|
||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90000 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Note that the bot's
maintainer and assistants (
Thing 1 and
Thing 2), can go weeks without logging in to Wikipedia. The
code is open source and interested parties are invited to assist with the operation and extension of the bot.
Before reporting a bug, please note: Addition of DUPLICATE_xxx=
to citation templates by this bot is a feature. When there are two identical parameters in a citation template, the bot renames one to DUPLICATE_xxx=
. The bot is pointing out the problem with the template. The solution is to choose one of the two parameters and remove the other one, or to convert it to an appropriate parameter. A 503 error means that the bot is overloaded and you should try again later – wait at least 15 minutes and then complain here.
Please click here to report an error.
Or, for a faster response from the maintainers, submit a pull request with appropriate code fix on GitHub, if you can write the needed code.
{{
Who's Who}}
I have remained silent on this issue even though it has irritated me for a while now. And now that there is discussion above about the widespread useless cosmetic edits this bot continues to waste everyone's time with, I'll raise it: Why must every citation of a publisher's webpage be changed to to Cite book? I can only speak for myself, but every time I cite such book webpages I am not citing the book itself. I am specifically referencing the information published on the webpage. So of course I do not want the citation to be changed to Cite book with a bunch of parameters of the book itself (ISBN, date, etc) added. So I inevitably stop the bot or replace the reference with a third-party source. I realise the defense will be "It doesn't hurt" or that some users are actually citing the book. And I realise this is not the most pressing issue, but why must the bot come to its own conclusion of the editor's intent? I see another user complained of this issue last year. Οἶδα ( talk) 22:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
|type=publisher's blurb
for clarity. In the specific case you've linked just above, another option would be not to cite the publisher's landing page at all, and add the book to a "Selected works" subsection or something. Indeed, the altered citation is sequential to another one, and so seems a bit superfluous. Or, alternatively, use "Citation bot bypass" somewhere in your citation as suggested by
jacobolus above.Given the overall lazy referencing culture of less experienced editors, it's likely that in the majority of cases, people who drop a link to a publisher landing page are probably trying to cite the book itself, so this behaviour of assuming that's the case is net beneficial.
Folly Mox (
talk)
22:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
<!-- Citation bot bypass-->
mechanism documented at
User:Citation_bot#Stopping_the_bot_from_editing -
R. S. Shaw (
talk)
04:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)On Charles Clinton, Citation bot removes "?seq=9" from this URL. That bit of code give the Page # within the larger cite, so why does Citation bot remove it? It makes sense to me to leave that bit of code in there but the bot doesn't seem to think so. It's removed it twice, once here and once here, so maybe I'm wrong... Would appreciate some clarification. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 03:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
I asked this in the discussion of an earlier bug but it was archived without providing an answer. Can you please explain
— David Eppstein ( talk) 20:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
>Checking AdsAbs database >AdsAbs search 25000/25000 !Need to retry after 15039s (04:10:39). Rate limit resets on 2024-05-07 08:26:22 UTC. !Giving up on AdsAbs for a while. Too many requests.
|page=182501
or |page=035005
for electronic journals (such as
Physical Review Letters and
Metrologia) which do not use page numbers. Or, to be more precise, each article has its pages numbered from 1. Those are |article-number=
values, which are formatted differently. It is, indeed, sometimes useful to refer to page p of a long article number a.|page=<!--F##k off citation bot-->
parameters to make it stop.
When encountering a {{
cite journal}} or {{
citation}} with |journal=bioRxiv
or |journal=bioRxiv: The Preprint Server for Biology
[case insensitive], the bot should convert the citation to a proper {{
cite bioRxiv}}, i.e.
{{cite journal |last1=Larivière |first1=Vincent |last2=Kiermer |first2=Véronique |last3=MacCallum |first3=Catriona J. |last4=McNutt |first4=Marcia |last5=Patterson |first5=Mark |last6=Pulverer |first6=Bernd |last7=Swaminathan |first7=Sowmya |last8=Taylor |first8=Stuart |last9=Curry |first9=Stephen |date=2016-07-05 |title=A simple proposal for the publication of journal citation distributions |journal=bioRxiv |page=062109 |url=http://biorxiv.org/lookup/doi/10.1101/062109 |language=en |doi=10.1101/062109 |hdl=1866/23301 |s2cid=64293941 |hdl-access=free}}
The bot should keep |author/last/first/date/year/title/language=
, convert |doi=
to |biorxiv=
, and throw the rest away.
{{cite bioRxiv |last1=Larivière |first1=Vincent |last2=Kiermer |first2=Véronique |last3=MacCallum |first3=Catriona J. |last4=McNutt |first4=Marcia |last5=Patterson |first5=Mark |last6=Pulverer |first6=Bernd |last7=Swaminathan |first7=Sowmya |last8=Taylor |first8=Stuart |last9=Curry |first9=Stephen |date=2016-07-05 |title=A simple proposal for the publication of journal citation distributions |language=en |biorxiv=10.1101/062109}}
If it was from a {{
citation}}, append |mode=cs2
to it.
To be extra safe, this should only be done when the DOI starts with 10.1101. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 08:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
If encountering a {{ cite bioRxiv}} that is fully published, convert it to a {{ cite journal}} For example
says "Now published in eLife doi: 10.7554/eLife.05856"
So TNT the citation
{{cite journal |biorxiv=10.1101/007237 |doi=10.7554/eLife.05856}}
and expand it
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 08:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Changing an incorrect cite journal to cite book [1]: Good (although would have been better as cite conference).
Creating a new CS1 error where there was none before, because it left the paper title in the book title parameter and did not change the journal parameter to a book title parameter: doubleplusungood.
Stop it.
Posting as a message rather than a new bug because this is not a new bug. It is an old bug that has been ignored far too long by the developers (see #Causing template errors, above). It needs to be fixed. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
|journal=FM 2014: Formal Methods
was wrong before. That the bot didn't manage to fix it doesn't make it a new error. Now the error is reported. This is an improvement, even though ideally the bot would be able to figure out and fix the error itself.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
23:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
|periodical=
was dropped from {{
cite book}} a year ago. The easiest thing would be if support were readded, but that seems highly unlikely. I do think that eventually, if this bug isn't fixed, I'll end up asking BAG to ban Citation bot changing template type to {{
cite book}}. Disabling the functionality would be an improvement over the current situation.
Folly Mox (
talk)
00:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
supports |article-number=
(as does {{
citation}}
when it has |journal=
with an assigned value). The bot should be using |article-number=
for article numbers and should not be shoehorning them into |page(s)=
.
This is likely about
[2] where a reference to MR is confused to a reference to the work reviewed by MR.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
20:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
|script-embargo-date=
or suchlike all over doesn't feel like a super premium solution either.
Folly Mox (
talk)
16:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
|script-embargo-date=
. What did you really mean?repeatedly replace and replace and replace bits of citations, and what it might implement like to have
some sort of cone of shame that can stop the bots from continuing to worry the same sore spots over and over, without keeping them away from new citations in need of bot cleanup.I think I skipped a step where I typed out the immediately rejected ideas of scripts keeping track of which citations they had previously edited (too resource intensive), or checking revision histories for their own activity (ditto). Then I leapt straight into rejecting the third idea, where bots drop themselves and each other little reminder notes using an invented parameter for the purpose.Unlike a few other problems that get mention on this talkpage, I don't have any clear idea how to prevent the sort of error described in this bug report. I forgot to type out some of my unclear bad ideas, probably due to being in an IRL conversation during the edit. Folly Mox ( talk) 17:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Currently it is being changed to the Theprint, without the wikilink Skratata69 ( talk) 10:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
![]() |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
Thanks for keeping Wikipedia a fairly accurate source of information! PJFootball ( talk) 19:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC) |
The proper conversion would be to a {{
cite ssrn}}
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
06:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
|journal=
parameter from the metadata, and abort the change in template type if the value is empty.
Folly Mox (
talk)
16:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)As far as I can tell this has no practical advantage at all, and only serves to make the opaque identifier take up more space at readers' expense. – jacobolus (t) 23:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Decodes to "Cyber%20%E2%80%8B%E2%80%8BPartisans" and "Weekly%20%E2%80%94".
So whatever the characters %E2 %80 and %8B are, they should get the boot. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 07:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
{{
cite web|work}}
to {{
cite journal|journal|vauthors}}
and creates the author "Learning L" from the work "Lumin Learning". I am pretty sure that "Lumin Learning" is not a journal and certainly is not an author.
Citation Bot has recently been adding more bibcodes to various citations, but nearly every time I click through the bibcode turns out to contain zero new information. That is, the bibcode has some metadata already included in the Wikipedia citation plus an abstract already included at the publisher's website linked from a DOI, and nothing else whatsoever. Adding these bibcodes to citations seems like a waste of space which is at best useless, or at worst wastes readers time. Sometimes bibcode links contain full text or some other useful information, so I wouldn't say bibcode should never be added, but it seems very unhelpful to add it just because it happens to exist. – jacobolus (t) 04:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
3l33t h4x0r
feel.)
XOR'easter (
talk)
19:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)"how many papers cite it"– or to be precise, a very significant undercount by more than an order of magnitude of how many papers cite it. If we just wanted that we should link Google scholar, but I don't think this information justifies any citation index link; it's not relevant to locating the paper, which is the primary purpose of Wikipedia citations.
"bibcodes will also often ..."– this is not sufficient justification to include every possible bibcode. It only offers a supporting reason to occasionally add a bibcode when it hosts a paper not available from the publisher or some other source which has the right to host it. If the bot cannot determine these cases programmatically, then it should leave it to humans to decide them.
you don't personallyIt's not about what I personally like, it's about what is worth spending very valuable Wikipedia readers' attention on. There is certainly no site-wide consensus about adding this type of metadata at every possible opportunity, so what you are really arguing for is that bot authors should get to unilaterally make sweeping controversial decisions to match their own preference; I think that approach runs counter to the spirit of the Wikipedia project. In my opinion, every bit of metadata, especially anything added by bots, has to have some strong and clear benefit to justify the space it takes up, and just "it exists and some people sometimes like it" is not good enough reason to mass spam these site-wide. – jacobolus (t) 04:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
«Федерацию анархического черного креста» признали «нежелательной организацией»
have been parsed and replaced with: "Федерацию анархического черного креста» признали «нежелательной организацией"
"Федерацию анархического черного креста" признали "нежелательной организацией"
|title=First Record of Mysaromima liquescens Meyric (Lepidoptera: Elaschistidae) Damaging Paricá (Schizolobium parahyba var. Amazonicum)
var.
|volume=vol. n
; the vol.
annotation should never be part of the value assigned to |volume=
; this same applies to |issue=
and |number=
. From
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration (%
is the lua escape character; similar to \
in regex):'^volumes?', -- volume-like text
'^vols?[%.:=]?',
'^issues?', --issue-like text
'^iss[%.:=]?',
'^numbers?',
'^nos?%A', -- don't match 'november' or 'nostradamus'
'^nr[%.:=]?',
'^n[%.:= ]', -- might be a valid issue without separator (space char is sep char here)
'^n°', -- 'n' with degree sign (U+00B0)
'^№', -- precomposed unicode numero character (U+2116)
any |volume=
, |issue=
, |number=
parameter value that begins with text that matches one of those patterns will cause cs1
My first bot report, not sure if this counts as a bug. In the diff linked above, the edit deletes part of a book title and the beginning of the mark-up for italics. Note that this occurs in a "Further reading" section, not in an in-line citation.
|title=Redirecting
Not related to the bot, but people stalking this page could perhaps help me. What should be done with this reference on Bartholomeus de Momper the Elder:
Linden, David van der (2015).
"Coping with crisis. Career strategies of Antwerp painters after 1585". De Zeventiende Eeuw. Cultuur in de Nederlanden in Interdisciplinair Perspectief. 31: 18.
doi:
10.18352/dze.10126.
The link the doi points to is "for sale" and not working. Can mark the doi link as not working/usurped? Jonatan Svensson Glad ( talk) 02:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
|
||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90000 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Note that the bot's
maintainer and assistants (
Thing 1 and
Thing 2), can go weeks without logging in to Wikipedia. The
code is open source and interested parties are invited to assist with the operation and extension of the bot.
Before reporting a bug, please note: Addition of DUPLICATE_xxx=
to citation templates by this bot is a feature. When there are two identical parameters in a citation template, the bot renames one to DUPLICATE_xxx=
. The bot is pointing out the problem with the template. The solution is to choose one of the two parameters and remove the other one, or to convert it to an appropriate parameter. A 503 error means that the bot is overloaded and you should try again later – wait at least 15 minutes and then complain here.
Please click here to report an error.
Or, for a faster response from the maintainers, submit a pull request with appropriate code fix on GitHub, if you can write the needed code.
{{
Who's Who}}
I have remained silent on this issue even though it has irritated me for a while now. And now that there is discussion above about the widespread useless cosmetic edits this bot continues to waste everyone's time with, I'll raise it: Why must every citation of a publisher's webpage be changed to to Cite book? I can only speak for myself, but every time I cite such book webpages I am not citing the book itself. I am specifically referencing the information published on the webpage. So of course I do not want the citation to be changed to Cite book with a bunch of parameters of the book itself (ISBN, date, etc) added. So I inevitably stop the bot or replace the reference with a third-party source. I realise the defense will be "It doesn't hurt" or that some users are actually citing the book. And I realise this is not the most pressing issue, but why must the bot come to its own conclusion of the editor's intent? I see another user complained of this issue last year. Οἶδα ( talk) 22:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
|type=publisher's blurb
for clarity. In the specific case you've linked just above, another option would be not to cite the publisher's landing page at all, and add the book to a "Selected works" subsection or something. Indeed, the altered citation is sequential to another one, and so seems a bit superfluous. Or, alternatively, use "Citation bot bypass" somewhere in your citation as suggested by
jacobolus above.Given the overall lazy referencing culture of less experienced editors, it's likely that in the majority of cases, people who drop a link to a publisher landing page are probably trying to cite the book itself, so this behaviour of assuming that's the case is net beneficial.
Folly Mox (
talk)
22:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
<!-- Citation bot bypass-->
mechanism documented at
User:Citation_bot#Stopping_the_bot_from_editing -
R. S. Shaw (
talk)
04:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)On Charles Clinton, Citation bot removes "?seq=9" from this URL. That bit of code give the Page # within the larger cite, so why does Citation bot remove it? It makes sense to me to leave that bit of code in there but the bot doesn't seem to think so. It's removed it twice, once here and once here, so maybe I'm wrong... Would appreciate some clarification. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 03:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
I asked this in the discussion of an earlier bug but it was archived without providing an answer. Can you please explain
— David Eppstein ( talk) 20:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
>Checking AdsAbs database >AdsAbs search 25000/25000 !Need to retry after 15039s (04:10:39). Rate limit resets on 2024-05-07 08:26:22 UTC. !Giving up on AdsAbs for a while. Too many requests.
|page=182501
or |page=035005
for electronic journals (such as
Physical Review Letters and
Metrologia) which do not use page numbers. Or, to be more precise, each article has its pages numbered from 1. Those are |article-number=
values, which are formatted differently. It is, indeed, sometimes useful to refer to page p of a long article number a.|page=<!--F##k off citation bot-->
parameters to make it stop.
When encountering a {{
cite journal}} or {{
citation}} with |journal=bioRxiv
or |journal=bioRxiv: The Preprint Server for Biology
[case insensitive], the bot should convert the citation to a proper {{
cite bioRxiv}}, i.e.
{{cite journal |last1=Larivière |first1=Vincent |last2=Kiermer |first2=Véronique |last3=MacCallum |first3=Catriona J. |last4=McNutt |first4=Marcia |last5=Patterson |first5=Mark |last6=Pulverer |first6=Bernd |last7=Swaminathan |first7=Sowmya |last8=Taylor |first8=Stuart |last9=Curry |first9=Stephen |date=2016-07-05 |title=A simple proposal for the publication of journal citation distributions |journal=bioRxiv |page=062109 |url=http://biorxiv.org/lookup/doi/10.1101/062109 |language=en |doi=10.1101/062109 |hdl=1866/23301 |s2cid=64293941 |hdl-access=free}}
The bot should keep |author/last/first/date/year/title/language=
, convert |doi=
to |biorxiv=
, and throw the rest away.
{{cite bioRxiv |last1=Larivière |first1=Vincent |last2=Kiermer |first2=Véronique |last3=MacCallum |first3=Catriona J. |last4=McNutt |first4=Marcia |last5=Patterson |first5=Mark |last6=Pulverer |first6=Bernd |last7=Swaminathan |first7=Sowmya |last8=Taylor |first8=Stuart |last9=Curry |first9=Stephen |date=2016-07-05 |title=A simple proposal for the publication of journal citation distributions |language=en |biorxiv=10.1101/062109}}
If it was from a {{
citation}}, append |mode=cs2
to it.
To be extra safe, this should only be done when the DOI starts with 10.1101. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 08:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
If encountering a {{ cite bioRxiv}} that is fully published, convert it to a {{ cite journal}} For example
says "Now published in eLife doi: 10.7554/eLife.05856"
So TNT the citation
{{cite journal |biorxiv=10.1101/007237 |doi=10.7554/eLife.05856}}
and expand it
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 08:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Changing an incorrect cite journal to cite book [1]: Good (although would have been better as cite conference).
Creating a new CS1 error where there was none before, because it left the paper title in the book title parameter and did not change the journal parameter to a book title parameter: doubleplusungood.
Stop it.
Posting as a message rather than a new bug because this is not a new bug. It is an old bug that has been ignored far too long by the developers (see #Causing template errors, above). It needs to be fixed. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
|journal=FM 2014: Formal Methods
was wrong before. That the bot didn't manage to fix it doesn't make it a new error. Now the error is reported. This is an improvement, even though ideally the bot would be able to figure out and fix the error itself.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
23:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
|periodical=
was dropped from {{
cite book}} a year ago. The easiest thing would be if support were readded, but that seems highly unlikely. I do think that eventually, if this bug isn't fixed, I'll end up asking BAG to ban Citation bot changing template type to {{
cite book}}. Disabling the functionality would be an improvement over the current situation.
Folly Mox (
talk)
00:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
supports |article-number=
(as does {{
citation}}
when it has |journal=
with an assigned value). The bot should be using |article-number=
for article numbers and should not be shoehorning them into |page(s)=
.
This is likely about
[2] where a reference to MR is confused to a reference to the work reviewed by MR.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
20:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
|script-embargo-date=
or suchlike all over doesn't feel like a super premium solution either.
Folly Mox (
talk)
16:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
|script-embargo-date=
. What did you really mean?repeatedly replace and replace and replace bits of citations, and what it might implement like to have
some sort of cone of shame that can stop the bots from continuing to worry the same sore spots over and over, without keeping them away from new citations in need of bot cleanup.I think I skipped a step where I typed out the immediately rejected ideas of scripts keeping track of which citations they had previously edited (too resource intensive), or checking revision histories for their own activity (ditto). Then I leapt straight into rejecting the third idea, where bots drop themselves and each other little reminder notes using an invented parameter for the purpose.Unlike a few other problems that get mention on this talkpage, I don't have any clear idea how to prevent the sort of error described in this bug report. I forgot to type out some of my unclear bad ideas, probably due to being in an IRL conversation during the edit. Folly Mox ( talk) 17:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Currently it is being changed to the Theprint, without the wikilink Skratata69 ( talk) 10:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
![]() |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
Thanks for keeping Wikipedia a fairly accurate source of information! PJFootball ( talk) 19:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC) |
The proper conversion would be to a {{
cite ssrn}}
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
06:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
|journal=
parameter from the metadata, and abort the change in template type if the value is empty.
Folly Mox (
talk)
16:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)As far as I can tell this has no practical advantage at all, and only serves to make the opaque identifier take up more space at readers' expense. – jacobolus (t) 23:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Decodes to "Cyber%20%E2%80%8B%E2%80%8BPartisans" and "Weekly%20%E2%80%94".
So whatever the characters %E2 %80 and %8B are, they should get the boot. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 07:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
{{
cite web|work}}
to {{
cite journal|journal|vauthors}}
and creates the author "Learning L" from the work "Lumin Learning". I am pretty sure that "Lumin Learning" is not a journal and certainly is not an author.
Citation Bot has recently been adding more bibcodes to various citations, but nearly every time I click through the bibcode turns out to contain zero new information. That is, the bibcode has some metadata already included in the Wikipedia citation plus an abstract already included at the publisher's website linked from a DOI, and nothing else whatsoever. Adding these bibcodes to citations seems like a waste of space which is at best useless, or at worst wastes readers time. Sometimes bibcode links contain full text or some other useful information, so I wouldn't say bibcode should never be added, but it seems very unhelpful to add it just because it happens to exist. – jacobolus (t) 04:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
3l33t h4x0r
feel.)
XOR'easter (
talk)
19:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)"how many papers cite it"– or to be precise, a very significant undercount by more than an order of magnitude of how many papers cite it. If we just wanted that we should link Google scholar, but I don't think this information justifies any citation index link; it's not relevant to locating the paper, which is the primary purpose of Wikipedia citations.
"bibcodes will also often ..."– this is not sufficient justification to include every possible bibcode. It only offers a supporting reason to occasionally add a bibcode when it hosts a paper not available from the publisher or some other source which has the right to host it. If the bot cannot determine these cases programmatically, then it should leave it to humans to decide them.
you don't personallyIt's not about what I personally like, it's about what is worth spending very valuable Wikipedia readers' attention on. There is certainly no site-wide consensus about adding this type of metadata at every possible opportunity, so what you are really arguing for is that bot authors should get to unilaterally make sweeping controversial decisions to match their own preference; I think that approach runs counter to the spirit of the Wikipedia project. In my opinion, every bit of metadata, especially anything added by bots, has to have some strong and clear benefit to justify the space it takes up, and just "it exists and some people sometimes like it" is not good enough reason to mass spam these site-wide. – jacobolus (t) 04:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
«Федерацию анархического черного креста» признали «нежелательной организацией»
have been parsed and replaced with: "Федерацию анархического черного креста» признали «нежелательной организацией"
"Федерацию анархического черного креста" признали "нежелательной организацией"
|title=First Record of Mysaromima liquescens Meyric (Lepidoptera: Elaschistidae) Damaging Paricá (Schizolobium parahyba var. Amazonicum)
var.
|volume=vol. n
; the vol.
annotation should never be part of the value assigned to |volume=
; this same applies to |issue=
and |number=
. From
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration (%
is the lua escape character; similar to \
in regex):'^volumes?', -- volume-like text
'^vols?[%.:=]?',
'^issues?', --issue-like text
'^iss[%.:=]?',
'^numbers?',
'^nos?%A', -- don't match 'november' or 'nostradamus'
'^nr[%.:=]?',
'^n[%.:= ]', -- might be a valid issue without separator (space char is sep char here)
'^n°', -- 'n' with degree sign (U+00B0)
'^№', -- precomposed unicode numero character (U+2116)
any |volume=
, |issue=
, |number=
parameter value that begins with text that matches one of those patterns will cause cs1
My first bot report, not sure if this counts as a bug. In the diff linked above, the edit deletes part of a book title and the beginning of the mark-up for italics. Note that this occurs in a "Further reading" section, not in an in-line citation.
|title=Redirecting
Not related to the bot, but people stalking this page could perhaps help me. What should be done with this reference on Bartholomeus de Momper the Elder:
Linden, David van der (2015).
"Coping with crisis. Career strategies of Antwerp painters after 1585". De Zeventiende Eeuw. Cultuur in de Nederlanden in Interdisciplinair Perspectief. 31: 18.
doi:
10.18352/dze.10126.
The link the doi points to is "for sale" and not working. Can mark the doi link as not working/usurped? Jonatan Svensson Glad ( talk) 02:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)