=1079082280 is [IMHO] a good example of how the use of this bot can result in a successful edit.
Skimming around in this "Talk:" page, I found several instances of ["alleged"] problems or "issues", in some cases with an apparent "lack of consensus" -- so far! -- about what should be done. I have no objection to a situation in which other readers, editors and/or coders -- [persons who probably know WAY more than I do about the design and operation of this bot, and the related "issues", if any] -- come here to hash out some decisions that might affect some possible future changes to this bot.
I just wanted to chime in with a *** Thank You ***, because I found this edit (see the above link to a "DIFF" listing) to be inspiring.
I probably should also send a "ping" -- such as
{{ping|User:Whoop whoop pull up}}
to User:Whoop whoop pull up. (right?) If so, then ... here goes: @ Whoop whoop pull up:
Thanks! -- Mike Schwartz ( talk) 17:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
The command line does work, if you have Oauth Tokens. Extensive code coverage improvements have been implemented and a huge number of new test cases have been added. This has found a couple of small bugs and should prevent new bugs. The code base has been shrunk significantly by merging duplicate code functionality into functions - this should significantly speed-up bug fixes and code development and reduce new bugs. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 01:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
My new best friend will be file_put_contents( $filename, $data, FILE_APPEND); AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 00:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/2556288?searchTerm=Mrs%20Dunlop&searchLimits=l-decade=184|||l-format=Article|||l-year=1842
{{
cite web}}
– should have been {{
cite news}}
since the bot knew enough to include |newspaper=
...{{cite news}}
instead of {{cite web}}
; whatever code there is that wants to add any of |lay-date=
, |lay-format=
, |lay-source=
, and |lay-url=
should be disabled or removed. For this particular example, the url could have been truncated to
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/2556288?searchTerm=Mrs%20Dunlop
<strong> ... </strong>
tags, which I presume were in the source
I took a quick look at the HTML source for the URL. The issue isn't on ResearchGate's end, the meta tags are pretty clean. The DOI resolves to this article on Biotaxa, which has the following metadata and HTML fields for title:
<title>A new genus and two new species of Apomecynini, a new species of Desmiphorini, and new records in Lamiinae and Disteniidae (Coleoptera) | Zootaxa</title>
- Lines 6-9<meta name="citation_title" content="<p><strong>A new genus and two new species of Apomecynini, a new species of Desmiphorini, and new records in Lamiinae and Disteniidae (Coleoptera)</strong></p>"/>
- Line 23<meta name="DC.Title" content="<p><strong>A new genus and two new species of Apomecynini, a new species of Desmiphorini, and new records in Lamiinae and Disteniidae (Coleoptera)</strong></p>"/>
- Line 63<h1 class="page_title"><p><strong>A new genus and two new species of Apomecynini, a new species of Desmiphorini, and new records in Lamiinae and Disteniidae (Coleoptera)</strong></p></h1>
- Line 221-223I'm not sure which of the four fields the bot is scraping, but three of them do contain the <strong>...</strong>
tag in some form.
Sideswipe9th (
talk)
16:23, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
|title=
(that particular
LCCN isn't going to give that information). Since the cited source is the author's copy that they uploaded to ResearchGate, {{
cite web}}
is correct. Because |lccn=n79122466
refers to 'University of San Diego. School of Law' (
LCCN
n791-22466) that identifier is misleading and doesn't help the reader locate the cited ResearchGate source so should be omitted. If you want to cite the source as a San Diego Law Review article, then write a {{
cite journal}}
template and use the SDLR url that you found (also free-to-read and, unlike the ResearchGate copy, is the article-of-record).Thanks, all ... and sorry for the false alarm. Kinda weird: when I first tried it, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228163323 gave me an error page. Now when I tried it again, it works. Maybe I screwed up copying the new URL from the diff.
Thanks for the explainer on LCCN. After this failed, I did then rewrite the ref [15] to use the SDLR URL.
This arose from trying to systematically fill
ResearchGate bare URLs. About half of the URLs are to pages which do supply a DOI, so I wrote a script to scrape them from the page's headers, which are well structured: e.g. <meta property="citation_doi" content="10.1145/2465554.2465559">
. That worked nicely for
about 20 URLs, until the site started giving me
HTTP 429 errors ("too many requests"). Setting delays of over ten minutes between requests allows me to make some more progress before it's back to the 429s, but only if I do manual requests simultaneously.
I am beginning to dislike ResearchGate. Damn these commercial outfits grabbing part of the academic space, and then protecting their turf. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Evidence to support your This is not the preferred form
claim? If I believe these search results (some cirrus searches time out so they aren't definitive):
then, |editorn-last=
is used more often than |editor-lastn=
.
Similarly:
Were it up to me, there would be only one enumerated form for these and their author, contributor, interviewer, translator counterparts. Alas, it is not up to me, both forms are allowed and may be used. In the best of all possible worlds, the bot will use the form predominant in the article that it is editing.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 00:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
|editors=
in that table could use some work. I believe that the documentation should use a single enumerated form throughout the documentation for the avoidance of confusion; aliases should be mentioned in footnotes or parenthetically.|title=<p class="HeadingRun ''In''"> Cyprinid fishes of the genus ''Neolissochilus ''in Peninsular Malaysia. |year=2015 |last1=Khaironizam
Every HTML tag has to be handled explicitly, since the bot has to support math and physics titles.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
13:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
In general, please consider getting rid of "add chapter" piece of code altogether (even for books): a good chapter-finding algo that always works is non-trivial and doesn't really add much value. Imo, effort is much better spent on improving date-finding code – also non-trivial to cover all cases, but very useful.
Non-mobile diff
https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=1091168664
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
13:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
1. Instead of quoting conference title verbatim, the bot adds "on -" at the end resulting in e.g. "Proceedings of the 1964 19th ACM national conference on - " title.
2. The bot does not respect "Do not wikilink "chapter" if "chapter-url" is provided" rule for book citations.
3. The bot uses "cite book" instead of "cite conference".
Quite frankly, I got lucky to catch this bot doing all this stuff (along with the bug I reported yesterday), and since not everyone by far is sharp-eyed or caring enough to report such bugs, I would strongly suggest shutting down the bot immediately to prevent it from spoiling more articles and fix it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1091419654
Non-mobile diffs
https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=1091419654 https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=1091235355
AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 12:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
|title=
gets title of the paper; |book-title=
gets title of the published proceedings; see
Template:Cite conference § Title; |conference=
gets name/date/location of the conference (mostly unnecessary when you have |book-title=
; see
Template:Cite conference § Conference (documentation for |conference-url=
is misleading because |conference-url=
links |conference=
). For years I have been saying that this template should be revised but the notion of revision has been met which resounding indifference ...
In this example, the template should have been written:
{{Cite conference |last1=Brodal |first1=G. S. L. |last2=Lagogiannis |first2=G. |last3=Tarjan |first3=R. E. |title=Strict Fibonacci Heaps |book-title=STOC’12: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing |location=New York |publisher=The Association for Computing Machinery |pages=1177–1184 |year=2012 |doi=10.1145/2213977.2214082 |isbn=978-1-4503-1245-5 |url=http://www.cs.au.dk/~gerth/papers/stoc12.pdf |via=Aarhus University}}
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 23:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
It's unfortunate that Citation bot is making edits like this that are entirely cosmetic. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 17:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Can user sandboxes be excluded from "fixing" by the bot? I've had plain URL references in my sandbox changed several times over the past week into messy citations that I have to keep reverting. Sounder Bruce 21:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
should certainly be excluded from mass/category runs, just like drafts. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
|
, they are replaced by %7B
(which is the URL encoded version of {
), instead of %7C
(the correct URL encoded version of |
).
Release date of single in Spotify ≠ date of page publication of this singe in Spotify (the page may have been published before the release date as pre-order. A situation where the bot added wrong dates previously occured with iTunes and Apple Music pages. Was it fixed?
Eurohunter (
talk)
21:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Giving citation date of 1947 for documentation of something in 2011, etc.:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Economy_of_the_United_States&diff=next&oldid=1093846318
I will undo this, but it is doubtless messing things up elsewhere.
DavidMCEddy ( talk) 22:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
|access-date=
, not |date=
. --
Izno (
talk)
14:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)<meta property="article:published_time" content="2012-06-20T00:00+00:00" />
<meta property="article:modified_time" content="2022-02-18T23:10+00:00" />
Now this is interesting - I ask on this particular talk page whether or not it's acceptable to add page publication dates that are stated in the page's metadata but not on the page itself, and just one day later this issue is brought up of Citation Bot adding page publication dates that are stated in the metadata, are not stated on the page itself, and are (shall we say) open to misinterpretation.
I have to say, I find myself agreeing with David - if a page/site does not display a visible publication date (I know I'm bringing up LeatherLicensePlates.com again, but none of that site's pages display visible publication dates), then it is probably better to leave them undated - even if the publication dates stated in the metadata (and, for that matter, the modification dates too) are correct. Klondike53226 ( talk) 21:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Is it possible to add support for autofilling cite patent from just a country and patent number? I was about to fix a page where someone used cite web for patents and was about to just replace it all with cite patent and just the country and number, and then get citation bot to do the rest when I realise citation bot doesn't do patents.
I think I will take a look at the github and try implementing it myself, but it has been years since I coded anything, so that probably won't work out. Kylesenior ( talk) 02:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
work
or newspaper
parameter questionPreview-editing the
lead section of
Presidency of Rodrigo Duterte and using the Citation bot converts work=
Washington Post
to newspaper=
Washington Post
, while other Philippine online news (like work=Philippine Daily Inquirer
) sites are ignored, which might confuse other future editors because the code is not standardized. Is there a possibility to set the bot to either:
work
to newspaper
orwork
parameter to newspaper
?— Sanglahi86 ( talk) 14:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Fixed for that one newspaper. Others can be added. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 18:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
JSTOR calls them "issues", despite them being volumes. I would add to "volumes only" list, but some years have issues. Will look into a specific fix.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
12:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Why is this bot changing 'work' to 'journal'? It adds no value in doing so; 'work' is the standard and 'journal' is an alias. The bot isn't even consistent in doing so. This seems like an arbitrary change by somebody. Praemonitus ( talk) 03:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
|journal=
.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
19:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
|website=
or |access-date=
parameters, rather than a muddled halfway approach (as a result of which it seems to tell us, for example, that the page on the Naval Marine Archive website was published in 1961).
I suspect because the citation is for a webpage about a book, that the 'web' citation was replace with a 'book' citation... but it really was intended to be a citation for the website (I created it) because the citation is supporting the existence of the book and it's properties. I'm not sure if there's something that can be included so that it doesn't get converted again in the future. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Shaav (
talk •
contribs)
19:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
the citation should be to the book, that's not a decision we can expect a bot to make with any degree of reliability. – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 18:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Not sure why it wants to convert things in the first place, but the comment should halt the process.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
04:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Alter: template type. Add: magazine. Removed parameters. Some additions/deletions were parameter name changes... which is untrue. No parameters were removed
Alter: template type. Add: magazine. Some additions/deletions were parameter name changes
Couldn't citebot automatically populate |author-link=
? —
Guarapiranga
☎
06:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
|author-link=
parameter when the |author=
incorrectly contains a wikilink? For example:
|author=[[John Doe]]
→ |author=John Doe |author-link=John Doe
|author=[[John Doe|Doe, John]]
→ |author=Doe, John |author-link=John Doe
|author2=[[John Doe]]
→ |author2=John Doe |author-link2=John Doe
|author3=[[John Doe|Doe, John]]
→ |author3=Doe, John |author-link3=John Doe
|author-link=
is required for |last=
/ |first=
pairs. |first=[[<name>]]
is an error but because |last=
and |author=
are aliases of each other, assigning linked values to them is allowed.I don't expect this to be easy, but it'd be great if citebot could learn from manual edits made to the citations it created. I suspect this would involve maintaining a (rather large) table of all auto-gen'd citations, indexed by ISBN, URL, etc, that could be routinely updated as editors correct and change citations. This will probably involve some sort of heuristic to decide what version (or mix of versions) should prevail against various citation instances of the same source. I'm not suggesting overrunning editors' consensus ref formulations, of course; just that in new citebot cites it uses past editors' input. — Guarapiranga ☎ 07:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
{{cite web|author=Leeps |url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1309&dat=19890604&id=tKFUAAAAIBAJ&sjid=NpADAAAAIBAJ&pg=5932,900833&hl=en |title=Rust Busters |publisher=[[New Straits Times]] / [[Google News Archive]] |date=1989-06-04 |access-date=2015-05-03 }}
→ {{cite web|author=Leeps |url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1309&dat=19890604&id=tKFUAAAAIBAJ&sjid=NpADAAAAIBAJ&pg=5932,900833&hl=en |title=Rust Busters |date=1989-06-04 |access-date=2015-05-03 }}
|publisher=
New Straits Times /
Google News Archive
is much better than nothing.
{{cite news|author=Leeps |url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1309&dat=19890604&id=tKFUAAAAIBAJ&sjid=NpADAAAAIBAJ&pg=5932,900833&hl=en |title=Rust Busters |newspaper=[[New Straits Times]] |via=[[Google News Archive]] |date=1989-06-04 |access-date=2015-05-03 }}
GoingBatty (
talk)
22:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
|last1=Nations |first1=United
Bot says no changed reqd for Basilica of Our Lady of the Mount, Bandra just inserted a bare url Nolicamaca ( talk) 01:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
A momentary bug i suppose thanks for doing it AManWithNoPlan may you can head over here WP:Teahouse Nolicamaca ( talk) 14:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Greetings. Why do you create a news article out of a web citation in
Minneapolis#Health_care? Beaverton isn't mentioned in the source, so where did you get her name? Thank you.
!Nothing requested -- OR -- pages got lost during initial authorization !No links to expand found
The page loss is not fixable.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
13:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
This is the continuation of a thread from a week ago: |
Couldn't citebot automatically populate |author-link= ? —
Guarapiranga
☎
06:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
|
I failed to answer a question Headbomb asked me at the end:
Let's say there is one John Smith notable in the world, and all the other John Smiths are not notable, meaning there are no disambiguation pages at John Smith. What's the guarantee that the John Smith you are citing is the notable John Smith, and not one of the non-notable ones?
None. Citebot would pick the wrong John Smith when generating the citation, and editors would correct it before publishing the edit by simply removing |author-link=
(easier than checking whether the source author has a WP article, and manually adding it in). —
Guarapiranga
☎
04:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
|last=
and |first=
added
Hello. The following notable Philippine print newspapers have online versions. Please include them in the bot's list of recognized newspapers to process from |work=
to |newspaper=
. Currently, only
Philippine Daily Inquirer (
https://www.inquirer.net/
) is recognized.
Also, please check if the tabloids below warrant inclusion. Tempo, owned by Manila Bulletin, is arguably the most reputable tabloid in the Philippines. Pilipino Star Ngayon is a sister newspaper of The Philippine STAR, while Bandera is owned by the Philippine Daily Inquirer.
Also, for citations whose URL parameters start with |url=
https://www.pna.gov.ph/
, please set the bot to use |work=Philippine News Agency
instead of |work=www.pna.gov.ph
, |agency=Philippine News Agency
, or |publisher=Philippine News Agency
. The citation should look like below:
{{cite news |title=San Juanico view deck gives tourists safer area to take selfies |url=https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1178743 |work=Philippine News Agency |language=en}}
The same goes for citations whose URL parameters start with |url=
https://pia.gov.ph/
, please set the bot to use |work=Philippine Information Agency
instead of |work=PIA
, |agency=Philippine Information Agency
, or |publisher=Philippine Information Agency
. The citation should look like below:
{{cite news |title=DILG to continue “war on drugs” |url=https://pia.gov.ph/news/2022/07/05/dilg-to-continue-war-on-drugs |work=Philippine Information Agency}}
Thank you. Sanglahi86 ( talk) 11:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Oddly it is actually the title listed on the website for these pages. Very sloppy work by the web editor.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
14:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
-- Green C 00:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
There's an invisible character between = and The, which the bot should remove.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
15:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
long discussion
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BreakHoly jeez is this thing still going on. I'll transclude the CS1 documentation here.
Note in particular: {{ cite web}}: [for] web sources not covered by the above. Covered by the above is {{ cite magazine}}. EW is a magazine, so use cite magazine (and again, online magazines are magazines). End of story. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 04:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
I'd like to point out as well, that though some editors are saying "online magazines = magazine", as far as I can tell, no where in the documentation of either {{
Cite magazine}} or {{
Cite web}} is this defined. All Cite magazine says on the matter for anything online is two instances of how to
RfC Sample Question workshopRfC Question: Citation Bot has a feature that automatically converts {{ Cite web}} citations to {{ Cite news}} and {{ Cite magazine}}. For the purposes of this feature, are articles that are published exclusively on the websites of hybrid-print/digital publications considered to be published in a newspaper or magazine?
Alrighty, making this a bit more structured. InfiniteNexus and others, you've said that there are a number of edits that the bot has made that you've reverted. Could you please provide diffs to a selection of those edits, so that we can provide some actual examples of this in action? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 16:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
The initial question for the RFC still needs to be brief, much like the one I proposed earlier today. And then give examples, and a "Background" section as Rlink2 said to cover all the information editors would need on the matter. -
Favre1fan93 (
talk)
02:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Why do we need an RFC?In the section above, huge amounts of work are being put into drafting an RFC. If there is an RFC, lots more editor time will be put into the responses, and then into weighing a close. But why? What is the problem to be resolved? Some editors disagree with some instances of the conversion of {{ cite web}} to {{ cite magazine}} or {{ cite news}}. They make a distinction between the publication and its website. I don't share that view, and think that any distinction is pointless ... but clearly, some want to maintain a distinction. But after all this debate, I don't see why they want to maintain a distinction, and why they object to {{ cite magazine}} being used in e.g. some articles on the EW website. Sorry if I have missed some statement of this, but it would help to have a clear answer to the question: What is the harm done by these conversions? For example, does the change cause an unwanted alteration in the display of the citation? Do the objectors dislike the five extra character used by "cite magazine"? Or is this just about the name of the template? Or is it something else? Pinging @ InfiniteNexus, who is one of the objectors. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Because more data is always good, I've pulled together a table of the same analysis for all of Citation bot's edits over the seven day period 6-12 June. Collapsing it because it's a big table, but I want to include it here so you all can check my working.
In summary, Citation bot made approximately 36,415 edits over this period. 6,784 edits contained "Alter: template type" in the edit summary. As before, "Alter: template type" only indicates a conversion from one CS1 template to another. 88 total edits were reverted over the period: 35 were to test accounts, 53 were to non test accounts, and 5 were part of this dispute. After doing this analysis, I'm very heavily leaning towards what BrownHairedGirl has said;
We're not making any progress if we're just sitting around and neither side is willing to concede. @
Sideswipe9th: is the RfC moving forward or what?
InfiniteNexus (
talk)
21:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Links to the RFCI hope that this proposed RFC will not happen, because I think it's a waste of time. However, if the RFC goes ahead, it would be helpful if while the RFC is open, Citation bot linked to the RFC in relevant edit summaries. For eaxmple, instead of "Alter: template type" in the edit summary, there could be "Alter: template type (see [[WP:somepage#CBALTERTEMPLATE|RFC]])". @ AManWithNoPlan, would that be doable without too much work? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:59, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
RfC Question second draft and formatIf an article is published on a website associated with a magazine, or newspaper, but does not appear on the print edition of the publication, should you use {{ Cite web}}, or {{ Cite magazine}}, or {{ Cite news}}?
So format is based on the Pro and con example format for RfCs. The first sentence is the brief, neutral question per WP:RFCBRIEF. The table after is, or will be the summary of the past discussion covering the main points of each side of the discussion. While I still think we should include examples, I've collapsed them here because it kinda becomes unwieldy. I've also bold texted the differences between the two templates for each example. We could add an extra row for each example, to show what the wikitext output of the citations looks like, though it will be identical for both templates. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 20:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
None of the pro or con reasons address whether the choice makes any visible difference at all to readers. If it does not make a visible difference, why are we arguing about the very important choice we must all make correctly or the world will end about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Just let the bot rationalize the citations and don't worry about legislating the way citations must be identically coded by everyone who uses them. Or, alternatively, argue by WP:COSMETICBOT that it should only change citation type when that will make a visible difference, rather than by how very angry you are that the bot is not letting you use the wrong citation type. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
I want to make a more fundamental challenge to this draft RFC, because it is framing the question to an unduly narrow perspective. The real question to ask is whether CB should replace a generic {{ cite web}} with any of the more specific CS1 templates. If the argument is good for {{ cite news}} and {{ cite magazine}} then it is equally good for {{ cite book}}, {{ cite journal}}, {{ cite press release}} – indeed any document that has a web presence. There is no reasonable basis on which to pick magazines as the hill to die on except to distract from the broad principle of whether specific templates are more useful than the generic one. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 19:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
the first statement of the argument to use cite magazine or cite news is a fallacy. There is no way to confirm that articles on a website are also in print, a list of facts or top 100 sci fi films is unlikely to feature in print for instance. As we move ever onwards to a digital world and print continues the slow death initially prophesized by professor Spengler, how will cite magazine apply when the magazine no longer exists? Do we then go alter all those cite magazines? And how is it a valid use to cite a magazine when clicking the title will take the user to a website? It is an unreasonable statement arguing for the use of cite magazine and cite news. Cite web is not a generic template either, it's heavily used because we are not in 1982. There's a reason cite web is used nearly 5 million times and cite magazine less than 200K.
Darkwarriorblake /
SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!
21:45, 28 June 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 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
Many thanks to @ AManWithNoPlan for the prompt fix of this issue, reported at User talk:Citation bot/Archive_31#Bot_fails_to_fill_ref_to_bare_URL_followed_by_punctuation. The bot is now chomping its way through a list of 1,355 articles with punctuated bare URLs.
However, I just spotted a glitch. On
Belt-driven bicycle, there was a bracketed bare ref followed by a full stop: <ref>[https://www.google.com/patents/US425390].</ref>
The bot edited the page [1], but didn't fill this ref.
So I stripped the brackets etc
[2], leaving a "pure" bare ref: <ref>https://www.google.com/patents/US425390</ref>
Then I invoked the bot again, and in this edit [3] it filled the ref.
I set up some testcases at User:BrownHairedGirl/sandbox198, where the bot did not do well: it failed to fill any of 5 bracketed refs [4]. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
PS As before, feel free to experiment with that sandbox. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
{{ fixed}} AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 00:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
http://example.com/Boris-Is-A-Liar, access-date 14th. Mar., 2020.
I do that by partly-filing a {{
cite web}}, without title, then letting CB do the rest. the documentation is at
User:BrownHairedGirl/Articles with semi-bare links and {{
SemiBareRefNeedsTitle}}.
ZWS Issue fix confirmed, encoding still not. I assume thats not gonna be possible easily within reason (
info).
Aidan9382 (
talk)
17:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Running on
{{Cite journal|last1=Dasgupta|first1=Utteeyo|last2=Jha|first2=Chandan Kumar|last3=Sarangi|first3=Sudipta|title=Persistent Patterns of Behavior: Two Infectious Disease Outbreaks 350 Years Apart|journal=[[Economic Inquiry]]|volume=n/a|issue=n/a|doi=10.1111/ecin.12961|issn=1465-7295|doi-access=free}}
does nothing. But removing the title
{{Cite journal|last1=Dasgupta|first1=Utteeyo|last2=Jha|first2=Chandan Kumar|last3=Sarangi|first3=Sudipta|title= |journal=[[Economic Inquiry]]|volume=n/a|issue=n/a|doi=10.1111/ecin.12961|issn=1465-7295|doi-access=free}}
and then running has the bot properly TNT the volume/issue information. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 15:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
The difference in hyphen in the title leads to a failure of TNTing. The before hyphen is - (-), the after hyphen is ‐ (‐). Both should be considered equivalent/normalized to the plain - (-).
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
15:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
This happens on several longer articles. A systematic fix would be nice. Perhaps the bot could have a 'there's X references to be processed, I estimate processing time to be X × Y' and then only die after that threshold has be exceeded by a certain factor (like +50%/double/triple the expected processing time).
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
19:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
For the last 10 months, I have been running batch jobs using the "Linked pages" option at the bottom of the form https://citations.toolforge.org
I have several such pages for different workflows, each with a similar format: a section or two of explanatory notes, then a "lists" section where the pages are linked in a numbered list, e.g. # [[:2009 Boston City Council election]]
This system worked very well for me, because:
See e.g. User:BrownHairedGirl/Articles with new bare URL refs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs), with over 150 versions since October 2021. Here is an example of a documented batch: Special:permalink/1089218065
Then sometime on the 24th this system began to degrade. First the webform stopped recognising the lists unless I stripped out the documentation. Then in the last few hours it stopped recognising the lists even when all the docs were removed, and the only remaining content was the linked list. See e.g. the latest version of list of new articles, which the webform said contained no list. I had to reformat the list a pipe-separate lit, and submit it through the first line on the form. This is extra work for me, makes it harder to track jobs, and removes transparency.
What is going on? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 06:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
|archive=url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131017213918/http://www.in.com/jim-allister/biography-138707.html
|archiveurl=url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131017213918/http://www.in.com/jim-allister/biography-138707.html
=
and -
are adjacent to each other on a standard qwerty keyboard, the =
was likely a typo so the 'fix' should have been:
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131017213918/http://www.in.com/jim-allister/biography-138707.html
|url=
which the bot can get from the value in |archive-url=
(http://www.in.com/jim-allister/biography-138707.html
)
This edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Reasonable_accommodation&type=revision&diff=1084655807&oldid=1079082280 is [IMHO] a good example of how the use of this bot can result in a successful edit.
Skimming around in this "Talk:" page, I found several instances of ["alleged"] problems or "issues", in some cases with an apparent "lack of consensus" -- so far! -- about what should be done. I have no objection to a situation in which other readers, editors and/or coders -- [persons who probably know WAY more than I do about the design and operation of this bot, and the related "issues", if any] -- come here to hash out some decisions that might affect some possible future changes to this bot.
I just wanted to chime in with a *** Thank You ***, because I found this edit (see the above link to a "DIFF" listing) to be inspiring.
I probably should also send a "ping" -- such as
{{ping|User:Whoop whoop pull up}}
to User:Whoop whoop pull up. (right?) If so, then ... here goes: @ Whoop whoop pull up:
Thanks! -- Mike Schwartz ( talk) 17:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
The command line does work, if you have Oauth Tokens. Extensive code coverage improvements have been implemented and a huge number of new test cases have been added. This has found a couple of small bugs and should prevent new bugs. The code base has been shrunk significantly by merging duplicate code functionality into functions - this should significantly speed-up bug fixes and code development and reduce new bugs. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 01:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
My new best friend will be file_put_contents( $filename, $data, FILE_APPEND); AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 00:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/2556288?searchTerm=Mrs%20Dunlop&searchLimits=l-decade=184|||l-format=Article|||l-year=1842
{{
cite web}}
– should have been {{
cite news}}
since the bot knew enough to include |newspaper=
...{{cite news}}
instead of {{cite web}}
; whatever code there is that wants to add any of |lay-date=
, |lay-format=
, |lay-source=
, and |lay-url=
should be disabled or removed. For this particular example, the url could have been truncated to
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/2556288?searchTerm=Mrs%20Dunlop
<strong> ... </strong>
tags, which I presume were in the source
I took a quick look at the HTML source for the URL. The issue isn't on ResearchGate's end, the meta tags are pretty clean. The DOI resolves to this article on Biotaxa, which has the following metadata and HTML fields for title:
<title>A new genus and two new species of Apomecynini, a new species of Desmiphorini, and new records in Lamiinae and Disteniidae (Coleoptera) | Zootaxa</title>
- Lines 6-9<meta name="citation_title" content="<p><strong>A new genus and two new species of Apomecynini, a new species of Desmiphorini, and new records in Lamiinae and Disteniidae (Coleoptera)</strong></p>"/>
- Line 23<meta name="DC.Title" content="<p><strong>A new genus and two new species of Apomecynini, a new species of Desmiphorini, and new records in Lamiinae and Disteniidae (Coleoptera)</strong></p>"/>
- Line 63<h1 class="page_title"><p><strong>A new genus and two new species of Apomecynini, a new species of Desmiphorini, and new records in Lamiinae and Disteniidae (Coleoptera)</strong></p></h1>
- Line 221-223I'm not sure which of the four fields the bot is scraping, but three of them do contain the <strong>...</strong>
tag in some form.
Sideswipe9th (
talk)
16:23, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
|title=
(that particular
LCCN isn't going to give that information). Since the cited source is the author's copy that they uploaded to ResearchGate, {{
cite web}}
is correct. Because |lccn=n79122466
refers to 'University of San Diego. School of Law' (
LCCN
n791-22466) that identifier is misleading and doesn't help the reader locate the cited ResearchGate source so should be omitted. If you want to cite the source as a San Diego Law Review article, then write a {{
cite journal}}
template and use the SDLR url that you found (also free-to-read and, unlike the ResearchGate copy, is the article-of-record).Thanks, all ... and sorry for the false alarm. Kinda weird: when I first tried it, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228163323 gave me an error page. Now when I tried it again, it works. Maybe I screwed up copying the new URL from the diff.
Thanks for the explainer on LCCN. After this failed, I did then rewrite the ref [15] to use the SDLR URL.
This arose from trying to systematically fill
ResearchGate bare URLs. About half of the URLs are to pages which do supply a DOI, so I wrote a script to scrape them from the page's headers, which are well structured: e.g. <meta property="citation_doi" content="10.1145/2465554.2465559">
. That worked nicely for
about 20 URLs, until the site started giving me
HTTP 429 errors ("too many requests"). Setting delays of over ten minutes between requests allows me to make some more progress before it's back to the 429s, but only if I do manual requests simultaneously.
I am beginning to dislike ResearchGate. Damn these commercial outfits grabbing part of the academic space, and then protecting their turf. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Evidence to support your This is not the preferred form
claim? If I believe these search results (some cirrus searches time out so they aren't definitive):
then, |editorn-last=
is used more often than |editor-lastn=
.
Similarly:
Were it up to me, there would be only one enumerated form for these and their author, contributor, interviewer, translator counterparts. Alas, it is not up to me, both forms are allowed and may be used. In the best of all possible worlds, the bot will use the form predominant in the article that it is editing.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 00:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
|editors=
in that table could use some work. I believe that the documentation should use a single enumerated form throughout the documentation for the avoidance of confusion; aliases should be mentioned in footnotes or parenthetically.|title=<p class="HeadingRun ''In''"> Cyprinid fishes of the genus ''Neolissochilus ''in Peninsular Malaysia. |year=2015 |last1=Khaironizam
Every HTML tag has to be handled explicitly, since the bot has to support math and physics titles.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
13:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
In general, please consider getting rid of "add chapter" piece of code altogether (even for books): a good chapter-finding algo that always works is non-trivial and doesn't really add much value. Imo, effort is much better spent on improving date-finding code – also non-trivial to cover all cases, but very useful.
Non-mobile diff
https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=1091168664
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
13:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
1. Instead of quoting conference title verbatim, the bot adds "on -" at the end resulting in e.g. "Proceedings of the 1964 19th ACM national conference on - " title.
2. The bot does not respect "Do not wikilink "chapter" if "chapter-url" is provided" rule for book citations.
3. The bot uses "cite book" instead of "cite conference".
Quite frankly, I got lucky to catch this bot doing all this stuff (along with the bug I reported yesterday), and since not everyone by far is sharp-eyed or caring enough to report such bugs, I would strongly suggest shutting down the bot immediately to prevent it from spoiling more articles and fix it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1091419654
Non-mobile diffs
https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=1091419654 https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=1091235355
AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 12:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
|title=
gets title of the paper; |book-title=
gets title of the published proceedings; see
Template:Cite conference § Title; |conference=
gets name/date/location of the conference (mostly unnecessary when you have |book-title=
; see
Template:Cite conference § Conference (documentation for |conference-url=
is misleading because |conference-url=
links |conference=
). For years I have been saying that this template should be revised but the notion of revision has been met which resounding indifference ...
In this example, the template should have been written:
{{Cite conference |last1=Brodal |first1=G. S. L. |last2=Lagogiannis |first2=G. |last3=Tarjan |first3=R. E. |title=Strict Fibonacci Heaps |book-title=STOC’12: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing |location=New York |publisher=The Association for Computing Machinery |pages=1177–1184 |year=2012 |doi=10.1145/2213977.2214082 |isbn=978-1-4503-1245-5 |url=http://www.cs.au.dk/~gerth/papers/stoc12.pdf |via=Aarhus University}}
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 23:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
It's unfortunate that Citation bot is making edits like this that are entirely cosmetic. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 17:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Can user sandboxes be excluded from "fixing" by the bot? I've had plain URL references in my sandbox changed several times over the past week into messy citations that I have to keep reverting. Sounder Bruce 21:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
should certainly be excluded from mass/category runs, just like drafts. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
|
, they are replaced by %7B
(which is the URL encoded version of {
), instead of %7C
(the correct URL encoded version of |
).
Release date of single in Spotify ≠ date of page publication of this singe in Spotify (the page may have been published before the release date as pre-order. A situation where the bot added wrong dates previously occured with iTunes and Apple Music pages. Was it fixed?
Eurohunter (
talk)
21:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Giving citation date of 1947 for documentation of something in 2011, etc.:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Economy_of_the_United_States&diff=next&oldid=1093846318
I will undo this, but it is doubtless messing things up elsewhere.
DavidMCEddy ( talk) 22:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
|access-date=
, not |date=
. --
Izno (
talk)
14:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)<meta property="article:published_time" content="2012-06-20T00:00+00:00" />
<meta property="article:modified_time" content="2022-02-18T23:10+00:00" />
Now this is interesting - I ask on this particular talk page whether or not it's acceptable to add page publication dates that are stated in the page's metadata but not on the page itself, and just one day later this issue is brought up of Citation Bot adding page publication dates that are stated in the metadata, are not stated on the page itself, and are (shall we say) open to misinterpretation.
I have to say, I find myself agreeing with David - if a page/site does not display a visible publication date (I know I'm bringing up LeatherLicensePlates.com again, but none of that site's pages display visible publication dates), then it is probably better to leave them undated - even if the publication dates stated in the metadata (and, for that matter, the modification dates too) are correct. Klondike53226 ( talk) 21:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Is it possible to add support for autofilling cite patent from just a country and patent number? I was about to fix a page where someone used cite web for patents and was about to just replace it all with cite patent and just the country and number, and then get citation bot to do the rest when I realise citation bot doesn't do patents.
I think I will take a look at the github and try implementing it myself, but it has been years since I coded anything, so that probably won't work out. Kylesenior ( talk) 02:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
work
or newspaper
parameter questionPreview-editing the
lead section of
Presidency of Rodrigo Duterte and using the Citation bot converts work=
Washington Post
to newspaper=
Washington Post
, while other Philippine online news (like work=Philippine Daily Inquirer
) sites are ignored, which might confuse other future editors because the code is not standardized. Is there a possibility to set the bot to either:
work
to newspaper
orwork
parameter to newspaper
?— Sanglahi86 ( talk) 14:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Fixed for that one newspaper. Others can be added. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 18:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
JSTOR calls them "issues", despite them being volumes. I would add to "volumes only" list, but some years have issues. Will look into a specific fix.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
12:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Why is this bot changing 'work' to 'journal'? It adds no value in doing so; 'work' is the standard and 'journal' is an alias. The bot isn't even consistent in doing so. This seems like an arbitrary change by somebody. Praemonitus ( talk) 03:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
|journal=
.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
19:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
|website=
or |access-date=
parameters, rather than a muddled halfway approach (as a result of which it seems to tell us, for example, that the page on the Naval Marine Archive website was published in 1961).
I suspect because the citation is for a webpage about a book, that the 'web' citation was replace with a 'book' citation... but it really was intended to be a citation for the website (I created it) because the citation is supporting the existence of the book and it's properties. I'm not sure if there's something that can be included so that it doesn't get converted again in the future. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Shaav (
talk •
contribs)
19:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
the citation should be to the book, that's not a decision we can expect a bot to make with any degree of reliability. – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 18:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Not sure why it wants to convert things in the first place, but the comment should halt the process.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
04:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Alter: template type. Add: magazine. Removed parameters. Some additions/deletions were parameter name changes... which is untrue. No parameters were removed
Alter: template type. Add: magazine. Some additions/deletions were parameter name changes
Couldn't citebot automatically populate |author-link=
? —
Guarapiranga
☎
06:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
|author-link=
parameter when the |author=
incorrectly contains a wikilink? For example:
|author=[[John Doe]]
→ |author=John Doe |author-link=John Doe
|author=[[John Doe|Doe, John]]
→ |author=Doe, John |author-link=John Doe
|author2=[[John Doe]]
→ |author2=John Doe |author-link2=John Doe
|author3=[[John Doe|Doe, John]]
→ |author3=Doe, John |author-link3=John Doe
|author-link=
is required for |last=
/ |first=
pairs. |first=[[<name>]]
is an error but because |last=
and |author=
are aliases of each other, assigning linked values to them is allowed.I don't expect this to be easy, but it'd be great if citebot could learn from manual edits made to the citations it created. I suspect this would involve maintaining a (rather large) table of all auto-gen'd citations, indexed by ISBN, URL, etc, that could be routinely updated as editors correct and change citations. This will probably involve some sort of heuristic to decide what version (or mix of versions) should prevail against various citation instances of the same source. I'm not suggesting overrunning editors' consensus ref formulations, of course; just that in new citebot cites it uses past editors' input. — Guarapiranga ☎ 07:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
{{cite web|author=Leeps |url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1309&dat=19890604&id=tKFUAAAAIBAJ&sjid=NpADAAAAIBAJ&pg=5932,900833&hl=en |title=Rust Busters |publisher=[[New Straits Times]] / [[Google News Archive]] |date=1989-06-04 |access-date=2015-05-03 }}
→ {{cite web|author=Leeps |url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1309&dat=19890604&id=tKFUAAAAIBAJ&sjid=NpADAAAAIBAJ&pg=5932,900833&hl=en |title=Rust Busters |date=1989-06-04 |access-date=2015-05-03 }}
|publisher=
New Straits Times /
Google News Archive
is much better than nothing.
{{cite news|author=Leeps |url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1309&dat=19890604&id=tKFUAAAAIBAJ&sjid=NpADAAAAIBAJ&pg=5932,900833&hl=en |title=Rust Busters |newspaper=[[New Straits Times]] |via=[[Google News Archive]] |date=1989-06-04 |access-date=2015-05-03 }}
GoingBatty (
talk)
22:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
|last1=Nations |first1=United
Bot says no changed reqd for Basilica of Our Lady of the Mount, Bandra just inserted a bare url Nolicamaca ( talk) 01:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
A momentary bug i suppose thanks for doing it AManWithNoPlan may you can head over here WP:Teahouse Nolicamaca ( talk) 14:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Greetings. Why do you create a news article out of a web citation in
Minneapolis#Health_care? Beaverton isn't mentioned in the source, so where did you get her name? Thank you.
!Nothing requested -- OR -- pages got lost during initial authorization !No links to expand found
The page loss is not fixable.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
13:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
This is the continuation of a thread from a week ago: |
Couldn't citebot automatically populate |author-link= ? —
Guarapiranga
☎
06:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
|
I failed to answer a question Headbomb asked me at the end:
Let's say there is one John Smith notable in the world, and all the other John Smiths are not notable, meaning there are no disambiguation pages at John Smith. What's the guarantee that the John Smith you are citing is the notable John Smith, and not one of the non-notable ones?
None. Citebot would pick the wrong John Smith when generating the citation, and editors would correct it before publishing the edit by simply removing |author-link=
(easier than checking whether the source author has a WP article, and manually adding it in). —
Guarapiranga
☎
04:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
|last=
and |first=
added
Hello. The following notable Philippine print newspapers have online versions. Please include them in the bot's list of recognized newspapers to process from |work=
to |newspaper=
. Currently, only
Philippine Daily Inquirer (
https://www.inquirer.net/
) is recognized.
Also, please check if the tabloids below warrant inclusion. Tempo, owned by Manila Bulletin, is arguably the most reputable tabloid in the Philippines. Pilipino Star Ngayon is a sister newspaper of The Philippine STAR, while Bandera is owned by the Philippine Daily Inquirer.
Newspaper | Online version URL | Notes |
---|---|---|
Philippine Daily Inquirer |
https://www.inquirer.net/
|
Broadsheet; English language; national circulation |
Manila Bulletin |
https://mb.com.ph/
| |
The Philippine STAR |
https://www.philstar.com/
| |
The Manila Times |
https://www.manilatimes.net/
| |
Manila Standard |
https://manilastandard.net/
| |
SunStar |
https://www.sunstar.com.ph/
| |
Malaya |
https://malaya.com.ph/
| |
Daily Tribune |
https://tribune.net.ph/
| |
BusinessWorld |
https://www.bworldonline.com/
| |
BusinessMirror |
https://businessmirror.com.ph/
| |
United News |
http://www.unitednews.net.ph/ |
Broadsheet; Chinese and English language; national circulation |
Mindanao Gold Star Daily |
https://mindanaogoldstardaily.com/ |
Broadsheet; English language; regional circulation |
Tempo |
https://www.tempo.com.ph/
|
Tabloid; English language; national circulation |
People's Journal |
https://journal.com.ph/
| |
Abante |
https://www.abante.com.ph/
|
Tabloid; Filipino language; national circulation |
Balita |
https://balita.net.ph/
| |
Bandera |
https://bandera.inquirer.net/
| |
Pilipino Star Ngayon |
https://www.philstar.com/pilipino-star-ngayon
|
Also, for citations whose URL parameters start with |url=
https://www.pna.gov.ph/
, please set the bot to use |work=Philippine News Agency
instead of |work=www.pna.gov.ph
, |agency=Philippine News Agency
, or |publisher=Philippine News Agency
. The citation should look like below:
{{cite news |title=San Juanico view deck gives tourists safer area to take selfies |url=https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1178743 |work=Philippine News Agency |language=en}}
The same goes for citations whose URL parameters start with |url=
https://pia.gov.ph/
, please set the bot to use |work=Philippine Information Agency
instead of |work=PIA
, |agency=Philippine Information Agency
, or |publisher=Philippine Information Agency
. The citation should look like below:
{{cite news |title=DILG to continue “war on drugs” |url=https://pia.gov.ph/news/2022/07/05/dilg-to-continue-war-on-drugs |work=Philippine Information Agency}}
Thank you. Sanglahi86 ( talk) 11:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Oddly it is actually the title listed on the website for these pages. Very sloppy work by the web editor.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
14:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
-- Green C 00:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
There's an invisible character between = and The, which the bot should remove.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
15:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
long discussion
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BreakHoly jeez is this thing still going on. I'll transclude the CS1 documentation here.
Note in particular: {{ cite web}}: [for] web sources not covered by the above. Covered by the above is {{ cite magazine}}. EW is a magazine, so use cite magazine (and again, online magazines are magazines). End of story. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 04:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
I'd like to point out as well, that though some editors are saying "online magazines = magazine", as far as I can tell, no where in the documentation of either {{
Cite magazine}} or {{
Cite web}} is this defined. All Cite magazine says on the matter for anything online is two instances of how to
RfC Sample Question workshopRfC Question: Citation Bot has a feature that automatically converts {{ Cite web}} citations to {{ Cite news}} and {{ Cite magazine}}. For the purposes of this feature, are articles that are published exclusively on the websites of hybrid-print/digital publications considered to be published in a newspaper or magazine?
Alrighty, making this a bit more structured. InfiniteNexus and others, you've said that there are a number of edits that the bot has made that you've reverted. Could you please provide diffs to a selection of those edits, so that we can provide some actual examples of this in action? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 16:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
The initial question for the RFC still needs to be brief, much like the one I proposed earlier today. And then give examples, and a "Background" section as Rlink2 said to cover all the information editors would need on the matter. -
Favre1fan93 (
talk)
02:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Why do we need an RFC?In the section above, huge amounts of work are being put into drafting an RFC. If there is an RFC, lots more editor time will be put into the responses, and then into weighing a close. But why? What is the problem to be resolved? Some editors disagree with some instances of the conversion of {{ cite web}} to {{ cite magazine}} or {{ cite news}}. They make a distinction between the publication and its website. I don't share that view, and think that any distinction is pointless ... but clearly, some want to maintain a distinction. But after all this debate, I don't see why they want to maintain a distinction, and why they object to {{ cite magazine}} being used in e.g. some articles on the EW website. Sorry if I have missed some statement of this, but it would help to have a clear answer to the question: What is the harm done by these conversions? For example, does the change cause an unwanted alteration in the display of the citation? Do the objectors dislike the five extra character used by "cite magazine"? Or is this just about the name of the template? Or is it something else? Pinging @ InfiniteNexus, who is one of the objectors. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Because more data is always good, I've pulled together a table of the same analysis for all of Citation bot's edits over the seven day period 6-12 June. Collapsing it because it's a big table, but I want to include it here so you all can check my working.
In summary, Citation bot made approximately 36,415 edits over this period. 6,784 edits contained "Alter: template type" in the edit summary. As before, "Alter: template type" only indicates a conversion from one CS1 template to another. 88 total edits were reverted over the period: 35 were to test accounts, 53 were to non test accounts, and 5 were part of this dispute. After doing this analysis, I'm very heavily leaning towards what BrownHairedGirl has said;
We're not making any progress if we're just sitting around and neither side is willing to concede. @
Sideswipe9th: is the RfC moving forward or what?
InfiniteNexus (
talk)
21:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Links to the RFCI hope that this proposed RFC will not happen, because I think it's a waste of time. However, if the RFC goes ahead, it would be helpful if while the RFC is open, Citation bot linked to the RFC in relevant edit summaries. For eaxmple, instead of "Alter: template type" in the edit summary, there could be "Alter: template type (see [[WP:somepage#CBALTERTEMPLATE|RFC]])". @ AManWithNoPlan, would that be doable without too much work? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:59, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
RfC Question second draft and formatIf an article is published on a website associated with a magazine, or newspaper, but does not appear on the print edition of the publication, should you use {{ Cite web}}, or {{ Cite magazine}}, or {{ Cite news}}?
So format is based on the Pro and con example format for RfCs. The first sentence is the brief, neutral question per WP:RFCBRIEF. The table after is, or will be the summary of the past discussion covering the main points of each side of the discussion. While I still think we should include examples, I've collapsed them here because it kinda becomes unwieldy. I've also bold texted the differences between the two templates for each example. We could add an extra row for each example, to show what the wikitext output of the citations looks like, though it will be identical for both templates. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 20:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
None of the pro or con reasons address whether the choice makes any visible difference at all to readers. If it does not make a visible difference, why are we arguing about the very important choice we must all make correctly or the world will end about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Just let the bot rationalize the citations and don't worry about legislating the way citations must be identically coded by everyone who uses them. Or, alternatively, argue by WP:COSMETICBOT that it should only change citation type when that will make a visible difference, rather than by how very angry you are that the bot is not letting you use the wrong citation type. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
I want to make a more fundamental challenge to this draft RFC, because it is framing the question to an unduly narrow perspective. The real question to ask is whether CB should replace a generic {{ cite web}} with any of the more specific CS1 templates. If the argument is good for {{ cite news}} and {{ cite magazine}} then it is equally good for {{ cite book}}, {{ cite journal}}, {{ cite press release}} – indeed any document that has a web presence. There is no reasonable basis on which to pick magazines as the hill to die on except to distract from the broad principle of whether specific templates are more useful than the generic one. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 19:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
the first statement of the argument to use cite magazine or cite news is a fallacy. There is no way to confirm that articles on a website are also in print, a list of facts or top 100 sci fi films is unlikely to feature in print for instance. As we move ever onwards to a digital world and print continues the slow death initially prophesized by professor Spengler, how will cite magazine apply when the magazine no longer exists? Do we then go alter all those cite magazines? And how is it a valid use to cite a magazine when clicking the title will take the user to a website? It is an unreasonable statement arguing for the use of cite magazine and cite news. Cite web is not a generic template either, it's heavily used because we are not in 1982. There's a reason cite web is used nearly 5 million times and cite magazine less than 200K.
Darkwarriorblake /
SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!
21:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
|