![]() | 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 30 | ← | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 |
Dear Smith609,
Your Citation bot recently edited Pokémon (on the suggestion of User:Abductive). Many of the changes it made were good, but I had to revert four things. The bot changed these two sources to "Cite news" and "Cite magazine", respectively:
If you open the first link, you'll see that it's from a weblog. ProQuest doesn't state that the article ever appeared in print. If you open the second link, and search for "online exclusive", you'll see that the article didn't appear in the physical Time magazine. Thus, the right template for both sources would be Cite web, not Cite news or Cite magazine.
There is also this source:
The bot changed it from Cite web to Cite magazine. However, I don't have that issue. I can't tell if the web article I cited is also verbatim in the magazine.
Furthermore, the bot changed this:
to this:
The old link works with me, the new one doesn't. Don't ask me why. 😏
All these issues are understandable, but I still thought it was worth bringing them to your attention.
Cheers, Manifestation ( talk) 10:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
PloS One
was replaced by PLOS ONE
in a citation of a 2009 publication, even though the publisher
PLOS and the associated journals were only renamed in 2012PloS
should be kept for publications prior to 2012
PloS was never used, only PLoS and PLOS, and the difference in capitalization isn't worth preserving.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
03:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Citation: vanEngelsdorp D, Evans JD, Saegerman C, Mullin C, Haubruge E, et al. (2009) Colony Collapse Disorder: A Descriptive Study. PLoS ONE 4(8): e6481. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0006481
--
Leyo
09:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Citation: Almeida MC, Steiner AA, Branco LGS, Romanovsky AA (2006) Neural Substrate of Cold-Seeking Behavior in Endotoxin Shock. PLoS ONE 1(1): e1. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000001-- Leyo 14:33, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
https://books.google.ca/books?id=W6l4jhzIg7oC&pg=pa10
the page needs to be specified as PA10 to work, not pa10, e.g.
Very likely likewise for pp=PR/PT/RA/etc... from above.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
01:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Can you please add |title=How to access research remotely
as a bad title. Caused by
https://www.cabdirect.org/ (see example
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Hydrocarbonoclastic_bacteria&diff=prev&oldid=1168379608 where the bot suggested that title for
https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/19921376862 before I did lot of manual edits).
Jonatan Svensson Glad (
talk)
12:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
In this edit the bot wrongly changed 2018 to 2021, thereby breaking the sfn refs which call the source. DuncanHill ( talk) 16:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
|title=Reviewed work: A Short History of the Middle East, George e. Kirk
|title=Reviewed work: A Short History of the Middle East, George E. Kirk
Thanks for the bolds.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
20:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
For scale, the IEEE book thing cleaned up about ~3000 citations, across ~1300 articles. There's still a few remaining ( WP:JCW/DOI/10.1100#10.1109), but I'm doing a second run on them to catch stragglers.
Hopefully we can do something similar for ACM ( WP:JCW/DOI/10.1125#10.1145), and SPIE ( WP:JCW/DOI/10.1100#10.1117)!
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 23:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Both linked and unlinked versions.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
00:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
HardwareX is a different journal, but same thing.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
18:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Bot is citing a podcast as factual information and inserting a lot of someone's biased personal opinions. Thus information is also inaccurate.
Citation bot didn't do that, I did.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
19:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
The bot has special code for links with redirects. I will need to add code that detects if both redirect to same thing.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
11:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Fixed i think.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
16:53, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
doi=
10.11569
doi=
10.12998
doi=
10.13105
doi=
10.35711
doi=
10.35712
doi=
10.35713
doi=
10.37126
doi=
10.3748
doi=
10.4239
doi=
10.4240
doi=
10.4251
doi=
10.4252
doi=
10.4253
doi=
10.4254
doi=
10.4291
doi=
10.4292
doi=
10.4329
doi=
10.4330
doi=
10.4331
doi=
10.5306
doi=
10.5312
doi=
10.5313
doi=
10.5314
doi=
10.5315
doi=
10.5316
doi=
10.5317
doi=
10.5318
doi=
10.5319
doi=
10.5320
doi=
10.5321
doi=
10.5409
doi=
10.5410
doi=
10.5411
doi=
10.5412
doi=
10.5492
doi=
10.5493
doi=
10.5494
doi=
10.5495
doi=
10.5496
doi=
10.5497
doi=
10.5498
doi=
10.5499
doi=
10.5500
doi=
10.5501
doi=
10.5527
doi=
10.5528
doi=
10.5662
All of the above can be marked with |doi-access=free
when encountered. A few of those may already be covered.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
15:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
10\.(1100|1155|1186|1371|1629|1989|1999|2147|2196|3285|3389|3390|3410|3748|3814|3897|4061|4089|4103|4172|4175|4236|4239|4240|4251|4252|4253|4254|4291|4292|4329|4330|4331|5194|5306|5312|5313|5314|5315|5316|5317|5318|5319|5320|5321|5334|5402|5409|5410|5411|5412|5492|5493|5494|5495|5496|5497|5498|5499|5500|5501|5527|5528|5662|6064|6219|7167|7217|7287|7482|7490|7554|7717|7766|11131|11569|11647|11648|12688|12703|12715|12998|13105|14293|14303|15215|15412|15560|16995|17645|19080|19173|20944|21037|21468|21767|22261|22459|24105|24196|24966|26775|30845|32545|35711|35712|35713|35995|36648|37126|37532|37871|47128|47622|47959|52437|52975|53288|54081|54947|55667|55914|57009|58647|59081)
|doi=
add |doi-access=free
.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
09:55, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
The URL is
this. But the link when added by default renders www.dtnext.in
in the website field instead of "DT Next". I'd appreciate this not be the case.
Kailash29792
(talk)
06:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Fixed
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
17:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
To do: ACM ( WP:JCW/DOI/10.1125#10.1145), and SPIE ( WP:JCW/DOI/10.1100#10.1117)! What with these? AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 15:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
More improvements AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 01:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Fixed
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
17:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
If the DOI starts with 10.5210/fm
, it's open access.
[45]
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
20:54, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Conference proceedings are published in books, nor journals, so cite book is appropriate.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
13:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
|date=
in the middle of a |chapter=
parameter
That reference had the wrong DOI to start with, that is not good.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
20:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
|page=16
with a whole-article span of |pages=16–20
. In the same pass, it replaced
this link with
this one, which was silly because the latter just redirects to the former; same story with replacing
this with
this, other than the &gbpv=0
in the former was not necessary. And again with changing
this to
this, other than the former's trailing &gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover
was unnecessary. Two other similar pointless changes of this sort in the same edit (though it also made some more sensible GBooks-related tweaks in other places).
This edit was also weird, since |year=
is deprecated in favor of |date=
except for a specific use case. (But it was an older edit, and maybe the bot doesn't do that any more.)Finally, there does not appear to be any utility whatsoever in changing |work=
to |journal=
or |magazine=
(or |newspaper=
, or ...), since they're all aliases for the same parameter, and all this change does is make the code longer for no practical purpose (for either readers or editors). Plus it impedes easily changing the citation template when the wrong one has been used for the source type in question.Feel free to refactor this as needed for your work flow, e.g. into separate trouble tickets or whatever.Lest this sound like nothing but spleen-venting, I do appreciate the legit cleanup and citation-completion work this bot does.
When did |year=
get discouraged. That is a new one.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
13:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Regarding |page=16
, you should use |at=p. 16
.
Jonatan Svensson Glad (
talk)
13:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
|page=
, the bot should not replace that with the article page range; don't make readers search through an entire article looking for the single sentence that supports the wikitext in our article.|date=
recommended over |year=
since
this documentation template edit 19 April 2015. |year=
discouraged since
this documentation template edit 18 November 2020.|year=
. As for journals, the page range is the standard way to cite them, rather than the first page only. This here is a bit special in that the first page of a journal article was meant, but you can easily change |pages=33–36
to |pages=33–36 [33]
in that case.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
14:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)|date=
parameter instead unless both of the following conditions are met: 1. The |date=
format is YYYY-MM-DD. 2. The citation requires a CITEREF
disambiguator." The doc is not wrong, and these changes were made years ago and have largely propagated site-wide. I have made literally thousands and thousands of changes of deprecated |year=
to |date=
and not one single time has anyone raised an objection, because they follow the documentation and (if they have questions) investigate the discussions that led to the documentation. It is not a legitimate job of any bot to defy consensus-built template operation and robotically abuse the template parameters; the tail does not wag the dog, and a bot's approval to operate is conditional on it doing things that are supported by consensus. If you want to change the CS1/CS2 documentation, you can make a proposal at
WT:CS1. That also applies to the next bit.Page numbers: See the detailed documentation under
Template:Cite journal#Description: "page: The number of a single page in the source that supports the content. ... OR: pages: a range of pages inthe source that supports the content". The parameter can also be used to indicate the full-page range of the source, for short sources like journal citations, but there are specific instructions for including this information if for some reason it is desired: "using the following notation: article-page-range [content-supporting-pages], for example: pp. 4–10 [5, 7]". The primary reader- and editor-facing purpose of citing pages at all is to cite the content-supporting material, and the vast majority of our citations are written this way. It's "reader-hateful" to change these into ranges that cover the entire cited work, unless you use the prescribed "pp. 4–10 [5, 7]" format, but there are so vanishingly few citations actually written this way (because they are not actually useful to either the reader or to editors doing verification) that people are apt to revert this anyay. Citing only the full page range, rather than specific content-supporting pages, of journal articles is absolutely not "the standard way to cite them" on Wikipedia, however commonly the practice can be found in the academic world (and even there, it's only a peculiarity of certain citation styles; I read a lot of journal material, and plenty of it cites specific pages in other articles).More:
Wikipedia:Citing sources#Short and full citations: "A full citation fully identifies a reliable source and, where applicable, the place in that source (such as a page number) where the information in question can be found. .... A short citation is an inline citation that identifies the place in a source where specific information can be found ... giving summary information about the source together with a page number." This applies to all publication types; there is no magical exception for journals.
WP:Citing sources#Identifying parts of a source: "When citing lengthy sources, you should identify which part of a source is being cited." That applies to all journal articles that are not trivially short. Next,
Help:References and page numbers: "give a page number or page range—or a section, chapter, or other division of the source—because then the reader does not have to carefully review the whole cited source to find the relevant supporting evidence". Next,
Wikipedia:References dos and don'ts: "DO: ... Say where in the source the information came from."On mis-using |at=
to provide page numbers, Trappist above is correct that this is not what that parameter is for. See also
Help:References and page numbers#Other in-source locations: "Often, a page number is not appropriate such as when citing an audio or video source or a book that has no page numbers. The Citation Style 1 [and CS2 for that matter] templates have an |at= parameter that can be used to include non-page locators."Generally speaking, one should avoid directly linking to RG PDF files, since RG limits the number of downloads of PDFs, these links add to that count. Secondly, the PDFs are much less accessible than the abstract pages. Lastly, one can always just click on the PDF link. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 15:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
The GB normalizations greatly stabilize URLs and make what different people see more consistent and removes javascript dependencies. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 15:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
blished by the BB
|agency=
provides news copy to other entities, commonly newspaper publishers for publication in those newspapers. When this happens, |agency=AP News
or |agency=Associated Press
is correct.|work=
when citing news copy hosted at apnews.com. To me, AP News and Associated Press are sufficiently synonymous that it is a distinction without a different. So, to me: |url=https//apnews.com...
with either of |work=AP News
or |work=Associated Press
are both correct; with |agency=AP News
or |agency=Associated Press
is not correct.work=AP News
and publisher=Associated Press
. Have you ever wondered why this keeps on coming up? It's because it's wrong and needs to be fixed. ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯
22:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Once I am back from survival training, I will look through all this and work on name mapping, since when the AP is a work vs when it is an agency, the name seems to be different. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 11:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
This is an interesting question. When someone references a website, should they add the date for the first edition of the most recent edition. It is impossible to know what the editor intended.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
21:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
The bot is adding this apparently bogus ISBN to TRAPPIST-1. Is there a way to stop it? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 18:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
{{
cite conference}}
or {{
cite book}}
.|isbn=
to {{
cite journal}}
(or any other periodical template).|doi-access=free
Should probably apply to any other citations with a 10.1007/978-...
doi as well.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
03:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Possibly recognizable by the /chapter/ in the url, or the 10.1007/978-3-030-58820-5_44 in the doi.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
03:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
I do not see a method were a bot can get information from scanned image or a web page where url-access=subscription.
List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes: "Bangor Daily Whig and Courier Archives, May 18, 1896, p. 1" obviously is not the title of a newspaper article published May 18, 1896. I know supplying a title results in one less "missing title" message, but is that really the goal of article edits? User-duck ( talk) 07:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
It may be relevant that the text has two citations: (each in its own pair of ref tags, deleted for reader convenience)
The first is a campaign group, not a newspaper. The second is a newspaper but was not identified as such nor was the citation corrected. After manual corrections, the citations now read:
Source article: East West Rail. -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 17:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Got it.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
23:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Bunch more done. On another note, can you comment on "dates" above. It seems like a good idea.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
00:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Also, after I added the chapter to the doi
[63], I had to TNT the title to get it to add the chapter
[64].
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
13:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Specifically, it's the changing of {{
citation}} to {{
cite book}} that violates CITEVAR, not fixing conferences cited as journals.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
09:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
|mode=cs2<!- due to change from cs2 template -->
or something similar.
Jonatan Svensson Glad (
talk)
12:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
|mode=cs2
to the changed template. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
23:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
|title=
parameter, making the article end up in
Category:CS1 errors: missing title. This is definitely not what should happen.
|website=MIT Press
and |publisher=MIT Press
. The book citation template no longer displays the website parameter. The bot removes the publisher parameter, causing the publisher information to no longer be visible to the reader.
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 20:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
More
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 03:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
{{cite book}}
when there was a chapter title listed.
Looks like fragments should be ignored. Another common one is https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed URLs. Nemo 15:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi, again. Can you run your bot through sr.wiki? There are too many articles with partially filled citation templates. An by the way, why does bot remove ref=harv? KrleNS ( talk) 03:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
|date=January 0001
|date=January 15, 2029
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 19:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
|chapter=
to a {{
citation}}
template that used a |work=
alias (|journal=
, |magazine=
, |newspaper=
, |periodical=
, |website=
). Aliases of |work=
cause {{citation}}
to treat the source as a periodical so
Module:Citation/CS1 rejects |chapter=
and aliases (|contribution=
, |entry=
, |article=
, |section=
). It has been ever thus with {{citation}}
|chapter=
alias in a {{citation}}
template, remove any |work=
alias
These are very rare, and usually point to the need for a human to step up and fix the citation.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
14:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
|journal=Vii: Journal of the Marion E. Wade Center
|journal=VII: Journal of the Marion E. Wade Center
|date=
, while the reference already included |publication-date=
and |orig-date=
.|date=
when the reference already includes alternative parameters, such as the ones mentioned above.
|page=19
to |pages=σελ. 15–21 Pages
"usurped title" is generated by WP:WAYBACKMEDIC when repairing WP:JUDI usurpations. Example. Would Citation bot be able to extract a good title from the archive URL, and replace the placeholder title? If not I can try, but have not developed any code for HTML titles which is presumably more complicated than it seems due to other stuff that can end up in the title string of a page. -- Green C 04:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
|title=usurped title
references fall in the same sort dubious/not-dubious classifications. Given that, would it be a good idea to have cs1|2 emit an error message for |title=usurped title
(and ultimately for |title=Archived copy
) so that human editors can see and fix these templates? Of course there will be the crowd of editors who will throw refill at the articles listed in the error category creating more junk titles, and so round and round and round and round and round ... sigh.((Hongkong|HK|Result|Toto) (HK|Pools|Prize)|Togle Live|Live (Casino|Draw|Slot)|(Casino|Slot|Bola|Judi|Game|Gacor) Online|Roulette Blog|[^| ](Mostbet([.]com)?|Terpercaya|Judi|Situs|Daftar|Keluaran|Keluaran|Pengeluaran|Siteleri|Canli|Bahis|Bonusu|Dotdash)($|[ ]))
The bot continued to disrupted the natural content by changing from web form reference to book form make it said an error: Website = ignored(help). Hope you fix that error as soon as possible. Thanks.
Most will require a human being though. The bot has already gotten rid of about 2000 such pages with the existing lists. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 13:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
This ref: Firn, David (March 1999).
"Roslin Institute upset by human cloning suggestions". Nature Medicine. 5 (3): 253.
doi:
10.1038/6449.
PMID
10086368.
S2CID
41278352. Retrieved 13 September 2021.
and this ref: Doyle, Derek (2006).
"William Hewson (1739-74): The father of haematology". British Journal of Haematology. 133 (4): 375–381.
doi:
10.1111/j.1365-2141.2006.06037.x.
PMID
16643443.
S2CID
35774229.
- I was able to open both the deleted URLs that the bot flagged as 'dead' and deleted: https://www.nature.com/articles/nm0399_253a?pagewanted=all and https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16643443/#:~:text=William%20Hewson%20(1739%2D74)%3A%20the%20father%20of%20haematology
I have reverted the edit for now. Can someone please go through the effects of this bot? Chrisdevelop ( talk) 13:24, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
|url=
without the query string. Because |doi-access=free
, |doi=
links |title=
. For British Journal of Haematology
PMID
16643443 takes you to
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16643443/; same as the value in |url=
without all of that google-highlight-string nonsense. Because PMID links are not links to the source, they do not belong in |url=
.flagged as 'dead'. Removal of
|access-date=
when |url=
is removed is correct because without |url=
, |access-date=
causes
Module:Citation/CS1 to emit an error message:
Thank you for the report, I have added that to the NO_DATE_WEBSITES list.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
13:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
When users cite the URL
https://www.theweek.in/ , under =website
or =work
they link
The Week. This is incorrect, as the link should be
The Week. Can the bot change existing URLs using the former link to the new one?
Kailash29792
(talk)
04:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
{{ fixed}} - flag for archive. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 17:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Citation bot can deal with the vast majority of the cases that prop up in these categories. The one-click treatment activated by anyone would be good. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 22:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
{{ fixed}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by AManWithNoPlan ( talk • contribs)
@
Susmuffin: that link is borked.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
23:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
|url=
should have been converted into |chapter-url=
. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
01:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Subtitles are still being eaten: Special:Diff/1176076741. This example is an especially bad case because the version of the title without the subtitles looks like the name of one of the main journals in this area. — David Eppstein ( talk) 15:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Many sources use this in the publisher field rather than website. I'd appreciate this not be the case. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Why has
this edit removed all the links to articles related to what the author reviewed?
The pattern should be \| *volume *= *\d+ *Suppl\.? *\d+
instead of \| *volume *= *\d+ *Suppl *\d+
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
21:44, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi Smith, I have a doubt. I noticed this bot adds dates in the DMY format, but – since Wikipedia is a multilingual project and pages get always translated to other languages – wouldn't be more useful to adopt the YYYY-MM-DD format? Citation templates can automatically translate it to the project language. Est. 2021 ( talk · contribs) 12:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
{{cite book |url=https://books.google.dk/books?id=dsfq_5dFeL0C&pg=PA2211&lpg=PA2211&dq=grosses+s%C3%A4ngerlexikon+Johanna+Jachmann-Wagner&source=bl&ots=b0VUydnINr&sig=ACfU3U0N_yjiZ5kAIqFMTi5ycPLe5efnmw&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=grosses%20s%C3%A4ngerlexikon%20Johanna%20Jachmann-Wagner&f=false}}
the bot expands to
|page=2211
You assume that the PA number is the same as the page number. That is not always the case, unless Google has fixed that.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
16:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
|page=530
for PA530 or |page=xvii
for PR17.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
01:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
{{cite book |url={{Google books|id=dsfq_5dFeL0C|page=2211|plainurl=yes}}}}
--
SilverMatsu (
talk)
16:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)|pages=1176934318788866
from |doi=10.1177/1176934318788866
. This is an old edit (5 October 2018) but I've been noticing this more often lately and this is the one that provoked me into creating this bug report.
|journal=
parameter
What is required to run bot automatically on sr.wiki. There is backlog containing thousands of articles, I run it manually, but it would take few years to clean it -- KrleNS ( talk) 02:18, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi there! Would it be possible to enhance Citation bot to remove Category:CS1 maint: url-status issues? Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 14:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
I see, the worthless findarticles url was "fixed", but the bot did not realize the archive was there.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
17:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
I frequently see this bot making cosmetic edits like this one. Could it be programmed to alert editors when they're about to make a cosmetic edit to discourage it? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 17:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Can I ask what the purpose of this sort of edit is? I understand that the url-status field is only useful when the archive-url is present, but the website cited here, philsp.com, has two kinds of URL: one which is very stable, and another kind which is autogenerated and should be archived quickly and marked as dead even whin technically it isn't, as it soon will be. The URLs here are the stable kind, so though I don't remember what was in my mind when I cited this, I probably marked them as live so that when I later added the archive links it would not treat them as dead. Normally I add the archive links as I go but perhaps archive.org was uncooperative that day. I assume there's a good reason for removing these, but I can't figure it out and would be glad of an explanation. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 22:09, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
|url-status=
but not |archive-url=
should be repaired."
GoingBatty (
talk)
02:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
|url-status=
parameter is used for exactly one purpose, which is whether the archive link should be placed at the title rather than appended. If it is live and there is no archive URL doing so generates CS1 maintenance markup and it should be purged.
Ifly6 (
talk)
02:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
|access-date=
which actually says when the alive occurred. This also encourages the bad habit of setting url-status=dead.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
00:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
|access-date=
for live urls. Also, {{
deadlink}} is the proper way to flag a truly dead link. Add |url-status=dead
is not visible to most users.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
01:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)|archive-url=
https://web.archive.org/web/20200715225405/https://www.gameinformer.com/review/paper-mario-the-origami-king/paper-mario-the-origami-king-review-just-above-the-fold%7Curl-status%3Dlive%7D%7D
. The specific section of interest is %7Curl-status%3Dlive%7D%7D
which, because it was present and was folded (incorrectly) into the URL, breaks the archive link. Having unnecessary mark-up increases the chances that these kinds of breaking errors occur (viz "entropy"); but for |url-status=live
's prior inclusion this breaking error would not have happened.
Ifly6 (
talk)
14:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Having unnecessary mark-up increases the chances that these kinds of breaking errors occur (viz "entropy");– This is an exceptionally weak argument for any kind of urgency in removing these. Wikipedia pages are not viruses with strong selective pressure against stray DNA. You should figure out who (or what tool) introduced this broken URL and if it is a common problem, figure out how to make them stop. Someone probably has a broken parser that interpreted a | character as part of the URL, but the URL would be just as broken if someone folded any other random following parameter into it, so this issue is extremely unlikely to have been caused by the presence of the url-status parameter. – jacobolus (t) 15:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
AManWithNoPlan There is clearly significant doubt about whether this bot task is a violation of WP:COSMETICBOT, and you have provided no link to a bot task approval. Bot tasks require affirmative consensus, so the bot policy obligates you to roll back this change until you have acquired it. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 14:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
the output text or HTML in ways that make a difference to the audio or visual rendering of a page in web browsers( WP:COSMETICBOT): the CS1 maintenance warning is no longer rendered.
A substantive edit is one that does change the output HTML or readable text of a page. WP:Bots/Dictionary. Fixing these errors removes tags such as these:
<span class="cs1-maint citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{<a href="/wiki/Template:Cite_news" title="Template:Cite news">cite news</a>}}</code>: CS1 maint: url-status (<a href="/wiki/Category:CS1_maint:_url-status" title="Category:CS1 maint: url-status">link</a>)</span>}}
span
elements are littered throughout the HTML on pages in this hidden maintenance category. Removing unnecessary |url-access=live
means they stop being generated.
Ifly6 (
talk)
14:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
"Changes that are typically considered substantive affect something visible to readers and consumers of Wikipedia, such as the output text or HTML in ways that make a difference to the audio or visual rendering of a page in web browsers, screen readers, when printed, in PDFs, or when accessed through other forms of assistive technology". The change to add or remove url-status=live does not "make a difference to the audio or visual rendering of a page in web browsers &c." The page renders precisely the same either way. The only people who will see any difference whatsoever are the vanishingly small number of masochistic editors who have opted in to looking at "maintenance tags". – jacobolus (t) 15:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
make a difference to the audio or visual rendering of a page in web browsersis quoted in full in my original reply within {{ tq}}. The use of disjunctive
orcan be ambiguous. That is why both the dictionary should be taken seriously as an interpretive direction and it should be read harmoniously therewith. Ifly6 ( talk) 15:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
|url-status=
is at
Template:Citation Style documentation/url.|url-status=live
without |archive-url=
, and that bot retired for other reason.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
21:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC){{
dead link}}
which is a universal flag for all link types: bare, square and templated of any type, not only CS1|2. When the url-status system evolved, there was no intention to create a parallel system to compete or replace access-date and {dead link}. None of the 100s of tools and bots recognize url-status on its own as indicating the status of the URL. That a small number of editors use it off-label that way because they didn't read the documentation or understand how things are "designed" (evolved) is understandable but it shouldn't turn into a crusade to change the whole system which has far reaching consequences for lots of things. Plus your chosen method of using url-status for live has no date associated, it was live when, 20 years ago? You could also update access-date but that is redundant and prone to mismatch if people forget to do both, understandably since all the information required is in access-date. So at best you might say it's convenient to use it for double-duty, but that's really the only argument with some merit, and it has to be weighed against the downsides: people who do this might not understand what access-date is for, are not using access-date with all its advantages, or worse, not properly tagging with {{
dead link}}
. --
Green
C
07:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
|access-date=
parameter just because I've verified a page is still live. I think for |access-date=
to be meaningful, it must be verified that the URL still supports the material cited to it. If the link content has changed, and the |access-date=
is updated just because it still serves a page that matches up with the other citation parameters, it's going to break verification, and confuse anyone who goes hunting for the right archive snapshot.
Folly Mox (
talk)
04:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC)A point I didn't find in this discussion: unless I'm mistaken, when editing a page a preview will report that there are CS1 errors, without specifying the location; in particular, if url-status=live without archive-url is specified. So if an article contains a template with url-status=live without archive-url, a CS1 [corrected later] error warning is reported with the preview, by default without location or detail. (I am set up to display all CS1 warnings, so I see what is being flagged.)
Regarding access-date for a stable reference, it merely adds clutter for the reader viewing references. It is entirely pointless for readers (for whom Wikipedia exists), and also of very little use to editors in most cases. I find countless references lacking the publication date (prominently stated in the source referenced, and often highly relevant - was it yesterday or in 1980?), but proudly specifying when some editor happened to see that source. Best wishes, Pol098 ( talk) 14:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
[If] an article contains a template with url-status=live without archive-url, a CS1 error is reported with the previewYou are mistaken. CS1 maintenance messages are not error messages. CS1 does not do warning messages.
edit source
mode, you will get a green warning". Full Potential Martial Arts, San Diego.{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
because people are setting url-status=dead instead of using the dead link template, all because of this misuse of a parameter– "everyone keeps using this API contrary to documentation" is generally an indication that the API is broken (or at best poorly designed), not that the users are all just idiots.
the bot is approved– you linked to a "bot approval" from 15 years ago (!) that has nothing to do with the topic under discussion here. – jacobolus (t) 21:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
|dead-url=
. At the bottom of
Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 82 § url-status having a value "live" in the absence of an archive-url is a list of links to all of the discussions that document deprecation of |dead-url=
and our search for an appropriate replacement. If you have a better parameter name, don't keep it to yourself. Maybe, just maybe, we can deprecate |url-status=
and replace it with your better alternative.{{dead link|date=September 2023}}
rather than {{dead link|29 September 2023}}
. --
Paul_012 (
talk)
11:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Trappist linked to this above, but I'll repeat the link as it's not just the documentation that is being discussed there, but the usage, as here: Help talk:Citation Style 1 § |url-status=. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 13:02, 30 September 2023 (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 30 | ← | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 |
Dear Smith609,
Your Citation bot recently edited Pokémon (on the suggestion of User:Abductive). Many of the changes it made were good, but I had to revert four things. The bot changed these two sources to "Cite news" and "Cite magazine", respectively:
If you open the first link, you'll see that it's from a weblog. ProQuest doesn't state that the article ever appeared in print. If you open the second link, and search for "online exclusive", you'll see that the article didn't appear in the physical Time magazine. Thus, the right template for both sources would be Cite web, not Cite news or Cite magazine.
There is also this source:
The bot changed it from Cite web to Cite magazine. However, I don't have that issue. I can't tell if the web article I cited is also verbatim in the magazine.
Furthermore, the bot changed this:
to this:
The old link works with me, the new one doesn't. Don't ask me why. 😏
All these issues are understandable, but I still thought it was worth bringing them to your attention.
Cheers, Manifestation ( talk) 10:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
PloS One
was replaced by PLOS ONE
in a citation of a 2009 publication, even though the publisher
PLOS and the associated journals were only renamed in 2012PloS
should be kept for publications prior to 2012
PloS was never used, only PLoS and PLOS, and the difference in capitalization isn't worth preserving.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
03:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Citation: vanEngelsdorp D, Evans JD, Saegerman C, Mullin C, Haubruge E, et al. (2009) Colony Collapse Disorder: A Descriptive Study. PLoS ONE 4(8): e6481. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0006481
--
Leyo
09:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Citation: Almeida MC, Steiner AA, Branco LGS, Romanovsky AA (2006) Neural Substrate of Cold-Seeking Behavior in Endotoxin Shock. PLoS ONE 1(1): e1. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000001-- Leyo 14:33, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
https://books.google.ca/books?id=W6l4jhzIg7oC&pg=pa10
the page needs to be specified as PA10 to work, not pa10, e.g.
Very likely likewise for pp=PR/PT/RA/etc... from above.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
01:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Can you please add |title=How to access research remotely
as a bad title. Caused by
https://www.cabdirect.org/ (see example
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Hydrocarbonoclastic_bacteria&diff=prev&oldid=1168379608 where the bot suggested that title for
https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/19921376862 before I did lot of manual edits).
Jonatan Svensson Glad (
talk)
12:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
In this edit the bot wrongly changed 2018 to 2021, thereby breaking the sfn refs which call the source. DuncanHill ( talk) 16:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
|title=Reviewed work: A Short History of the Middle East, George e. Kirk
|title=Reviewed work: A Short History of the Middle East, George E. Kirk
Thanks for the bolds.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
20:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
For scale, the IEEE book thing cleaned up about ~3000 citations, across ~1300 articles. There's still a few remaining ( WP:JCW/DOI/10.1100#10.1109), but I'm doing a second run on them to catch stragglers.
Hopefully we can do something similar for ACM ( WP:JCW/DOI/10.1125#10.1145), and SPIE ( WP:JCW/DOI/10.1100#10.1117)!
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 23:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Both linked and unlinked versions.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
00:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
HardwareX is a different journal, but same thing.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
18:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Bot is citing a podcast as factual information and inserting a lot of someone's biased personal opinions. Thus information is also inaccurate.
Citation bot didn't do that, I did.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
19:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
The bot has special code for links with redirects. I will need to add code that detects if both redirect to same thing.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
11:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Fixed i think.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
16:53, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
doi=
10.11569
doi=
10.12998
doi=
10.13105
doi=
10.35711
doi=
10.35712
doi=
10.35713
doi=
10.37126
doi=
10.3748
doi=
10.4239
doi=
10.4240
doi=
10.4251
doi=
10.4252
doi=
10.4253
doi=
10.4254
doi=
10.4291
doi=
10.4292
doi=
10.4329
doi=
10.4330
doi=
10.4331
doi=
10.5306
doi=
10.5312
doi=
10.5313
doi=
10.5314
doi=
10.5315
doi=
10.5316
doi=
10.5317
doi=
10.5318
doi=
10.5319
doi=
10.5320
doi=
10.5321
doi=
10.5409
doi=
10.5410
doi=
10.5411
doi=
10.5412
doi=
10.5492
doi=
10.5493
doi=
10.5494
doi=
10.5495
doi=
10.5496
doi=
10.5497
doi=
10.5498
doi=
10.5499
doi=
10.5500
doi=
10.5501
doi=
10.5527
doi=
10.5528
doi=
10.5662
All of the above can be marked with |doi-access=free
when encountered. A few of those may already be covered.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
15:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
10\.(1100|1155|1186|1371|1629|1989|1999|2147|2196|3285|3389|3390|3410|3748|3814|3897|4061|4089|4103|4172|4175|4236|4239|4240|4251|4252|4253|4254|4291|4292|4329|4330|4331|5194|5306|5312|5313|5314|5315|5316|5317|5318|5319|5320|5321|5334|5402|5409|5410|5411|5412|5492|5493|5494|5495|5496|5497|5498|5499|5500|5501|5527|5528|5662|6064|6219|7167|7217|7287|7482|7490|7554|7717|7766|11131|11569|11647|11648|12688|12703|12715|12998|13105|14293|14303|15215|15412|15560|16995|17645|19080|19173|20944|21037|21468|21767|22261|22459|24105|24196|24966|26775|30845|32545|35711|35712|35713|35995|36648|37126|37532|37871|47128|47622|47959|52437|52975|53288|54081|54947|55667|55914|57009|58647|59081)
|doi=
add |doi-access=free
.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
09:55, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
The URL is
this. But the link when added by default renders www.dtnext.in
in the website field instead of "DT Next". I'd appreciate this not be the case.
Kailash29792
(talk)
06:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Fixed
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
17:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
To do: ACM ( WP:JCW/DOI/10.1125#10.1145), and SPIE ( WP:JCW/DOI/10.1100#10.1117)! What with these? AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 15:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
More improvements AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 01:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Fixed
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
17:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
If the DOI starts with 10.5210/fm
, it's open access.
[45]
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
20:54, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Conference proceedings are published in books, nor journals, so cite book is appropriate.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
13:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
|date=
in the middle of a |chapter=
parameter
That reference had the wrong DOI to start with, that is not good.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
20:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
|page=16
with a whole-article span of |pages=16–20
. In the same pass, it replaced
this link with
this one, which was silly because the latter just redirects to the former; same story with replacing
this with
this, other than the &gbpv=0
in the former was not necessary. And again with changing
this to
this, other than the former's trailing &gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover
was unnecessary. Two other similar pointless changes of this sort in the same edit (though it also made some more sensible GBooks-related tweaks in other places).
This edit was also weird, since |year=
is deprecated in favor of |date=
except for a specific use case. (But it was an older edit, and maybe the bot doesn't do that any more.)Finally, there does not appear to be any utility whatsoever in changing |work=
to |journal=
or |magazine=
(or |newspaper=
, or ...), since they're all aliases for the same parameter, and all this change does is make the code longer for no practical purpose (for either readers or editors). Plus it impedes easily changing the citation template when the wrong one has been used for the source type in question.Feel free to refactor this as needed for your work flow, e.g. into separate trouble tickets or whatever.Lest this sound like nothing but spleen-venting, I do appreciate the legit cleanup and citation-completion work this bot does.
When did |year=
get discouraged. That is a new one.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
13:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Regarding |page=16
, you should use |at=p. 16
.
Jonatan Svensson Glad (
talk)
13:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
|page=
, the bot should not replace that with the article page range; don't make readers search through an entire article looking for the single sentence that supports the wikitext in our article.|date=
recommended over |year=
since
this documentation template edit 19 April 2015. |year=
discouraged since
this documentation template edit 18 November 2020.|year=
. As for journals, the page range is the standard way to cite them, rather than the first page only. This here is a bit special in that the first page of a journal article was meant, but you can easily change |pages=33–36
to |pages=33–36 [33]
in that case.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
14:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)|date=
parameter instead unless both of the following conditions are met: 1. The |date=
format is YYYY-MM-DD. 2. The citation requires a CITEREF
disambiguator." The doc is not wrong, and these changes were made years ago and have largely propagated site-wide. I have made literally thousands and thousands of changes of deprecated |year=
to |date=
and not one single time has anyone raised an objection, because they follow the documentation and (if they have questions) investigate the discussions that led to the documentation. It is not a legitimate job of any bot to defy consensus-built template operation and robotically abuse the template parameters; the tail does not wag the dog, and a bot's approval to operate is conditional on it doing things that are supported by consensus. If you want to change the CS1/CS2 documentation, you can make a proposal at
WT:CS1. That also applies to the next bit.Page numbers: See the detailed documentation under
Template:Cite journal#Description: "page: The number of a single page in the source that supports the content. ... OR: pages: a range of pages inthe source that supports the content". The parameter can also be used to indicate the full-page range of the source, for short sources like journal citations, but there are specific instructions for including this information if for some reason it is desired: "using the following notation: article-page-range [content-supporting-pages], for example: pp. 4–10 [5, 7]". The primary reader- and editor-facing purpose of citing pages at all is to cite the content-supporting material, and the vast majority of our citations are written this way. It's "reader-hateful" to change these into ranges that cover the entire cited work, unless you use the prescribed "pp. 4–10 [5, 7]" format, but there are so vanishingly few citations actually written this way (because they are not actually useful to either the reader or to editors doing verification) that people are apt to revert this anyay. Citing only the full page range, rather than specific content-supporting pages, of journal articles is absolutely not "the standard way to cite them" on Wikipedia, however commonly the practice can be found in the academic world (and even there, it's only a peculiarity of certain citation styles; I read a lot of journal material, and plenty of it cites specific pages in other articles).More:
Wikipedia:Citing sources#Short and full citations: "A full citation fully identifies a reliable source and, where applicable, the place in that source (such as a page number) where the information in question can be found. .... A short citation is an inline citation that identifies the place in a source where specific information can be found ... giving summary information about the source together with a page number." This applies to all publication types; there is no magical exception for journals.
WP:Citing sources#Identifying parts of a source: "When citing lengthy sources, you should identify which part of a source is being cited." That applies to all journal articles that are not trivially short. Next,
Help:References and page numbers: "give a page number or page range—or a section, chapter, or other division of the source—because then the reader does not have to carefully review the whole cited source to find the relevant supporting evidence". Next,
Wikipedia:References dos and don'ts: "DO: ... Say where in the source the information came from."On mis-using |at=
to provide page numbers, Trappist above is correct that this is not what that parameter is for. See also
Help:References and page numbers#Other in-source locations: "Often, a page number is not appropriate such as when citing an audio or video source or a book that has no page numbers. The Citation Style 1 [and CS2 for that matter] templates have an |at= parameter that can be used to include non-page locators."Generally speaking, one should avoid directly linking to RG PDF files, since RG limits the number of downloads of PDFs, these links add to that count. Secondly, the PDFs are much less accessible than the abstract pages. Lastly, one can always just click on the PDF link. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 15:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
The GB normalizations greatly stabilize URLs and make what different people see more consistent and removes javascript dependencies. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 15:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
blished by the BB
|agency=
provides news copy to other entities, commonly newspaper publishers for publication in those newspapers. When this happens, |agency=AP News
or |agency=Associated Press
is correct.|work=
when citing news copy hosted at apnews.com. To me, AP News and Associated Press are sufficiently synonymous that it is a distinction without a different. So, to me: |url=https//apnews.com...
with either of |work=AP News
or |work=Associated Press
are both correct; with |agency=AP News
or |agency=Associated Press
is not correct.work=AP News
and publisher=Associated Press
. Have you ever wondered why this keeps on coming up? It's because it's wrong and needs to be fixed. ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯
22:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Once I am back from survival training, I will look through all this and work on name mapping, since when the AP is a work vs when it is an agency, the name seems to be different. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 11:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
This is an interesting question. When someone references a website, should they add the date for the first edition of the most recent edition. It is impossible to know what the editor intended.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
21:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
The bot is adding this apparently bogus ISBN to TRAPPIST-1. Is there a way to stop it? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 18:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
{{
cite conference}}
or {{
cite book}}
.|isbn=
to {{
cite journal}}
(or any other periodical template).|doi-access=free
Should probably apply to any other citations with a 10.1007/978-...
doi as well.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
03:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Possibly recognizable by the /chapter/ in the url, or the 10.1007/978-3-030-58820-5_44 in the doi.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
03:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
I do not see a method were a bot can get information from scanned image or a web page where url-access=subscription.
List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes: "Bangor Daily Whig and Courier Archives, May 18, 1896, p. 1" obviously is not the title of a newspaper article published May 18, 1896. I know supplying a title results in one less "missing title" message, but is that really the goal of article edits? User-duck ( talk) 07:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
It may be relevant that the text has two citations: (each in its own pair of ref tags, deleted for reader convenience)
The first is a campaign group, not a newspaper. The second is a newspaper but was not identified as such nor was the citation corrected. After manual corrections, the citations now read:
Source article: East West Rail. -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 17:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Got it.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
23:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Bunch more done. On another note, can you comment on "dates" above. It seems like a good idea.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
00:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Also, after I added the chapter to the doi
[63], I had to TNT the title to get it to add the chapter
[64].
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
13:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Specifically, it's the changing of {{
citation}} to {{
cite book}} that violates CITEVAR, not fixing conferences cited as journals.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
09:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
|mode=cs2<!- due to change from cs2 template -->
or something similar.
Jonatan Svensson Glad (
talk)
12:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
|mode=cs2
to the changed template. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
23:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
|title=
parameter, making the article end up in
Category:CS1 errors: missing title. This is definitely not what should happen.
|website=MIT Press
and |publisher=MIT Press
. The book citation template no longer displays the website parameter. The bot removes the publisher parameter, causing the publisher information to no longer be visible to the reader.
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 20:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
More
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 03:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
{{cite book}}
when there was a chapter title listed.
Looks like fragments should be ignored. Another common one is https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed URLs. Nemo 15:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi, again. Can you run your bot through sr.wiki? There are too many articles with partially filled citation templates. An by the way, why does bot remove ref=harv? KrleNS ( talk) 03:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
|date=January 0001
|date=January 15, 2029
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 19:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
|chapter=
to a {{
citation}}
template that used a |work=
alias (|journal=
, |magazine=
, |newspaper=
, |periodical=
, |website=
). Aliases of |work=
cause {{citation}}
to treat the source as a periodical so
Module:Citation/CS1 rejects |chapter=
and aliases (|contribution=
, |entry=
, |article=
, |section=
). It has been ever thus with {{citation}}
|chapter=
alias in a {{citation}}
template, remove any |work=
alias
These are very rare, and usually point to the need for a human to step up and fix the citation.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
14:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
|journal=Vii: Journal of the Marion E. Wade Center
|journal=VII: Journal of the Marion E. Wade Center
|date=
, while the reference already included |publication-date=
and |orig-date=
.|date=
when the reference already includes alternative parameters, such as the ones mentioned above.
|page=19
to |pages=σελ. 15–21 Pages
"usurped title" is generated by WP:WAYBACKMEDIC when repairing WP:JUDI usurpations. Example. Would Citation bot be able to extract a good title from the archive URL, and replace the placeholder title? If not I can try, but have not developed any code for HTML titles which is presumably more complicated than it seems due to other stuff that can end up in the title string of a page. -- Green C 04:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
|title=usurped title
references fall in the same sort dubious/not-dubious classifications. Given that, would it be a good idea to have cs1|2 emit an error message for |title=usurped title
(and ultimately for |title=Archived copy
) so that human editors can see and fix these templates? Of course there will be the crowd of editors who will throw refill at the articles listed in the error category creating more junk titles, and so round and round and round and round and round ... sigh.((Hongkong|HK|Result|Toto) (HK|Pools|Prize)|Togle Live|Live (Casino|Draw|Slot)|(Casino|Slot|Bola|Judi|Game|Gacor) Online|Roulette Blog|[^| ](Mostbet([.]com)?|Terpercaya|Judi|Situs|Daftar|Keluaran|Keluaran|Pengeluaran|Siteleri|Canli|Bahis|Bonusu|Dotdash)($|[ ]))
The bot continued to disrupted the natural content by changing from web form reference to book form make it said an error: Website = ignored(help). Hope you fix that error as soon as possible. Thanks.
Most will require a human being though. The bot has already gotten rid of about 2000 such pages with the existing lists. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 13:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
This ref: Firn, David (March 1999).
"Roslin Institute upset by human cloning suggestions". Nature Medicine. 5 (3): 253.
doi:
10.1038/6449.
PMID
10086368.
S2CID
41278352. Retrieved 13 September 2021.
and this ref: Doyle, Derek (2006).
"William Hewson (1739-74): The father of haematology". British Journal of Haematology. 133 (4): 375–381.
doi:
10.1111/j.1365-2141.2006.06037.x.
PMID
16643443.
S2CID
35774229.
- I was able to open both the deleted URLs that the bot flagged as 'dead' and deleted: https://www.nature.com/articles/nm0399_253a?pagewanted=all and https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16643443/#:~:text=William%20Hewson%20(1739%2D74)%3A%20the%20father%20of%20haematology
I have reverted the edit for now. Can someone please go through the effects of this bot? Chrisdevelop ( talk) 13:24, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
|url=
without the query string. Because |doi-access=free
, |doi=
links |title=
. For British Journal of Haematology
PMID
16643443 takes you to
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16643443/; same as the value in |url=
without all of that google-highlight-string nonsense. Because PMID links are not links to the source, they do not belong in |url=
.flagged as 'dead'. Removal of
|access-date=
when |url=
is removed is correct because without |url=
, |access-date=
causes
Module:Citation/CS1 to emit an error message:
Thank you for the report, I have added that to the NO_DATE_WEBSITES list.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
13:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
When users cite the URL
https://www.theweek.in/ , under =website
or =work
they link
The Week. This is incorrect, as the link should be
The Week. Can the bot change existing URLs using the former link to the new one?
Kailash29792
(talk)
04:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
{{ fixed}} - flag for archive. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 17:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Citation bot can deal with the vast majority of the cases that prop up in these categories. The one-click treatment activated by anyone would be good. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 22:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
{{ fixed}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by AManWithNoPlan ( talk • contribs)
@
Susmuffin: that link is borked.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
23:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
|url=
should have been converted into |chapter-url=
. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
01:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Subtitles are still being eaten: Special:Diff/1176076741. This example is an especially bad case because the version of the title without the subtitles looks like the name of one of the main journals in this area. — David Eppstein ( talk) 15:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Many sources use this in the publisher field rather than website. I'd appreciate this not be the case. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Why has
this edit removed all the links to articles related to what the author reviewed?
The pattern should be \| *volume *= *\d+ *Suppl\.? *\d+
instead of \| *volume *= *\d+ *Suppl *\d+
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
21:44, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi Smith, I have a doubt. I noticed this bot adds dates in the DMY format, but – since Wikipedia is a multilingual project and pages get always translated to other languages – wouldn't be more useful to adopt the YYYY-MM-DD format? Citation templates can automatically translate it to the project language. Est. 2021 ( talk · contribs) 12:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
{{cite book |url=https://books.google.dk/books?id=dsfq_5dFeL0C&pg=PA2211&lpg=PA2211&dq=grosses+s%C3%A4ngerlexikon+Johanna+Jachmann-Wagner&source=bl&ots=b0VUydnINr&sig=ACfU3U0N_yjiZ5kAIqFMTi5ycPLe5efnmw&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=grosses%20s%C3%A4ngerlexikon%20Johanna%20Jachmann-Wagner&f=false}}
the bot expands to
|page=2211
You assume that the PA number is the same as the page number. That is not always the case, unless Google has fixed that.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
16:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
|page=530
for PA530 or |page=xvii
for PR17.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
01:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
{{cite book |url={{Google books|id=dsfq_5dFeL0C|page=2211|plainurl=yes}}}}
--
SilverMatsu (
talk)
16:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)|pages=1176934318788866
from |doi=10.1177/1176934318788866
. This is an old edit (5 October 2018) but I've been noticing this more often lately and this is the one that provoked me into creating this bug report.
|journal=
parameter
What is required to run bot automatically on sr.wiki. There is backlog containing thousands of articles, I run it manually, but it would take few years to clean it -- KrleNS ( talk) 02:18, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi there! Would it be possible to enhance Citation bot to remove Category:CS1 maint: url-status issues? Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 14:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
I see, the worthless findarticles url was "fixed", but the bot did not realize the archive was there.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
17:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
I frequently see this bot making cosmetic edits like this one. Could it be programmed to alert editors when they're about to make a cosmetic edit to discourage it? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 17:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Can I ask what the purpose of this sort of edit is? I understand that the url-status field is only useful when the archive-url is present, but the website cited here, philsp.com, has two kinds of URL: one which is very stable, and another kind which is autogenerated and should be archived quickly and marked as dead even whin technically it isn't, as it soon will be. The URLs here are the stable kind, so though I don't remember what was in my mind when I cited this, I probably marked them as live so that when I later added the archive links it would not treat them as dead. Normally I add the archive links as I go but perhaps archive.org was uncooperative that day. I assume there's a good reason for removing these, but I can't figure it out and would be glad of an explanation. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 22:09, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
|url-status=
but not |archive-url=
should be repaired."
GoingBatty (
talk)
02:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
|url-status=
parameter is used for exactly one purpose, which is whether the archive link should be placed at the title rather than appended. If it is live and there is no archive URL doing so generates CS1 maintenance markup and it should be purged.
Ifly6 (
talk)
02:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
|access-date=
which actually says when the alive occurred. This also encourages the bad habit of setting url-status=dead.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
00:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
|access-date=
for live urls. Also, {{
deadlink}} is the proper way to flag a truly dead link. Add |url-status=dead
is not visible to most users.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
01:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)|archive-url=
https://web.archive.org/web/20200715225405/https://www.gameinformer.com/review/paper-mario-the-origami-king/paper-mario-the-origami-king-review-just-above-the-fold%7Curl-status%3Dlive%7D%7D
. The specific section of interest is %7Curl-status%3Dlive%7D%7D
which, because it was present and was folded (incorrectly) into the URL, breaks the archive link. Having unnecessary mark-up increases the chances that these kinds of breaking errors occur (viz "entropy"); but for |url-status=live
's prior inclusion this breaking error would not have happened.
Ifly6 (
talk)
14:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Having unnecessary mark-up increases the chances that these kinds of breaking errors occur (viz "entropy");– This is an exceptionally weak argument for any kind of urgency in removing these. Wikipedia pages are not viruses with strong selective pressure against stray DNA. You should figure out who (or what tool) introduced this broken URL and if it is a common problem, figure out how to make them stop. Someone probably has a broken parser that interpreted a | character as part of the URL, but the URL would be just as broken if someone folded any other random following parameter into it, so this issue is extremely unlikely to have been caused by the presence of the url-status parameter. – jacobolus (t) 15:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
AManWithNoPlan There is clearly significant doubt about whether this bot task is a violation of WP:COSMETICBOT, and you have provided no link to a bot task approval. Bot tasks require affirmative consensus, so the bot policy obligates you to roll back this change until you have acquired it. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 14:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
the output text or HTML in ways that make a difference to the audio or visual rendering of a page in web browsers( WP:COSMETICBOT): the CS1 maintenance warning is no longer rendered.
A substantive edit is one that does change the output HTML or readable text of a page. WP:Bots/Dictionary. Fixing these errors removes tags such as these:
<span class="cs1-maint citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{<a href="/wiki/Template:Cite_news" title="Template:Cite news">cite news</a>}}</code>: CS1 maint: url-status (<a href="/wiki/Category:CS1_maint:_url-status" title="Category:CS1 maint: url-status">link</a>)</span>}}
span
elements are littered throughout the HTML on pages in this hidden maintenance category. Removing unnecessary |url-access=live
means they stop being generated.
Ifly6 (
talk)
14:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
"Changes that are typically considered substantive affect something visible to readers and consumers of Wikipedia, such as the output text or HTML in ways that make a difference to the audio or visual rendering of a page in web browsers, screen readers, when printed, in PDFs, or when accessed through other forms of assistive technology". The change to add or remove url-status=live does not "make a difference to the audio or visual rendering of a page in web browsers &c." The page renders precisely the same either way. The only people who will see any difference whatsoever are the vanishingly small number of masochistic editors who have opted in to looking at "maintenance tags". – jacobolus (t) 15:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
make a difference to the audio or visual rendering of a page in web browsersis quoted in full in my original reply within {{ tq}}. The use of disjunctive
orcan be ambiguous. That is why both the dictionary should be taken seriously as an interpretive direction and it should be read harmoniously therewith. Ifly6 ( talk) 15:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
|url-status=
is at
Template:Citation Style documentation/url.|url-status=live
without |archive-url=
, and that bot retired for other reason.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
21:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC){{
dead link}}
which is a universal flag for all link types: bare, square and templated of any type, not only CS1|2. When the url-status system evolved, there was no intention to create a parallel system to compete or replace access-date and {dead link}. None of the 100s of tools and bots recognize url-status on its own as indicating the status of the URL. That a small number of editors use it off-label that way because they didn't read the documentation or understand how things are "designed" (evolved) is understandable but it shouldn't turn into a crusade to change the whole system which has far reaching consequences for lots of things. Plus your chosen method of using url-status for live has no date associated, it was live when, 20 years ago? You could also update access-date but that is redundant and prone to mismatch if people forget to do both, understandably since all the information required is in access-date. So at best you might say it's convenient to use it for double-duty, but that's really the only argument with some merit, and it has to be weighed against the downsides: people who do this might not understand what access-date is for, are not using access-date with all its advantages, or worse, not properly tagging with {{
dead link}}
. --
Green
C
07:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
|access-date=
parameter just because I've verified a page is still live. I think for |access-date=
to be meaningful, it must be verified that the URL still supports the material cited to it. If the link content has changed, and the |access-date=
is updated just because it still serves a page that matches up with the other citation parameters, it's going to break verification, and confuse anyone who goes hunting for the right archive snapshot.
Folly Mox (
talk)
04:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC)A point I didn't find in this discussion: unless I'm mistaken, when editing a page a preview will report that there are CS1 errors, without specifying the location; in particular, if url-status=live without archive-url is specified. So if an article contains a template with url-status=live without archive-url, a CS1 [corrected later] error warning is reported with the preview, by default without location or detail. (I am set up to display all CS1 warnings, so I see what is being flagged.)
Regarding access-date for a stable reference, it merely adds clutter for the reader viewing references. It is entirely pointless for readers (for whom Wikipedia exists), and also of very little use to editors in most cases. I find countless references lacking the publication date (prominently stated in the source referenced, and often highly relevant - was it yesterday or in 1980?), but proudly specifying when some editor happened to see that source. Best wishes, Pol098 ( talk) 14:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
[If] an article contains a template with url-status=live without archive-url, a CS1 error is reported with the previewYou are mistaken. CS1 maintenance messages are not error messages. CS1 does not do warning messages.
edit source
mode, you will get a green warning". Full Potential Martial Arts, San Diego.{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
because people are setting url-status=dead instead of using the dead link template, all because of this misuse of a parameter– "everyone keeps using this API contrary to documentation" is generally an indication that the API is broken (or at best poorly designed), not that the users are all just idiots.
the bot is approved– you linked to a "bot approval" from 15 years ago (!) that has nothing to do with the topic under discussion here. – jacobolus (t) 21:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
|dead-url=
. At the bottom of
Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 82 § url-status having a value "live" in the absence of an archive-url is a list of links to all of the discussions that document deprecation of |dead-url=
and our search for an appropriate replacement. If you have a better parameter name, don't keep it to yourself. Maybe, just maybe, we can deprecate |url-status=
and replace it with your better alternative.{{dead link|date=September 2023}}
rather than {{dead link|29 September 2023}}
. --
Paul_012 (
talk)
11:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Trappist linked to this above, but I'll repeat the link as it's not just the documentation that is being discussed there, but the usage, as here: Help talk:Citation Style 1 § |url-status=. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 13:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)