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 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 |
The bot repeatedly added a full stop to a DOI parameter in a citation. Edit Achmad Rachmani ( talk) 03:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Actually, it just removes the nbsp.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
20:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
|journal=
parameter, where one of |title=
and |journal=
is a strict substring of the other, which both also match /[Pp]roceedings/
or /[Mm]eeting/
or /[Ss]ymposi/
. I would think with these characteristics, Citation bot could confidently alter the template type to {{
cite conference}}, removing the article from
Category:CS1 errors: periodical ignored (24,173) (assuming it is the only erroneous citation of this type present in the article).
Folly Mox (
talk)
21:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
garbage(perhaps a link could be dropped if you're not feeling like explaining), but in my efforts to contract the maintenance category Category:CS1 errors: periodical ignored (24,173), I've had cause to use {{ cite conference}} in dozens of cases, and there are likely thousands more that could be identified without too much difficulty. Folly Mox ( talk) 22:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
DOI prefix 10.1155's registrant is Hindawi, an open access publisher. However, Hindawi became open access in 2007, and some (rare) DOIs from prior to 2007 are not free, e.g.
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)The bot should only mark 10.1155 DOIs from year 2007 and up as free, and not all of them. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 01:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Nemo
14:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
That's the only ISBN in the article. How would Citation bot know the intended style for the article was a hyphenated ISBN? This doesn't seem like a bug to me.
Folly Mox (
talk)
21:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
{{
Format ISBN|<10- or 13-digit ISBN>}}
. That template is set to auto-subst so
AnomieBOT will take care of the substing. Because Citation bot is a bot, it may be necessary to add {{Format ISBN}}
to
User:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster force.10.14256 DOIs should be marked free ( http://www.casopis-gradjevinar.hr/about-the-journal/open-access-statement/). Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 23:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Normally the bot is able to figure it out the DOI from the url, but here I had to give the DOI before the bot processed that citation.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
21:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
This one may be hard or maybe even undoable. If it can't be fixed, an option would be to not convert those links?
Spinixster
(chat!)
03:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
should be flagged as such. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 01:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
These four cats haven't been implemented apparently
Third time's the charm? Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 03:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Any online source should use cite web. On the jazz project Cleanup Listing, I have fixed many errors due to people using cite book and cite magazine instead of cite web. On the Steve Oliver page here, Citationbot changed the Billboard reference from cite web to cite magazine. Why? Nearly always, the citation is from an online source (an online version of Billboard), not the physical copy of the magazine. I'm not a fan of Citationbot's changes.— Vmavanti ( talk) 03:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
All from the Microbiology Society. Not all its journals are OA though, hence this per-journal DOI thing.
Access Microbiology
Microbiology
Journal of General Microbiology
Microbial Genomics
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 23:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
D-Lib Magazine
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 00:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
FASEB
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 00:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Fixed AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 14:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
|via=
Google Books
, despite
Wikipedia:Citing sources#Say where you read it advicing that the citation say how the source was accessed.
This is the incorrect usage of Via. Without a URL, there can be no "via". There are also often many copies of the same book on google, and they come and go. Say "via google books" is no more helpful than "I googled it, so trust me".
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
15:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
|via=
where |url=
is not present constitutes an error, but I did notice in this diff Citation bot modifying a {{
cite report}} (Ewert et al 2018) by reparameterising |title=
to |chapter=
, then adding a |title=
that duplicated |series=
, which I
just fixed.
Folly Mox (
talk)
18:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)via=Google Books
makes as much sense as via=the Faculty library
, i.e., none, it is just noise. Ditto via=Internet Archive
and via=JSTOR
. Can someone give an example of a sensible via that does not have a url because I can't think of any.
The NLM can be a publisher, but it won't be a publisher of any journal.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
06:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Special:Diff/1196306645 altered a web citation of Harpers.org into cite journal. Should the template used instead be cite magazine? Οἶδα ( talk) 16:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Which article? Which edit? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
GoingBatty (
talk •
contribs)
18:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
This is clearly nonsense.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
21:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Had to TNT the title/journal for it to properly give the information Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 01:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Your links can only be used by U of Bristol people. They are useless to everyone else. I am not sure if the new links work either, since I do not have a Factiva account. But, the reality is that factiva links are worthless. I suggest looking at
/info/en/?search=Template:Factiva
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
14:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
{{f/}}
with f/
in citation titles per the instructions at
Template:f/
I did them all by hand. I will have to think about this, since f/ is a template.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
19:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Can't the bot at least not overrule the current input when it's got crap like "’" in the titles?
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
01:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Citation bot is a useful tool that adds missing data and fixes formatting errors in citation templates1. However, sometimes it makes minor edits that do not affect the appearance or content of the article, such as removing a space between a quotation mark and a reference tag. These edits are considered cosmetic and are discouraged by the Wikipedia policy on bot usage. For example, see this: [11].
Cosmetic edits by bots can clutter the page history, the watchlist, and the recent changes, making it harder for editors to track the actual changes to the article. They can also trigger the abuse filter and lead to the account being blocked, as it happened to me: [12]. Therefore, I propose that Citation bot should avoid making cosmetic edits when checking multiple pages, unless they are accompanied by other significant edits.
To implement this feature, Citation bot could keep track of the number and type of edits it makes to each page before saving it. Then, it could compare the number of edits with a configurable threshold value, which would determine the minimum number of edits required for the bot to save the page. For example, the bot could save the page only if it makes at least 3 "fast" edits (such as adding a URL or an access date) or 1 "slow" edit (such as retrieving a bibcode or a DOI) per page. The default threshold value could be 1, to preserve the current behavior of the bot.
This way, Citation bot could reduce the number of cosmetic edits and comply with the Wikipedia policy, while still improving the quality and consistency of the citations. I think this would benefit both the bot operators and the Wikipedia community. What do you think? Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 19:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi,
This bot is adding a volume number which is the same as the issue number for publications that don't have a volume number. Surely this is a mistake?
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Gypsy%2C_Roma_and_Traveller_people_%28UK%29&diff=1202613177&oldid=1202374242 Boynamedsue ( talk) 08:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Are there other url prefixes?
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
19:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
The bots DOIs code has been improved substantially. Will now flag many more bad dois as dead. Used to only detect things like doi: 10.22111/jsr.2013.848, but will now also flag things like doi: 10.3201/eid1007.040396. Please report any mis-flagged DOIs. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 21:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
to a wholly incorrect {{
cite journal}}
. This error caught because the bot included html numeric entities for [[
and ]]
around whatever it was that it thought to be the journal name.
I will have to think about this.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
01:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Iowa. (Ter.)
(from Google books metadata?) → | last1=) | first1=Iowa. (Ter
|authorn=
, |firstn=
, |lastn=
should never be composed solely of punctuation and/or digits; this applies to the other namelists as well
What is the bot doing here? It takes out the pages and puts in "gigabyte" and some numbers. I undid it and it repeated the next day, so it's not some transient thing.
Abductive (
reasoning)
04:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
|page(s)=
with the suffix from |doi=
. The bot should not be doing that. Ever.|pmcid=PMC5528981
(pmcid is not a valid parameter; PMC5528981 is not a valid |pmc=
value) is wrongly converted to |s2cid=PMC5528981
where PMC5528981 is not a valid |s2cid=
value
I can see there are some issues with the links in an article I edited on Wikipedia. The bot might find it unreliable, but the links I have used, which I feel might be the issue, are 100% legitimate. Actually, that is the website we check to confirm the results of chess matches and tournaments.
So please help me remove the warning from the top of the page. I am hoping to present it to the person, on his birthday, which is in less than 24 hours now.
Thanks
>Consult APIs to expand templates >Checking that DOI 10.1111/een.13011 is operational... !CrossRef title did not match existing title: doi:10.1111/een.13011 > Possible new title: Lava crickets (Caconemobius spp.) on Hawai'i Island: first colonisers or persisters in extreme habitats? > Existing old title: Lava crickets (''Caconemobius'' spp.) on Hawai'i Island: first colonisers or persisters in extreme habitats?
@
AManWithNoPlan: I raised an issue in the past, but it is now archived as
User_talk:Citation_bot/Archive_37, see there: "Bug? The bot should not replace first/last to first1/last1 when there is just one author"
There was a reference: <ref>{{Cite book |last=Handy |first=E. S. Craighill |url={{google books|plainurl=y|id=PoXQAgAAQBAJ|page=120}}|title=Ancient Hawaiian Civilization: A Series of Lectures Delivered at THE KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS |last2=Davis |date=2012-12-21 |publisher=Tuttle Publishing |isbn=978-1-4629-0438-9 |language=en}}</ref>
The bot changed it to the following: <ref>{{Cite book |last1=Handy |first1=E. S. Craighill |url={{google books|plainurl=y|id=PoXQAgAAQBAJ|page=120}}|title=Ancient Hawaiian Civilization: A Series of Lectures Delivered at THE KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS |last2=Davis |date=2012-12-21 |publisher=Tuttle Publishing |isbn=978-1-4629-0438-9 |language=en}}</ref>
To reproduce it, copy the example to your sandbox and click "Citations" button (you should have this button present as a gadget enabled in Wikipedia preferences).
@
AManWithNoPlan: You wrote {{tl|wontfix}}, since the complexity of going back and changing them will just make the bot's author handling that much more insane, and it is already complicated enough.
How did you get to a conclusion that it is already complicated enough? This issue and issues like this is very important because when a bot only changes a page with from first/last to first1/last1 is not only questionable but triggers WP:COSMETICBOT violation.
|volume=
with the value of 134, which actually pertains to the |issue=
, and is already included. The actual volume of the source is the year-related value of 1998, and can be confusing; it is redundant.
No matter what article I run Citation Bot on, it reports !Operation timed out after 20001 milliseconds with 0 bytes received
or >Could not resolve URL
for every URL it tries to process, before eventually !Giving up on URL expansion for a while
. It appears that at least some of the specialized URL expanders (for journals and such) are still working, but not the general-purpose one. :Jay8g [
V•
T•
E
01:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Every time I have tried to use the bot to check a single article, it fails with Error: Citations request failed
. The bot has always suffered intermittently from this problem, but at least
BrownHairedGirl used to challenge those few editors who saturated the service. Since she was blocked, there has been noone with the expertise to call out the abuse, so presumably it has become endemic.
Regardless of the reasons, it is surely time to declare in all honesty that the bot is not a practical option for single shot use. Better still, create another instance of the bot that cannot be used by any editor for more than one article in a 24-hour period. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 12:22, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Error: Citations request failed
, which can only come from the bot, surely? --
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk)
16:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Error: Citations request failed
message be improved? Like "try again using Expand citations
option in the tools column (left)"? Because it all honesty, I would have to say that the toolbar icon works in the vast minority of cases. I have been complaining here for years and it has taken until now to find the solution. --
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk)
12:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)|chapter=
to {{
cite journal}}
. {{cite journal}}
and the other periodical or periodical-like cs1 templates ({{
cite magazine}}
, {{
cite news}}
, {{
cite periodical}}
, {{
cite web}}
) do not support |chapter=
(and aliases |contribution=
, |entry=
, |article=
, |section=
)
This happens every couple days. They are logged, and I go back and manually fix them (if someone else does not get to them first). Almost always, the citation is broken before the chatper is added.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
15:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
|title=Wayback Machine
. Not sure how to address. --
Green
C
23:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
I think I agree with Citation bot on this one. I think the parameter value should be |via=EBSCO Literary Reference Center Plus
. It wasn't obvious to me, a Wikipedia Library user, that I was supposed to use the default search bar at the top that is powered by EBSCO. They have pretty poor coverage of my usual topic areas. After forgetting to place my search term, "Baker & Taylor Author Biographies", in quotes for literal string matching, I actually went to Taylor & Francis next on a misguided hunch, before just asking google which publishing platform licensed the reference work, after which I was able to verify that TWL does provide access to it.
If that was my experience, what about the experience of a reader without TWL access who tries to verify that citation? What about our experience when someone sets |via=Inaccessible University Undergraduate Library System
?
Folly Mox (
talk)
07:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
|via=(membership in something with an institutional subscription)
is never going to be helpful for people outside that membership, and even for the members it's more of a starting point (yes, I should be able to access this content) than a way (via) to access the content. Just some sleepy thoughts.
Folly Mox (
talk)
08:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
|via=
parameter is a disimprovement in this case over TWL, but EBSCO would be more helpful (since other institutional subscriptions have access to it).
Folly Mox (
talk)
17:18, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
|via=
. As to creating an EBSCO link, that's also not what I intended to mean. My position is that the most useful value of |via=
for this citation is "EBSCO Literary Reference Center Plus" as I said in my original comment. That's all.Sorry again.
Folly Mox (
talk)
21:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
I also agree with Citation bot. Inclusion of |via=Wikipedia Library
is cruft of very low value. The specific library system through which someone accessed an source (or even, gasp, Sci-hub) does not need documentation.
Ifly6 (
talk)
15:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
via=
parameter is rather helpful; the citation is bare enough without it that improving it was on my list of things to fix about the article. The only bot edit I could imagine being good here would be to wiki-link all occurrences of The Wikipedia Library
in the via=
parameter, because it's probably unfamiliar to readers who aren't themselves fairly serious Wikipedia editors.
XOR'easter (
talk)
18:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)From the citation I'm not quite sure what "Baker & Taylor Author Biographies" is. It would help to specify that Baker & Taylor is the publisher and what format the work is in. It seems to be some kind of database, so people would know to search it in the usual places like Worldcat. Given the date, it's most likely based on a previously published book which the publisher has acquired, so the best solution would be to cite the original authors and source. Nemo 20:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
I'd recommend replacing the "Via" with "Literary Reference Center Plus", since the source is not really the Wikipedia Library per se. I see using the latter for "via" as something akin to putting "via=My local librarian printed it out for me", which is frankly not very useful to anyone who has a different local librarian. – jacobolus (t) 00:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
This should be relatively fast with the API; Google Scholar is doing the same and shows those OA links, which were generally archived due to being public domain or CC-licensed. You can see the docs at https://scholar.archive.org/api/redoc but here's an example:
$ curl -sH "Accept: application/json" https://scholar.archive.org/search?q=doi:10.1080/14786449908621245 | jq -r .results[0].fulltext.access_url https://archive.org/download/crossref-pre-1909-scholarly-works/10.1080%252F14786449608620921.zip/10.1080%252F14786449908621245.pdf
Optionally the metadata can be used to construct the scholar.archive.org URL, which in this case is https://scholar.archive.org/work/heaairhf5fgkvgie4h54rpc4nm/access/ia_file/crossref-pre-1909-scholarly-works/10.1080%252F14786449608620921.zip/10.1080%252F14786449908621245.pdf and for a wayback URL would be something like https://scholar.archive.org/work/rv4lw3nikrfstp7bvvlxapsylu/access/wayback/https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlepdf/2022/dt/d2dt00998f . (This will reduce confusion by bots which think there's utility in converting web.archive.org links into something else.)
Nemo 22:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Not reporting as a bug, because I think the original bug that started this chain of garbage is long fixed, but:
Special:Diff/924930722 (2019): adds the dois for the reviewed items to two references to reviews of the item;
Special:Diff/958243206 (2022): expands one of the references with more metadata from the doi;
Special:Diff/1196114785 (2024): piles on even more metadata creating a broken citation template because of incompatible parameters (|chapter=
, added in this edit, and |journal=
, present in the original reference).
This is a phenomenon I have frequently complained about, to little avail: when Citation bot takes a single pass over an article, the results are often (but not always) improvements. But when Citation bot and the other bots take pass after pass after pass over an article, any mistakes are amplified, to the point where eventually they overwhelm the improvements.
Given that the last of these was "suggested by Grimes2": User:Grimes2, you are ultimately responsible for these bad edits. Please take more care in checking that the results of your suggestions are actually improvements. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: untitled periodical (
link){{
citation}}
: |chapter=
ignored (
help){{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: untitled periodical (
link). It is intended as a reference to Esposito's review of Tarantello's book, not as a reference to the book. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
19:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
|work=[[American Political Science Association]] 2010 Annual Meeting Paper
-> |journal=American Political Science Association 2010 Annual Meeting Paper
|work=[[American Political Science Association]] 2010 Annual Meeting Paper
-> |journal=[[American Political Science Association]] 2010 Annual Meeting Paper
(wikilink should be retained)
Use {{ Cite SSRN}} for citing SSRN papers. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 10:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
|journal=
parameter (invalid for cite book), instead of the correct |series=
parameter, the bot broke the citation, causing it to emit an error message. The pmid that appears to have triggered this bad edit was also previously added by Citation bot, in 2020, in
Special:Diff/985257358.|journal=
to {{
cite book}}.
Can Citation bot please stop littering every s2cid it can find wherever it can possibly fit? The vast majority of these links contain zero useful information beyond a (redundant) link to the publisher's website (typically paywalled), and putting them on every citation in Wikipedia is more or less spam. It's a distracting waste of space with no redeeming benefits.
The easiest solution here would be to deprecate the s2cid parameter from the citation templates, hide them from the output, and just be done with it.
Next best, probably my personal recommendation, would be that only humans should ever add s2cid links (and ideally the ones which were added by a bot in the past should be removed), or barring that that a human should manually review any s2cid that gets added by any bot. At the very very least, the bot should try to check them for meaningful content and skip the vast majority of totally useless ones going forward. – jacobolus (t) 18:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
|s2cid=
… fine I guess, but a vast majority of the time someone who has never edited a given article runs the prompt and the bot clutters up all the citations with a spammy parameter without any human editors actively wanting it there.
Umimmak (
talk)
18:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Citation bot already avoids adding s2cid where there are no sources– This is nowhere close to accurate. Citation bot adds tons of completely vacuous s2cids that provide no information beyond a link to the publisher page, more or less analogous to blogspam. – jacobolus (t) 19:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Came across some more S2CID spam today which led me to this conversation. Is there an actual way to have an RfC or something for this? It's fine if humans want to add it, but for something with a DOI already there, having a bot add something that is pretty useless doesn't help. Why? I Ask ( talk) 05:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Citation bot continually adds back particular S2CIDs even when they have been explicitly manually removed by humans for being useless. Can whoever controls this bot please stop such behavior? (Or ideally just get rid of S2CIDs altogether?) Otherwise I am encouraged to ban Citation bot from editing particular article pages altogether. – jacobolus (t) 15:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
{{bots|deny=Citation bot}}
to the pages. But a better solution would be for the Citation bot developers to stop spamming Wikipedia with these links. –
jacobolus
(t)
18:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Fixed AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 14:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
{{cite journal|last1=Billard | first1=Yves| last2=Chandezon| first2=Christophe| year=2012| title=Ernest Beulé (1826–1874). Archéologie classique, histoire romaine et politique sous Napoléon III| trans-title=Ernest Beulé (1826–1874). Classical Archaeology, Roman History and Politics under Napoleon III| journal=Liame| volume=24| url=http://journals.openedition.org/liame/277| access-date=2024-02-09| doi=10.4000/liame.277| lang=fr|issn=2264-623X| doi-access=free}}
, it mistakenly added an additional |issue=24
(
diff){{cite book|last=Judson|first=Anna P.|year=2020|title=The Undeciphered Signs of Linear B: Interpretation and Scribal Practices|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=9781108859745|doi=10.1017/9781108859745}}
, it mistakenly added |url=
https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/265630
. This URL links not to the book but to Judson's PhD thesis by the same name. (
diff)In the meantime, I've marked the citations with comments so that the bot doesn't get to them.
I have reported the URL to the open access button as a mistake, and fixed the other.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
17:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
I have reported this mata-data error to the openaccess button people.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
15:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
The reference in question was a book style reference to a journal. The bot guessed wrong. I have since cleaned up the reference by hand some.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
14:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Often this is a result of the editor having other incompatible options enabled. Please see the help page for the gadget tool
/info/en/?search=MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-citations.js
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
15:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Afaik [?],
Grove Online is routinely cited inline using Template:Cite web, which (unlike Template:Cite Grove) allows for inclusion of actual author information. Afaik, this is correct and therefore does not require automated correction.
86.177.202.175 (
talk)
18:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
. I think that you are mistaken in your claim that {{
cite Grove}}
does not allow for inclusion of actual author information.
|chapter=
parameter from a reference to the chapter "Eulerian Numbers" in the book Eulerian Numbers, possibly out of confusion because of the fact that the chapter and the book have the same title. This left the reference in a state where it cited the whole book but didn't name the chapter within it that its doi and page numbers pointed to. Then, in
Special:Diff/1211621780, the bot decided to use the doi to fill in the chapter parameter once more, but in doing so it removed the |title=
parameter of the reference, again likely out of confusion from the equality of titles. The combination of these two edits left the reference in a broken state without a book title. This had already happened twice before, in
Special:Diff/984898465,
Special:Diff/1068697840, so the bot has broken the same reference in the same way at least three times, going back at least to 2020.
That is an interesting problem (I know someone who's first and last name are the same, and it causes similar confusion with people). I will look into ways to detect that. I have added comments to both parts to fix the specific page.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
15:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
There is a message in the edit summary "Removed proxy/dead URL that duplicated identifier".
I find this message frightening and even misleading, because the word "dead" is frigthening on itself, however, in most cases URL is not dead but just duplicates the identifier such as PMID or DOI, such as doi-10.15347/WJM/2023.003|url=https://doi.org/10.15347/WJM/2023.003 or pmid=35987379|url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35987379/. These URLs are not dead, and they also cannot be considered "proxy" in a classical sense. Please consider removing "proxy/dead" from the message so it will be just "Removed URL that duplicated identifier", for the following reasons:
Please remember that these messages go to the edit summaries which are kept forever, these are not just log message that only one user will see. Therefore, we should be very cautions about the edit summaries that we leave. Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 09:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm guessing the bug is due to the page being a download page. A way to resolve this, I think, is to convert the download page into the original page.
Spinixster
(trout me!)
07:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I have noticed the bot has made an error on the
Kingsman (franchise) page when it has been used three times on it (first by me when I was cleaning it up and noticed it, and the second times by two other editors performing standard use). The edits in question are the same:
here and
here. It appears the bot is looking for an |issue=
use in an archived dead CBR citation which has a quote in it, and the bot is pulling the "C" from the "
U.N.C.L.E." bit of the quote as an instance of |issue=
when it is not. It removes the "N.C." from the word, thus breaking the link as a result.
Trailblazer101 (
talk)
01:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I get why you removed the cite url, but why does the access date have to be removed as well? Sussex Arms pub bombing 78.152.229.53 ( talk) 20:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Not fixable. This is generally a result of the web-browser giving up too soon.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
13:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Expand citations
from the tools column left of the editing page. --
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk)
16:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Expand citations
option.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
14:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)>Remedial work to prepare citations
>Consult APIs to expand templates
>Expand individual templates by API calls.. nothing found.. no record retrieved.
>Remedial work to clean up templates.
>Writing to Draft:Scottish mother's day...
!API call failed: Edit conflict.. Will sleep and move on. !Unhandled write error. Please copy this output and report a bug. There is no need to report the database being locked unless it continues to be a problem. . !Possible edit conflict detected. Aborting. diff
That's an edit conflict. Just rerun the bot on the page. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 09:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
How can I query the citation bot version (e.g. a Github commit tag or date):
Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 08:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Can you please implement an opportunity to submit a pipe-separated list of article to expand via https://citations.toolforge.org/ to a queue instead of immediate processing for particular users who has legitimate interest for it, such as me to hunt for NULL DOIs? Currently, when then I submit a list that cannot be quickly processed, my web browser shows me a timeout error and no pages are processed or only a few so I don't know where it stopped. I'd like to ensure that all pages were processed sooner or later if I am authorized to submit such requests.
Won't fix AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 00:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
{{
Cite newspaper}} redirects to {{
Cite news}}.
It seems like whenever there is a string of numbers that looks sort of like a year in extra text floating around in a citation template, the bot decides that's a year -- even when those numbers are part of a longer string. This seems like a bad idea.:Jay8g [
V•
T•
E
06:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
example ( diff):
SilverMatsu ( talk) 16:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I have blocked it on the page. Will investigate. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 00:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
|p=
was converted to |page=
without any other significant changes made. This is a cosmetic edit in the context of the citation templates.
Please check out this edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/?title=Christianity_in_India&diff=prev&oldid=1221747817&title=Christianity_in_India&diffonly=1
The bot did not process this bare ref in the edit above: https://web.archive.org/web/20220817104726/https://m.thewire.in/article/rights/the-bogey-of-forced-conversions-has-long-diverted-us-from-the-realities-of-indian-christians/
Why? Can you please run the bot again? To see if it works! 117.230.189.80 ( talk) 12:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Demaine, E. D. (2001). Folding and Unfolding. Doctoral Thesis (PDF) (Doctoral Thesis). University of Waterloo, Canadainto a {{ cite thesis}} that reads
Demaine, E. D. (2001). Folding and Unfolding. Doctoral Thesis (PDF) (Doctoral Thesis). University of Waterloo, Canada. The change to template type may be correct, but the repeated words may not be. The repeated words may not be. Please please, when making changes to improve metadata, do not do not make the visible data worse. That is the wrong wrong tradeoff to be making. Meanwhile, when adding "type=", the word "thesis" should be lowercase (look! an actual easy to fix bug!) and the bot didn't even notice that the url should really be an hdl, nor properly split the author name into first and last.
This isn't so much a bug, I don't expect, as just the assumption that the lowercase "dan" would be the shift key not being held. In this instance, the title of the journal is in Indonesian (it's an Indonesian journal being cited): Jurnal Kependidikan dan Kemasyarakatan, which is "Journal of Society and Education".
The article is in English, so the language=id parameter was not included in the citation. I added the cbignore template to that single citation to keep the problem from recurring, loathe as I am to do so because bots search databases and find other means of accessing an article than the means I found, which may be useful in the future should a doi become broken.
Regardless of whether this is considered a "bug", I wanted those developing the bot to be aware of the instance. OIM20 ( talk) 20:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
|pp=
to |pages=
, but the respective citations refer to a single page number.|p=
or |page=
.
I will look into changing |pages=
to |page=
when it is only digits.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
16:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
This edit added "doi-broken" tags to two links, but when I clicked on the doi links they took me straight to the web pages. Scolaire ( talk) 16:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
{{ fixed}} oddly now AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 13:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
This edit added a journal tag to a book citation (which then got the "|journal ignored" error message), duplicating the title tag. And the edit comment linked to Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements from April 2024, which doesn't make any sense. Rontombontom ( talk) 18:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
{{ fixed}} - "journal" names with "International Workshop' or ' Held at ' will now be rejected. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 13:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
That's not really a bug. It's been published, it's the correct DOI. The DOI is just borked and the bot can't figure out the details, but a human can. The error is an improvement.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
04:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Here is one of the doi links. The destination is still reached, but there's a advert error at the top. -
UtherSRG
(talk)
10:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Citation bot has found yet another way to break harv/sfn citaitons. In this one as well as the reported long-ago damage of removing the author and thus breaking the link between the sfn/harv in the text and the source, it also adds a "{{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |agency= ignored " error.
DuncanHill (
talk)
11:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
I see that AdsAbs API limits the number of requests for the bot at https://citations.toolforge.org with 25000 per day which is saturated by the end of the day. I could wish to supply my own AdsAbs API key to for the requests I made to not spend the amount of requests that can be made by the other users, and, if it is already overwhelmed by the time I make my request, the bot will be able to use the API with my key.
The env.php file contains @putenv('PHP_ADSABSAPIKEY=xxxxx'); but we should probably change it to
if (!getenv('PHP_ADSABSAPIKEY')) { @putenv('PHP_ADSABSAPIKEY=xxxxx'); // https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/help/api/ }
so that we could supply the API key parameter to
https://citations.toolforge.org such as via a hidden form parameter that will go to this environment variable; still, we should make due sanitization of characters by only allowing hexadecimal characters and by length checking to avoid various threats such as injections.
Maxim Masiutin (
talk)
10:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
{{ fixed}} AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 13:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Not really needed. I do this myself.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
12:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Same as ZooKeys and PhytoKeys, which are correctly handled. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 00:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Presumably intended to be PhD (doctorate_philosophy). Probably not enough value to add anything like this.
Izno (
talk)
20:43, 9 May 2024 (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 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 |
The bot repeatedly added a full stop to a DOI parameter in a citation. Edit Achmad Rachmani ( talk) 03:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Actually, it just removes the nbsp.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
20:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
|journal=
parameter, where one of |title=
and |journal=
is a strict substring of the other, which both also match /[Pp]roceedings/
or /[Mm]eeting/
or /[Ss]ymposi/
. I would think with these characteristics, Citation bot could confidently alter the template type to {{
cite conference}}, removing the article from
Category:CS1 errors: periodical ignored (24,173) (assuming it is the only erroneous citation of this type present in the article).
Folly Mox (
talk)
21:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
garbage(perhaps a link could be dropped if you're not feeling like explaining), but in my efforts to contract the maintenance category Category:CS1 errors: periodical ignored (24,173), I've had cause to use {{ cite conference}} in dozens of cases, and there are likely thousands more that could be identified without too much difficulty. Folly Mox ( talk) 22:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
DOI prefix 10.1155's registrant is Hindawi, an open access publisher. However, Hindawi became open access in 2007, and some (rare) DOIs from prior to 2007 are not free, e.g.
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)The bot should only mark 10.1155 DOIs from year 2007 and up as free, and not all of them. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 01:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Nemo
14:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
That's the only ISBN in the article. How would Citation bot know the intended style for the article was a hyphenated ISBN? This doesn't seem like a bug to me.
Folly Mox (
talk)
21:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
{{
Format ISBN|<10- or 13-digit ISBN>}}
. That template is set to auto-subst so
AnomieBOT will take care of the substing. Because Citation bot is a bot, it may be necessary to add {{Format ISBN}}
to
User:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster force.10.14256 DOIs should be marked free ( http://www.casopis-gradjevinar.hr/about-the-journal/open-access-statement/). Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 23:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Normally the bot is able to figure it out the DOI from the url, but here I had to give the DOI before the bot processed that citation.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
21:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
This one may be hard or maybe even undoable. If it can't be fixed, an option would be to not convert those links?
Spinixster
(chat!)
03:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
should be flagged as such. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 01:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
These four cats haven't been implemented apparently
Third time's the charm? Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 03:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Any online source should use cite web. On the jazz project Cleanup Listing, I have fixed many errors due to people using cite book and cite magazine instead of cite web. On the Steve Oliver page here, Citationbot changed the Billboard reference from cite web to cite magazine. Why? Nearly always, the citation is from an online source (an online version of Billboard), not the physical copy of the magazine. I'm not a fan of Citationbot's changes.— Vmavanti ( talk) 03:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
All from the Microbiology Society. Not all its journals are OA though, hence this per-journal DOI thing.
Access Microbiology
Microbiology
Journal of General Microbiology
Microbial Genomics
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 23:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
D-Lib Magazine
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 00:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
FASEB
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 00:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Fixed AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 14:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
|via=
Google Books
, despite
Wikipedia:Citing sources#Say where you read it advicing that the citation say how the source was accessed.
This is the incorrect usage of Via. Without a URL, there can be no "via". There are also often many copies of the same book on google, and they come and go. Say "via google books" is no more helpful than "I googled it, so trust me".
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
15:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
|via=
where |url=
is not present constitutes an error, but I did notice in this diff Citation bot modifying a {{
cite report}} (Ewert et al 2018) by reparameterising |title=
to |chapter=
, then adding a |title=
that duplicated |series=
, which I
just fixed.
Folly Mox (
talk)
18:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)via=Google Books
makes as much sense as via=the Faculty library
, i.e., none, it is just noise. Ditto via=Internet Archive
and via=JSTOR
. Can someone give an example of a sensible via that does not have a url because I can't think of any.
The NLM can be a publisher, but it won't be a publisher of any journal.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
06:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Special:Diff/1196306645 altered a web citation of Harpers.org into cite journal. Should the template used instead be cite magazine? Οἶδα ( talk) 16:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Which article? Which edit? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
GoingBatty (
talk •
contribs)
18:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
This is clearly nonsense.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
21:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Had to TNT the title/journal for it to properly give the information Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 01:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Your links can only be used by U of Bristol people. They are useless to everyone else. I am not sure if the new links work either, since I do not have a Factiva account. But, the reality is that factiva links are worthless. I suggest looking at
/info/en/?search=Template:Factiva
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
14:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
{{f/}}
with f/
in citation titles per the instructions at
Template:f/
I did them all by hand. I will have to think about this, since f/ is a template.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
19:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Can't the bot at least not overrule the current input when it's got crap like "’" in the titles?
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
01:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Citation bot is a useful tool that adds missing data and fixes formatting errors in citation templates1. However, sometimes it makes minor edits that do not affect the appearance or content of the article, such as removing a space between a quotation mark and a reference tag. These edits are considered cosmetic and are discouraged by the Wikipedia policy on bot usage. For example, see this: [11].
Cosmetic edits by bots can clutter the page history, the watchlist, and the recent changes, making it harder for editors to track the actual changes to the article. They can also trigger the abuse filter and lead to the account being blocked, as it happened to me: [12]. Therefore, I propose that Citation bot should avoid making cosmetic edits when checking multiple pages, unless they are accompanied by other significant edits.
To implement this feature, Citation bot could keep track of the number and type of edits it makes to each page before saving it. Then, it could compare the number of edits with a configurable threshold value, which would determine the minimum number of edits required for the bot to save the page. For example, the bot could save the page only if it makes at least 3 "fast" edits (such as adding a URL or an access date) or 1 "slow" edit (such as retrieving a bibcode or a DOI) per page. The default threshold value could be 1, to preserve the current behavior of the bot.
This way, Citation bot could reduce the number of cosmetic edits and comply with the Wikipedia policy, while still improving the quality and consistency of the citations. I think this would benefit both the bot operators and the Wikipedia community. What do you think? Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 19:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi,
This bot is adding a volume number which is the same as the issue number for publications that don't have a volume number. Surely this is a mistake?
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Gypsy%2C_Roma_and_Traveller_people_%28UK%29&diff=1202613177&oldid=1202374242 Boynamedsue ( talk) 08:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Are there other url prefixes?
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
19:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
The bots DOIs code has been improved substantially. Will now flag many more bad dois as dead. Used to only detect things like doi: 10.22111/jsr.2013.848, but will now also flag things like doi: 10.3201/eid1007.040396. Please report any mis-flagged DOIs. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 21:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
to a wholly incorrect {{
cite journal}}
. This error caught because the bot included html numeric entities for [[
and ]]
around whatever it was that it thought to be the journal name.
I will have to think about this.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
01:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Iowa. (Ter.)
(from Google books metadata?) → | last1=) | first1=Iowa. (Ter
|authorn=
, |firstn=
, |lastn=
should never be composed solely of punctuation and/or digits; this applies to the other namelists as well
What is the bot doing here? It takes out the pages and puts in "gigabyte" and some numbers. I undid it and it repeated the next day, so it's not some transient thing.
Abductive (
reasoning)
04:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
|page(s)=
with the suffix from |doi=
. The bot should not be doing that. Ever.|pmcid=PMC5528981
(pmcid is not a valid parameter; PMC5528981 is not a valid |pmc=
value) is wrongly converted to |s2cid=PMC5528981
where PMC5528981 is not a valid |s2cid=
value
I can see there are some issues with the links in an article I edited on Wikipedia. The bot might find it unreliable, but the links I have used, which I feel might be the issue, are 100% legitimate. Actually, that is the website we check to confirm the results of chess matches and tournaments.
So please help me remove the warning from the top of the page. I am hoping to present it to the person, on his birthday, which is in less than 24 hours now.
Thanks
>Consult APIs to expand templates >Checking that DOI 10.1111/een.13011 is operational... !CrossRef title did not match existing title: doi:10.1111/een.13011 > Possible new title: Lava crickets (Caconemobius spp.) on Hawai'i Island: first colonisers or persisters in extreme habitats? > Existing old title: Lava crickets (''Caconemobius'' spp.) on Hawai'i Island: first colonisers or persisters in extreme habitats?
@
AManWithNoPlan: I raised an issue in the past, but it is now archived as
User_talk:Citation_bot/Archive_37, see there: "Bug? The bot should not replace first/last to first1/last1 when there is just one author"
There was a reference: <ref>{{Cite book |last=Handy |first=E. S. Craighill |url={{google books|plainurl=y|id=PoXQAgAAQBAJ|page=120}}|title=Ancient Hawaiian Civilization: A Series of Lectures Delivered at THE KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS |last2=Davis |date=2012-12-21 |publisher=Tuttle Publishing |isbn=978-1-4629-0438-9 |language=en}}</ref>
The bot changed it to the following: <ref>{{Cite book |last1=Handy |first1=E. S. Craighill |url={{google books|plainurl=y|id=PoXQAgAAQBAJ|page=120}}|title=Ancient Hawaiian Civilization: A Series of Lectures Delivered at THE KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS |last2=Davis |date=2012-12-21 |publisher=Tuttle Publishing |isbn=978-1-4629-0438-9 |language=en}}</ref>
To reproduce it, copy the example to your sandbox and click "Citations" button (you should have this button present as a gadget enabled in Wikipedia preferences).
@
AManWithNoPlan: You wrote {{tl|wontfix}}, since the complexity of going back and changing them will just make the bot's author handling that much more insane, and it is already complicated enough.
How did you get to a conclusion that it is already complicated enough? This issue and issues like this is very important because when a bot only changes a page with from first/last to first1/last1 is not only questionable but triggers WP:COSMETICBOT violation.
|volume=
with the value of 134, which actually pertains to the |issue=
, and is already included. The actual volume of the source is the year-related value of 1998, and can be confusing; it is redundant.
No matter what article I run Citation Bot on, it reports !Operation timed out after 20001 milliseconds with 0 bytes received
or >Could not resolve URL
for every URL it tries to process, before eventually !Giving up on URL expansion for a while
. It appears that at least some of the specialized URL expanders (for journals and such) are still working, but not the general-purpose one. :Jay8g [
V•
T•
E
01:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Every time I have tried to use the bot to check a single article, it fails with Error: Citations request failed
. The bot has always suffered intermittently from this problem, but at least
BrownHairedGirl used to challenge those few editors who saturated the service. Since she was blocked, there has been noone with the expertise to call out the abuse, so presumably it has become endemic.
Regardless of the reasons, it is surely time to declare in all honesty that the bot is not a practical option for single shot use. Better still, create another instance of the bot that cannot be used by any editor for more than one article in a 24-hour period. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 12:22, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Error: Citations request failed
, which can only come from the bot, surely? --
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk)
16:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Error: Citations request failed
message be improved? Like "try again using Expand citations
option in the tools column (left)"? Because it all honesty, I would have to say that the toolbar icon works in the vast minority of cases. I have been complaining here for years and it has taken until now to find the solution. --
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk)
12:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)|chapter=
to {{
cite journal}}
. {{cite journal}}
and the other periodical or periodical-like cs1 templates ({{
cite magazine}}
, {{
cite news}}
, {{
cite periodical}}
, {{
cite web}}
) do not support |chapter=
(and aliases |contribution=
, |entry=
, |article=
, |section=
)
This happens every couple days. They are logged, and I go back and manually fix them (if someone else does not get to them first). Almost always, the citation is broken before the chatper is added.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
15:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
|title=Wayback Machine
. Not sure how to address. --
Green
C
23:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
I think I agree with Citation bot on this one. I think the parameter value should be |via=EBSCO Literary Reference Center Plus
. It wasn't obvious to me, a Wikipedia Library user, that I was supposed to use the default search bar at the top that is powered by EBSCO. They have pretty poor coverage of my usual topic areas. After forgetting to place my search term, "Baker & Taylor Author Biographies", in quotes for literal string matching, I actually went to Taylor & Francis next on a misguided hunch, before just asking google which publishing platform licensed the reference work, after which I was able to verify that TWL does provide access to it.
If that was my experience, what about the experience of a reader without TWL access who tries to verify that citation? What about our experience when someone sets |via=Inaccessible University Undergraduate Library System
?
Folly Mox (
talk)
07:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
|via=(membership in something with an institutional subscription)
is never going to be helpful for people outside that membership, and even for the members it's more of a starting point (yes, I should be able to access this content) than a way (via) to access the content. Just some sleepy thoughts.
Folly Mox (
talk)
08:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
|via=
parameter is a disimprovement in this case over TWL, but EBSCO would be more helpful (since other institutional subscriptions have access to it).
Folly Mox (
talk)
17:18, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
|via=
. As to creating an EBSCO link, that's also not what I intended to mean. My position is that the most useful value of |via=
for this citation is "EBSCO Literary Reference Center Plus" as I said in my original comment. That's all.Sorry again.
Folly Mox (
talk)
21:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
I also agree with Citation bot. Inclusion of |via=Wikipedia Library
is cruft of very low value. The specific library system through which someone accessed an source (or even, gasp, Sci-hub) does not need documentation.
Ifly6 (
talk)
15:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
via=
parameter is rather helpful; the citation is bare enough without it that improving it was on my list of things to fix about the article. The only bot edit I could imagine being good here would be to wiki-link all occurrences of The Wikipedia Library
in the via=
parameter, because it's probably unfamiliar to readers who aren't themselves fairly serious Wikipedia editors.
XOR'easter (
talk)
18:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)From the citation I'm not quite sure what "Baker & Taylor Author Biographies" is. It would help to specify that Baker & Taylor is the publisher and what format the work is in. It seems to be some kind of database, so people would know to search it in the usual places like Worldcat. Given the date, it's most likely based on a previously published book which the publisher has acquired, so the best solution would be to cite the original authors and source. Nemo 20:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
I'd recommend replacing the "Via" with "Literary Reference Center Plus", since the source is not really the Wikipedia Library per se. I see using the latter for "via" as something akin to putting "via=My local librarian printed it out for me", which is frankly not very useful to anyone who has a different local librarian. – jacobolus (t) 00:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
This should be relatively fast with the API; Google Scholar is doing the same and shows those OA links, which were generally archived due to being public domain or CC-licensed. You can see the docs at https://scholar.archive.org/api/redoc but here's an example:
$ curl -sH "Accept: application/json" https://scholar.archive.org/search?q=doi:10.1080/14786449908621245 | jq -r .results[0].fulltext.access_url https://archive.org/download/crossref-pre-1909-scholarly-works/10.1080%252F14786449608620921.zip/10.1080%252F14786449908621245.pdf
Optionally the metadata can be used to construct the scholar.archive.org URL, which in this case is https://scholar.archive.org/work/heaairhf5fgkvgie4h54rpc4nm/access/ia_file/crossref-pre-1909-scholarly-works/10.1080%252F14786449608620921.zip/10.1080%252F14786449908621245.pdf and for a wayback URL would be something like https://scholar.archive.org/work/rv4lw3nikrfstp7bvvlxapsylu/access/wayback/https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlepdf/2022/dt/d2dt00998f . (This will reduce confusion by bots which think there's utility in converting web.archive.org links into something else.)
Nemo 22:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Not reporting as a bug, because I think the original bug that started this chain of garbage is long fixed, but:
Special:Diff/924930722 (2019): adds the dois for the reviewed items to two references to reviews of the item;
Special:Diff/958243206 (2022): expands one of the references with more metadata from the doi;
Special:Diff/1196114785 (2024): piles on even more metadata creating a broken citation template because of incompatible parameters (|chapter=
, added in this edit, and |journal=
, present in the original reference).
This is a phenomenon I have frequently complained about, to little avail: when Citation bot takes a single pass over an article, the results are often (but not always) improvements. But when Citation bot and the other bots take pass after pass after pass over an article, any mistakes are amplified, to the point where eventually they overwhelm the improvements.
Given that the last of these was "suggested by Grimes2": User:Grimes2, you are ultimately responsible for these bad edits. Please take more care in checking that the results of your suggestions are actually improvements. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: untitled periodical (
link){{
citation}}
: |chapter=
ignored (
help){{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: untitled periodical (
link). It is intended as a reference to Esposito's review of Tarantello's book, not as a reference to the book. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
19:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
|work=[[American Political Science Association]] 2010 Annual Meeting Paper
-> |journal=American Political Science Association 2010 Annual Meeting Paper
|work=[[American Political Science Association]] 2010 Annual Meeting Paper
-> |journal=[[American Political Science Association]] 2010 Annual Meeting Paper
(wikilink should be retained)
Use {{ Cite SSRN}} for citing SSRN papers. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 10:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
|journal=
parameter (invalid for cite book), instead of the correct |series=
parameter, the bot broke the citation, causing it to emit an error message. The pmid that appears to have triggered this bad edit was also previously added by Citation bot, in 2020, in
Special:Diff/985257358.|journal=
to {{
cite book}}.
Can Citation bot please stop littering every s2cid it can find wherever it can possibly fit? The vast majority of these links contain zero useful information beyond a (redundant) link to the publisher's website (typically paywalled), and putting them on every citation in Wikipedia is more or less spam. It's a distracting waste of space with no redeeming benefits.
The easiest solution here would be to deprecate the s2cid parameter from the citation templates, hide them from the output, and just be done with it.
Next best, probably my personal recommendation, would be that only humans should ever add s2cid links (and ideally the ones which were added by a bot in the past should be removed), or barring that that a human should manually review any s2cid that gets added by any bot. At the very very least, the bot should try to check them for meaningful content and skip the vast majority of totally useless ones going forward. – jacobolus (t) 18:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
|s2cid=
… fine I guess, but a vast majority of the time someone who has never edited a given article runs the prompt and the bot clutters up all the citations with a spammy parameter without any human editors actively wanting it there.
Umimmak (
talk)
18:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Citation bot already avoids adding s2cid where there are no sources– This is nowhere close to accurate. Citation bot adds tons of completely vacuous s2cids that provide no information beyond a link to the publisher page, more or less analogous to blogspam. – jacobolus (t) 19:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Came across some more S2CID spam today which led me to this conversation. Is there an actual way to have an RfC or something for this? It's fine if humans want to add it, but for something with a DOI already there, having a bot add something that is pretty useless doesn't help. Why? I Ask ( talk) 05:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Citation bot continually adds back particular S2CIDs even when they have been explicitly manually removed by humans for being useless. Can whoever controls this bot please stop such behavior? (Or ideally just get rid of S2CIDs altogether?) Otherwise I am encouraged to ban Citation bot from editing particular article pages altogether. – jacobolus (t) 15:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
{{bots|deny=Citation bot}}
to the pages. But a better solution would be for the Citation bot developers to stop spamming Wikipedia with these links. –
jacobolus
(t)
18:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Fixed AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 14:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
{{cite journal|last1=Billard | first1=Yves| last2=Chandezon| first2=Christophe| year=2012| title=Ernest Beulé (1826–1874). Archéologie classique, histoire romaine et politique sous Napoléon III| trans-title=Ernest Beulé (1826–1874). Classical Archaeology, Roman History and Politics under Napoleon III| journal=Liame| volume=24| url=http://journals.openedition.org/liame/277| access-date=2024-02-09| doi=10.4000/liame.277| lang=fr|issn=2264-623X| doi-access=free}}
, it mistakenly added an additional |issue=24
(
diff){{cite book|last=Judson|first=Anna P.|year=2020|title=The Undeciphered Signs of Linear B: Interpretation and Scribal Practices|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=9781108859745|doi=10.1017/9781108859745}}
, it mistakenly added |url=
https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/265630
. This URL links not to the book but to Judson's PhD thesis by the same name. (
diff)In the meantime, I've marked the citations with comments so that the bot doesn't get to them.
I have reported the URL to the open access button as a mistake, and fixed the other.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
17:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
I have reported this mata-data error to the openaccess button people.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
15:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
The reference in question was a book style reference to a journal. The bot guessed wrong. I have since cleaned up the reference by hand some.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
14:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Often this is a result of the editor having other incompatible options enabled. Please see the help page for the gadget tool
/info/en/?search=MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-citations.js
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
15:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Afaik [?],
Grove Online is routinely cited inline using Template:Cite web, which (unlike Template:Cite Grove) allows for inclusion of actual author information. Afaik, this is correct and therefore does not require automated correction.
86.177.202.175 (
talk)
18:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
. I think that you are mistaken in your claim that {{
cite Grove}}
does not allow for inclusion of actual author information.
|chapter=
parameter from a reference to the chapter "Eulerian Numbers" in the book Eulerian Numbers, possibly out of confusion because of the fact that the chapter and the book have the same title. This left the reference in a state where it cited the whole book but didn't name the chapter within it that its doi and page numbers pointed to. Then, in
Special:Diff/1211621780, the bot decided to use the doi to fill in the chapter parameter once more, but in doing so it removed the |title=
parameter of the reference, again likely out of confusion from the equality of titles. The combination of these two edits left the reference in a broken state without a book title. This had already happened twice before, in
Special:Diff/984898465,
Special:Diff/1068697840, so the bot has broken the same reference in the same way at least three times, going back at least to 2020.
That is an interesting problem (I know someone who's first and last name are the same, and it causes similar confusion with people). I will look into ways to detect that. I have added comments to both parts to fix the specific page.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
15:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
There is a message in the edit summary "Removed proxy/dead URL that duplicated identifier".
I find this message frightening and even misleading, because the word "dead" is frigthening on itself, however, in most cases URL is not dead but just duplicates the identifier such as PMID or DOI, such as doi-10.15347/WJM/2023.003|url=https://doi.org/10.15347/WJM/2023.003 or pmid=35987379|url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35987379/. These URLs are not dead, and they also cannot be considered "proxy" in a classical sense. Please consider removing "proxy/dead" from the message so it will be just "Removed URL that duplicated identifier", for the following reasons:
Please remember that these messages go to the edit summaries which are kept forever, these are not just log message that only one user will see. Therefore, we should be very cautions about the edit summaries that we leave. Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 09:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm guessing the bug is due to the page being a download page. A way to resolve this, I think, is to convert the download page into the original page.
Spinixster
(trout me!)
07:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I have noticed the bot has made an error on the
Kingsman (franchise) page when it has been used three times on it (first by me when I was cleaning it up and noticed it, and the second times by two other editors performing standard use). The edits in question are the same:
here and
here. It appears the bot is looking for an |issue=
use in an archived dead CBR citation which has a quote in it, and the bot is pulling the "C" from the "
U.N.C.L.E." bit of the quote as an instance of |issue=
when it is not. It removes the "N.C." from the word, thus breaking the link as a result.
Trailblazer101 (
talk)
01:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I get why you removed the cite url, but why does the access date have to be removed as well? Sussex Arms pub bombing 78.152.229.53 ( talk) 20:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Not fixable. This is generally a result of the web-browser giving up too soon.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
13:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Expand citations
from the tools column left of the editing page. --
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk)
16:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Expand citations
option.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
14:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)>Remedial work to prepare citations
>Consult APIs to expand templates
>Expand individual templates by API calls.. nothing found.. no record retrieved.
>Remedial work to clean up templates.
>Writing to Draft:Scottish mother's day...
!API call failed: Edit conflict.. Will sleep and move on. !Unhandled write error. Please copy this output and report a bug. There is no need to report the database being locked unless it continues to be a problem. . !Possible edit conflict detected. Aborting. diff
That's an edit conflict. Just rerun the bot on the page. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 09:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
How can I query the citation bot version (e.g. a Github commit tag or date):
Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 08:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Can you please implement an opportunity to submit a pipe-separated list of article to expand via https://citations.toolforge.org/ to a queue instead of immediate processing for particular users who has legitimate interest for it, such as me to hunt for NULL DOIs? Currently, when then I submit a list that cannot be quickly processed, my web browser shows me a timeout error and no pages are processed or only a few so I don't know where it stopped. I'd like to ensure that all pages were processed sooner or later if I am authorized to submit such requests.
Won't fix AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 00:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
{{
Cite newspaper}} redirects to {{
Cite news}}.
It seems like whenever there is a string of numbers that looks sort of like a year in extra text floating around in a citation template, the bot decides that's a year -- even when those numbers are part of a longer string. This seems like a bad idea.:Jay8g [
V•
T•
E
06:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
example ( diff):
SilverMatsu ( talk) 16:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I have blocked it on the page. Will investigate. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 00:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
|p=
was converted to |page=
without any other significant changes made. This is a cosmetic edit in the context of the citation templates.
Please check out this edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/?title=Christianity_in_India&diff=prev&oldid=1221747817&title=Christianity_in_India&diffonly=1
The bot did not process this bare ref in the edit above: https://web.archive.org/web/20220817104726/https://m.thewire.in/article/rights/the-bogey-of-forced-conversions-has-long-diverted-us-from-the-realities-of-indian-christians/
Why? Can you please run the bot again? To see if it works! 117.230.189.80 ( talk) 12:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Demaine, E. D. (2001). Folding and Unfolding. Doctoral Thesis (PDF) (Doctoral Thesis). University of Waterloo, Canadainto a {{ cite thesis}} that reads
Demaine, E. D. (2001). Folding and Unfolding. Doctoral Thesis (PDF) (Doctoral Thesis). University of Waterloo, Canada. The change to template type may be correct, but the repeated words may not be. The repeated words may not be. Please please, when making changes to improve metadata, do not do not make the visible data worse. That is the wrong wrong tradeoff to be making. Meanwhile, when adding "type=", the word "thesis" should be lowercase (look! an actual easy to fix bug!) and the bot didn't even notice that the url should really be an hdl, nor properly split the author name into first and last.
This isn't so much a bug, I don't expect, as just the assumption that the lowercase "dan" would be the shift key not being held. In this instance, the title of the journal is in Indonesian (it's an Indonesian journal being cited): Jurnal Kependidikan dan Kemasyarakatan, which is "Journal of Society and Education".
The article is in English, so the language=id parameter was not included in the citation. I added the cbignore template to that single citation to keep the problem from recurring, loathe as I am to do so because bots search databases and find other means of accessing an article than the means I found, which may be useful in the future should a doi become broken.
Regardless of whether this is considered a "bug", I wanted those developing the bot to be aware of the instance. OIM20 ( talk) 20:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
|pp=
to |pages=
, but the respective citations refer to a single page number.|p=
or |page=
.
I will look into changing |pages=
to |page=
when it is only digits.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
16:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
This edit added "doi-broken" tags to two links, but when I clicked on the doi links they took me straight to the web pages. Scolaire ( talk) 16:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
{{ fixed}} oddly now AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 13:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
This edit added a journal tag to a book citation (which then got the "|journal ignored" error message), duplicating the title tag. And the edit comment linked to Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements from April 2024, which doesn't make any sense. Rontombontom ( talk) 18:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
{{ fixed}} - "journal" names with "International Workshop' or ' Held at ' will now be rejected. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 13:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
That's not really a bug. It's been published, it's the correct DOI. The DOI is just borked and the bot can't figure out the details, but a human can. The error is an improvement.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
04:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Here is one of the doi links. The destination is still reached, but there's a advert error at the top. -
UtherSRG
(talk)
10:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Citation bot has found yet another way to break harv/sfn citaitons. In this one as well as the reported long-ago damage of removing the author and thus breaking the link between the sfn/harv in the text and the source, it also adds a "{{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |agency= ignored " error.
DuncanHill (
talk)
11:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
I see that AdsAbs API limits the number of requests for the bot at https://citations.toolforge.org with 25000 per day which is saturated by the end of the day. I could wish to supply my own AdsAbs API key to for the requests I made to not spend the amount of requests that can be made by the other users, and, if it is already overwhelmed by the time I make my request, the bot will be able to use the API with my key.
The env.php file contains @putenv('PHP_ADSABSAPIKEY=xxxxx'); but we should probably change it to
if (!getenv('PHP_ADSABSAPIKEY')) { @putenv('PHP_ADSABSAPIKEY=xxxxx'); // https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/help/api/ }
so that we could supply the API key parameter to
https://citations.toolforge.org such as via a hidden form parameter that will go to this environment variable; still, we should make due sanitization of characters by only allowing hexadecimal characters and by length checking to avoid various threats such as injections.
Maxim Masiutin (
talk)
10:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
{{ fixed}} AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 13:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Not really needed. I do this myself.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk)
12:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Same as ZooKeys and PhytoKeys, which are correctly handled. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 00:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Presumably intended to be PhD (doctorate_philosophy). Probably not enough value to add anything like this.
Izno (
talk)
20:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)