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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
URLs like like "
http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.4523" should be tidied up to |id=
{{
arxiv|0710.4523}}
AKA
Should become
Also {{ cite web}} with a URL that matches an arxiv preprint should be converted to {{ cite arxiv}}
AKA
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)Should become
{{
cite arXiv}}
: |class=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
|arxiv=SOMETHING
— due to recent changes in the {{
cite journal}} and {{
citation}} templates |arxiv=
is now a separate parameter so we don't need to go through the |id=
parameter. Also www.arxiv.org and xxx.lanl.gov are the same as arxiv.org without the www. The SOMETHING part may have a couple of different formats: either yymm.nnnn or archive/identifier, but I think it's easier just to treat it as a atomic unit. There are some rarer access paths (
two of them in here) and some other mirror sites but that should at least get most of them safely. Urls that do not have the "/abs/" or "/pdf/" parts in them should be avoided. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 23:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Here's the full list of mirrors:
The regex I used to match them is \|(\s*)?url(\s*)?=(\s*)?http://(www\.)?(|au\.|br\.|cn\.|de\.|es\.|fr\.|il\.|in\.|jp\.|ru\.|tw\.|ul\.|aps\.|lanl\.|xxx\.)?(arxiv|lanl)\.(org|gov)/(abs|eprint|pdf)/
.
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books} 18:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Likewise a bare <ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.4523</ref> or <ref>[http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.4523]</ref> should be converted to <ref>{{cite arxiv|eprint=0710.4523}}</ref> Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
|0123456789=
|id={{
ASIN|0123456789|country=fr}}
|id={{
ASIN|0123456789|country=uk}}
{{ resolved}}
|bibcode=1998MNRAS.301..787L
.I think most of this was covered at User talk:Citation bot/Archive 1#Bibcodes 2, but I don't know how refined the logic was so I'm reposting it. Also, the "articles.adsabs.harvard.edu" url might have been missed in the midst of the discussion. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC) {{ resolved}}
|jstor=1424736
.|jstor=3562296
Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC) Not sure whether converting bare URLs to references would be covered by existing bot request? If not, please feel free to make a request for this function. Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 23:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC) {{ resolved}}
User input needed. This bug has been marked as needing user verification.
|
Not sure that it's possible to convert from Title Case to Sentence Case, or desirable to convert in the opposite direction. Thoughts?
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 23:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite doi|doi:10.xxxx}}
or {{
cite doi|
http://dx.doi.org/10.xxxx}}
, the bot uploads the template at {{Cite doi/doi:10.xxxx}} or {{Cite doi/http:.2F.2Fdx.doi.org.2F10.xxxx}}. The bot should first clean {{
cite doi|doi:10.xxxx}}
/{{
cite doi|
http://dx.doi.org/10.xxxx}}
to {{
cite doi|10.xxxx}}
, then upload at {{
cite doi|10.xxxx}}
User input needed. This bug has been marked as needing user verification.
|
Yup. See [ [3]] again. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
This should be useful for the bot. I chose the "endnote", since it returns the full name of the journal, but there are other formats. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite journal|bibcode=1998ApJ...502..538B}}
(for example) on
Gravitational microlensing and the
bot failed to expand the citation.
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books} 12:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)Although the journal field gets cluttered with weird stuff and it missed a few (like .
Bibcode:
2001A&A...375..701D. {{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)).
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books} 19:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Because arxiv use :s in their XML, the bot couldn't extract the journal or DOI. I've worked around this in r289.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 03:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Awesome. I didn't test it yet, but would it be possible to assign priorities to databases? Like CrossRef > ADSABS> arXiv.org? As in, if you find a doi in the arXiv.org database, query CrossRef with the DOI first, if that fails, query ADSABS with the DOI, and only then use the other information from Arxiv.org? I'm mentionning this because data from ArXiv.org tends to be the crappiest, and CrossRef seems to give the best. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Examples:
Old link was:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-9002(197008)7%3A2%3C508%3AOAR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Y
Bot changed to: jstor=197008) -- note trailing parenthesis
Actual correct short url:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3211992 -- No, I don't know how you're meant to work that out either.
Old link was:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-4851(197212)43%3A6%3C%3AAR1%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1
Bot changed to: jstor=197212) -- again, note trailing parenthesis
Actual correct short url:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2240189 -- again, seems to be no way to determine this.
Note that http://www.jstor.org/pss/197008, which the new link resolves to if you take the bracket away, goes to a completely different article in a completely different journal.
Is this true even if a webpage is cited with
Template:Citation?
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 18:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
|url=
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1998MNRAS.301..787L
(which I've seen a few times), and then someone (bot, script, human) later cleaned up the url into |bibcode=1998MNRAS.301..787L
. We've gone a bit off topic; the citation bot should NOT remove URLs just because they are dead, nobody should be doing this (need to look for correct URL if moved / mirror / archive link but not just drop URL). Removal of |accessdate=
when a URL is converted to an identifier is fine and a sensible housekeeping step.
Rjwilmsi 14:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
|nested=yes
" did not prevent damage, nor did it cleanup anything other than the edit window. This was raised many times, and you kept doing it against consensus. Removing |accessdate=2005-06-28
from an article without a url however, it not such an edit. If there's no url, but there's an accessdate, when another editor comes along and adds a URL without noticing or updating the existing accessdate field, you have a false accessdate that is displayed. That is why accessdate should be cleaned up, unlike the |nested=yes
which got your AWB access revoked. Were it up to me, I'd have sent a bot (and not a human with AWB, per the watchlist thing) to nuke the |nested=yes
from talk pages templates, however regardless of my personal position on the issue, the community doesn't like these low-value edits when done on their own.Its not a digression when a concern is raised about policy. Just because you don't like the policy doesn't mean you don't have to follow it. But I won't post here again because its obvious that knowone cares. So it seems policy is only policy when we want it to be and perhaps this is a WP:IAR scenario. -- Kumioko ( talk) 04:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Also
[9] for Nature DOI & Bibcode.
Rjwilmsi 09:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
where {{
cite book}}
is intended", but I won't. If a citation has an ISBN the bot should not add data pertaining to a publication in a serial, with a possible exception where that citation appears in an article that is in
Category:Books. If the input data provides ambiguos key data (such as title and author only) but searches find both a target with an ISBN and a target with a serial title or ISSN then it would not hurt to explicitly flag the bot-added wikitext for human consideration. Another option is to show {{
cite book}}
{{
cite journal}}
), though there could be objections to that on
wp:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT grounds.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 17:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
The example given for this bug was
{{citation|last=Shirley|first=John W[illiam]|title=Thomas Harriot: A Biography|location=Oxford|publisher=[[Oxford University Press|Clarendon Press]]|year=1983|isbn=978-0-19-822901-8}}
which the bot changed to
{{citation|last=Shirley|first=John W[illiam]|title=Thomas Harriot: A Biography|location=Oxford|journal=Journ. History of Astronomy V.17|volume=17|pages=71|publisher=[[Oxford University Press|Clarendon Press]]|year=1983|isbn=978-0-19-822901-8|bibcode=1986JHA....17...71D}}
If instead the entry had been
{{cite book |last=Shirley|first=John W[illiam]|title=Thomas Harriot: A Biography|location=Oxford|publisher=[[Oxford University Press|Clarendon Press]]|year=1983|isbn=978-0-19-822901-8}}
the ambiguity would not have been there in the first place. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
and {{
cite book}}
take almost the same parameters as each other, and display similarly-named parameters in almost the same manner (punctuation being the main difference). As regards specifics, {{
cite book}}
allows both |trans_title=
and |trans_chapter=
whereas {{
citation}}
doesn't, conversely,|journal=
and its four synonyms) which cite book doesn't. It is the presence of any one of |journal=
, |periodical=
, |newspaper=
, |magazine=
or |work=
which causes {{
citation}}
to use the "journal" format; if all five are absent, it uses the "book" format. A smaller matter is that if you want harvard referencing to link, and you're not intending to use a custom link (ie |ref={{
harvid|...}}
), you must provide an explicit |ref=harv
to cite book, whereas that is the default action for citation. Apart from those {{
citation}}
and {{
cite book}}
primarily differ in some very minor ways such as the separator between the various items of information. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 11:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC) amended
Redrose64 (
talk) 13:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
of |journal=
or its synonyms is not the same as an active entry saying "this is a book I'm citing". Use of {{
cite book}}
provides that additional bit of information. The problem can also be seen as the ambiguity of |title=
which may be used to mean an entire book or a single letter to the editor of a newspaper in the same {{
citation}}
.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 20:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}} 21:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
This link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/magazine/06Economic-t.html causes the bot to hang in Mainstream economics. Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 14:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Fixed in GitHub Pull 334
$title = preg_replace(array('/[`‘’]/u', '/[“”]u/'), array("'", '"'), $title);
or something somewhere in your code.
Ucucha 11:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
$str = preg_replace('~̵[679];|[\x{2039}\x{203A}\x{2018}-\x{201B}]|&[rl]s?[ab]?quo;~u', "'", $str);
. I'm stumped. Suggestions welcome!
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 23:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
-->
-->
I can't reproduce this. Does it work now?
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 22:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Those diffs seem to be the result of near-simultaneous edits by the bot and a human (note the timestamps), which MediaWiki doesn't always handle well. I don't think much can be done about this problem.
Ucucha 03:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Speaking of that, this edit does look like a preventable error. Presumably the page size exceeds the bot's buffer. Ucucha 13:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
You probably need to add the u
pattern modifier to some preg_replace call.
Ucucha 10:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
This is not fixed; see this recent edit. nb - seems to work fine using IE on a windows box, but not using Firefox 3.6.18 on Mac OS 10.6.7 pablo 13:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)Kirthi V, Derry S, Moore RA, McQuay HJ (2010). Moore, Maura (ed.). "Aspirin with or without an antiemetic for acute migraine headaches in adults". Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 4 (4): CD008041.
doi:
10.1002/14651858.CD008041.pub2.
PMID
20393963.{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Derry S, Moore RA, McQuay HJ (2010). Moore, Maura (ed.). "Paracetamol (acetaminophen) with or without an antiemetic for acute migraine headaches in adults". Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 11 (11): CD008040.
doi:
10.1002/14651858.CD008040.pub2.
PMID
21069700.{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Actually, doing a conversion to {{ cite cochrane}} might be better.
{{
cite journal}}
: External link in |coauthors=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Apparently this is the same bug as affected
Ilium_(novel); bug reports combined.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 00:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template%3ACite_doi%2F10.1098.2Frstb.1985.0005&diff=prev&oldid=434588043 - Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 13:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC) {{ resolved}}
I've found that this is the same error as reported above with t article
Artificial intelligence. -
Salamurai (
talk) 06:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
{{
resolved}}
I didn't realise that placing spaces between "name = 'Playfair'" was legit. The bot now allows for this behaviour.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 23:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing.
Ucucha 00:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
{{
resolved}}
The
bot says DOI 10.1111/j.1096-0031.2009.00255.x at
Mollusca is "broken", but it works perfectly. Please fix the bot and rmv the linked "edit" note. --
Philcha (
talk) 21:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
The bot made a bit of a mess of my citations on
2 April. It erased about 50 citations and credited them all to one source. Could you revert what it did, and I'll redo the edits I made today? Thanks,
Yoninah (
talk) 16:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment That's a really, really bad use of |id=
.
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books} 18:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
{{
resolved}}
I have not tried to read the source code, but from this page and the actions of the bot, I infer that the logic for handling authors is to count how many authors were specified by the editor (if any), count how many authors are specified in the database, and examine the editor-specified authors for a few special cases, such as a trailing "et al." It is presumed that if the editor specified fewer authors than the database, and didn't specify "et al.", he must have forgot and more authors should be added, and further, that the first editor-specified author matches the first database-specified author, etc.
I regard this behavior as dangerous. The bot is drawing conclusions about parameters it can't actually interpret (the editor-specified authors). If the number of authors specified by the editor does not match the number specified by the database, and the last author does not contain "et al.", the bot could add a category and comment indicating there is a citation that needs manual attention, but should not try to "fix" it. The only entries that should be fixed are those that have no creators listed (no authors, editors, translators, or any similar designation). Jc3s5h ( talk) 11:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I have no knowledge of bots, but this edit just made things worse. Cheers, Huldra ( talk) 03:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi there. Someone pointed me to this edit, which I am assuming is an edit-conflict error? Anyhow, just thought you should be aware. Cheers, 28bytes ( talk) 20:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
See Special:Contributions/Citation bot. Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 19:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC) {{ resolved}} - Fixed in GitHub Pull 391
Here, the bot changes page=109 to pages=21-4. That makes no sense. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
See [17]. What gives? Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
See [18]. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
|origdate=
isn't a valid parameter name.
Rjwilmsi 07:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC){{ resolved}}
I see now that the ref that the bot named Rynasiewicz already had the same material as an existing ref that had already been misnamed as Rynasiewicz. I have corrected manually-- JimWae ( talk) 20:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
|pages=S08007–S08007
|pages=S08007
|author=
even if the displayed result is unchanged and meta data becomes available.
Rjwilmsi 10:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC){{ resolved}}
Please describe what happens and what should happen, so that I can understand the problem.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 21:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
<ref name="Holland1909" />
links. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 22:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
|language=
The full template prior to the bot edit was as follows:
{{cite journal |last=Dossena |first=G |authorlink= |year=1954 |month=January |title=Quello che la medicina deve ad Agostino Bassi |language=Italian |trans_title=Debt of medicine to Agostino Bassi |journal=Rivista d'ostetricia e ginecologia pratica |volume=36 |issue=1 |pages=43–53 | publisher = | location = | issn = | pmid = 13168166 | bibcode = | oclc =| id = | url = | language = | format = | accessdate = | laysummary = | laysource = | laydate = | quote = }}
The |language=
parameter occurs twice, but only the first instance has a value. It is a feature of MediaWiki template expansion that should any named parameter occur more than once, all are ignored except the last one. So, |language=Italian
|language=
is exactly equivalent to |language=
and therefore the rendered appearance before and after the bot edit would be the same. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 19:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Same thing happened here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Turner_syndrome&diff=prev&oldid=444016097 --
Openmouth (
talk) 07:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
{{
resolved}}
The documentation for {{
Cite book}} contains the example "pages=100–110" while the documentation for {{
Citation}} contains the example "pages=153–61". There does not appear to be any standard about how to format such page ranges, and it is wrong for the bot to create a standard where none exists.
Jc3s5h (
talk) 15:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
LeadSongDog, you stated "It's pretty clearly just following the source." If by that you mean it is using the page range as stated in Pubmed, or some other database, then it's doing the wrong thing, and should leave any page or pages parameter entered by an editor alone. That's both a matter of style, and a matter of substance, because it may not be appropriate to list all the pages that the article occupies. Jc3s5h ( talk) 17:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
If by that you mean:
- does not consume resources unnecessarily
- performs only tasks for which there is consensus
- carefully adheres to relevant policies and guidelines
That's something of a reach to "not annoy editors". Or am I looking at the wrong set of bullets?
Anyhow, I just quickly reread all the approvals, and the discussion of what to do with the basic citation parameters doesn't seem to have been very explicit. You seems to have spent more attention on the basic questions such as whether bare urls should be replaced. Still, you certainly seem to feel strongly about this, for whatever reason. I'll just drop the stick and move away. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
{{ resolved}}
I don't know if this happens frequently or not, but it might be worth looking into why the bot did this and whether it can be prevented from doing it.
{{ resolved}}
{{
resolved}}
I undid your edit because it said you fixed the problem I pointed out, but it wasn't fixed. Maybe you can try again. Arkmanda ( talk) 04:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
{{ resolved}}
Concerning
Function 10, does that mean the bot adds something like |url=
http://dx.doi.org/foobar/
? Or does it add something like |doi-free=yes
?
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books} 03:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Thanks for the quick fix.
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books} 17:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
{{
resolved}}
I've tested things pretty extensively, and this regex cleans absolutely everything flawlessly. I highly-recommend you add this to an article "pre-cleaning" logic that would kick in before doing queries and whatnots.
Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
|jstor=
is not listed as a parameter for
Template:Cite news. I've tweaked the regexp so that this format will be okay in {{
cite journal}} (etc.) templates.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 18:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
{{
resolved}}
The Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll page has a lot of messy references on it, so it is possible that something else is triggering the deletion of the London Gazette template (note; it's not doing them all; 8 out of 11. Of course, I may be missing something in what I was trying to do.
See this; it's another article that was using the same approach of template:London Gazette in a template:reflist. While the article was using the same approach, I ran citation bot on it and it did nothing. Good luck, Victoria and Albert ( talk) 00:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC) {{ resolved}}
{{
resolved}}
{{
cite journal|pmc=foobar}}
is not expanded
Example that I should have checked is Epidemiol Infect. 1992 August; 109(1): 1–22. PMCID: PMC2272232, which isn't an antique PDF only PMC target and has
citation_pmid as 1499664 in the meta tags. Existence of a PMCID doesn't guarantee the existence of a PMID and Diberri's template filler at least requires finding the PMID to populate the data. Note that this case happens mainly on older articles — 1960s and earlier.
RDBrown (
talk) 05:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
ref name = bare_url? http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Film_pull&action=historysubmit&diff=450311078&oldid=450310741 Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 15:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC) Fixed in GitHub Pull 402 Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 19:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC) {{ resolved}}
Sample had two LDR entries "ilo" and "ilo2", otherwise identical. Former had two inline callout instances [2a, 2b], latter had one [6]. Bot deleted both LDR definitions and converted [6] to [2c], eg <ref name "ilo" /> LeadSongDog come howl! 18:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC) {{ resolved}}
{{
resolved}}
{{reflist | group = lower-alpha | refs = {{#tag:ref | Experimental data for BB-1 and BB-2 was lumped together and the rounded average calculated.<ref name="Bryan1901" /> | name = range }} }} {{reflist | refs = <ref name="Bryan1901"> {{cite doi|10.1111/j.1559-3584.1901.tb03372.x}} </ref> }}
in the above, the bot changed the entire ref-definition using {{ cite doi}} to <ref name="Bryan1901" /> leaving the citation undefined and spilling red in the article. This edit took things in another direction—moved cite def out of reflist and invoked it with {{ sfn}}—and the bot isn't offering to change the page at all, now (which is fine). — Portuguese Man o' War 07:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
The sentence being supported.{{#tag:ref |Experimental data for BB-1 and BB-2 was lumped together and the rounded average calculated.<ref name="Bryan1901b"> {{cite doi |10.1111/j.1559-3584.1901.tb03372.x }}</ref> |group="foots" }} == Bot incorrectly combines multiple references == {{bot bug | title = Bot incorrectly combines multiple references | status = {{tl|resolved}} | reported by = [[User:Nick Thorne|<font color = "darkblue">'''Nick Thorne'''</font>]] [[User talk:Nick Thorne|<font color = "darkblue"><sup>''talk''</sup></font>]] 04:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC) | type of bug = Deleterious<!-- Please select one of: Improvement: The bot would be much better if ... Cosmetic: The bot modifies appearance (e.g. capitalization) but not content Inconvenience: Humans must occasionally make immediate edits to clean up after the bot Deleterious: Human-input data is deleted or articles are otherwise significantly affected. Many bot edits require undoing. Catastrophical: The bot should stop editing immediately --> | what happens = Bot incorrectly combines separate inline references to different page ranges within a source to only one page range. This makes complete nonsense of the references. <!-- and/or: --> | what should happen = Leave these references alone | link showing what happens = [http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Timeline_for_aircraft_carrier_service&curid=18976493&diff=453554448&oldid=444016821 here] | how to replicate the bug = | waiting for = Consensus<!-- User: Input from editors Consensus: Agreement on the best solution Operator: Bot operator's feedback on what is feasible Maintainer: A specific edit to the bot's code is requested below. --> | action required from maintainer = <!--specific details--> }} <!-- Discussion starts below this line --> The problem here is that the same ref name was in use for two different page ranges: *<code>21 February — {{HMS|Implacable|R86|6}} laid down.<ref name="ches-128-129">Chesneau (1998), pp.128–129</ref></code> *<code>December — HMS ''Indefatigable'' decommissioned.<ref name="ches-128-129">Chesneau (1998), pp.134–139</ref></code> --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#d30000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 08:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC) == Error in journal article title == {{bot bug | title = Error in journal article title<!-- Brief description to display in section header --> | status = {{tl|Resolved}} | reported by = [[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 22:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC) | type of bug = Inconvenience: Humans must occasionally make immediate edits to clean up after the bot | what happens = The bot changed the title of a journal article to the title of a ''different'' journal article that was cited on the same page. | link showing what happens = [https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Opioid_receptor&action=historysubmit&diff=455282882&oldid=455277152] | how to replicate the bug = | waiting for = Consensus<!-- User: Input from editors Consensus: Agreement on the best solution Operator: Bot operator's feedback on what is feasible Maintainer: A specific edit to the bot's code is requested below. --> | action required from maintainer = <!--specific details--> }} <!-- Discussion starts below this line --> :The cite for Ingoglia had the wrong PMID and the PMC and DOI for the wrong PMID, which I've now fixed for you. The bot picked up the title off those identifiers. [[User talk:Rjwilmsi|<font color="darkgreen">'''''Rjwilmsi'''''</font>]] 07:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC) ::Thanks! That certainly explains it. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 20:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC) == Enacted small enhancements == *<s>Missed reference combination opportunity ([http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Grisellatheca&diff=prev&oldid=425207413 example]) [[User:Smith609|Martin]] '''<small>([[User:Smith609|Smith609]] – [[User_talk:Smith609|Talk]])</small>''' 18:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)</s> {{fixedin|351}} *<s>NB seems to break when trying to expand endnote templates, for instance http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template:Molluscan_diets&oldid=425855201. [[User:Smith609|Martin]] '''<small>([[User:Smith609|Smith609]] – [[User_talk:Smith609|Talk]])</small>''' 17:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)</s> *<s> Some URLs are crashing the bot, in articles [[Sexually_dimorphic_nucleus]], [[Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome ]], and [[Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans]]. [[User:Smith609|Martin]] '''<small>([[User:Smith609|Smith609]] – [[User_talk:Smith609|Talk]])</small>''' 01:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)</s> {{Fixedin|355}} [[User:Smith609|Martin]] '''<small>([[User:Smith609|Smith609]] – [[User_talk:Smith609|Talk]])</small>''' 01:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC) *Pipes in titles with cite web? e.g. {{cite web | url=http://www.meteorologynews.com/2009/10/29/cloud-streets-photographed-over-gulf-of-mexico/ | title=Cloud Streets Photographed over Gulf of Mexico: Gallery of Cloud Streets Images | Meteorology News | accessdate=2009-10-29}} [[User:Smith609|Martin]] '''<small>([[User:Smith609|Smith609]] – [[User_talk:Smith609|Talk]])</small>''' 16:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC) **To me, that should be formatted as {{para|title|Cloud Streets Photographed over Gulf of Mexico}} {{para|work|Meteorology News}}. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#d30000; background:#ffeeee">Red</span>rose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 20:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC) *(Also e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Trevor_Linden&diff=prev&oldid=434161461 and http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Turn_Left_(Doctor_Who)&diff=prev&oldid=434585064) {{fixedin|374}} * In press page ranges may be denoted | pages = n/a–n/a . See {{Cite journal | last1 = Leliaert | first1 = F. | last2 = Verbruggen | first2 = H. | last3 = Zechman | first3 = F. W. | title = Into the deep: New discoveries at the base of the green plant phylogeny | doi = 10.1002/bies.201100035 | journal = BioEssays | volume = 33 | issue = 9 | pages = 683-692 | year = 2011 | pmid = 21744372| pmc = }}.[[Special:Contributions/192.75.204.31|192.75.204.31]] ([[User talk:192.75.204.31|talk]]) 15:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC) * "| Volume: 12 " and "| Issue: 12" are replaced by "Volume = : | unused_data=12". [[User:Smith609|Martin]] '''<small>([[User:Smith609|Smith609]] – [[User_talk:Smith609|Talk]])</small>''' 14:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC) *NB still rearranging citation parameters: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template%3A+Cite+doi%2F10.2307.2F2400629&diff=prev&oldid=425351739 [[User:Smith609|Martin]] '''<small>([[User:Smith609|Smith609]] – [[User_talk:Smith609|Talk]])</small>''' 15:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC): This was in r338; cannot replicate now. [[User:Smith609|Martin]] '''<small>([[User:Smith609|Smith609]] – [[User_talk:Smith609|Talk]])</small>''' 22:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC) *Remove leading zero ({{diff2|424890924|example}}). [[User talk:Ucucha|Ucucha]] 18:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC) *:{{fixedin|374}} [[User:Smith609|Martin]] '''<small>([[User:Smith609|Smith609]] – [[User_talk:Smith609|Talk]])</small>''' 13:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC) == Suggested small enhancements == *NB http://toolserver.org/~verisimilus/Bot/DOI_bot/category.php?cat=Refs_for_Citation_Bot is down. [[User:Smith609|Martin]] '''<small>([[User:Smith609|Smith609]] – [[User_talk:Smith609|Talk]])</small>''' 19:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC) == Dead bot == {{bot bug | title = The bot is dead | status = {{tl|resolved}} | reported by = [[Special:Contributions/70.137.134.91|70.137.134.91]] ([[User talk:70.137.134.91|talk]]) 09:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC) | type of bug = <!-- Please select one of: Improvement: The bot would be much better if ... Cosmetic: The bot modifies appearance (e.g. capitalization) but not content Inconvenience: Humans must occasionally make immediate edits to clean up after the bot Deleterious: Human-input data is deleted or articles are otherwise significantly affected. Many bot edits require undoing. Catastrophical: The bot should stop editing immediately --> | what happens = <!-- and/or: --> | what should happen = | link showing what happens = | how to replicate the bug = | waiting for = Consensus<!-- User: Input from editors Consensus: Agreement on the best solution Operator: Bot operator's feedback on what is feasible Maintainer: A specific edit to the bot's code is requested below. --> | action required from maintainer = <!--specific details--> }} <!-- Discussion starts below this line --> Above bug report was a mess, but it seems to be regarding a (now remedied) toolserver account issue, not a bot bug. [[User:LeadSongDog|LeadSongDog]] <small>[[User talk:LeadSongDog#top|<font color="red" face="Papyrus">come howl!</font>]]</small> 01:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC) == RFC on identifiers == There is an [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RFC_on_the_bot-addition_of_identifier_links_to_citations|RFC on the addition of identifier links to citations by bots]]. Please comment. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|contribs]] / [[WP:PHYS|physics]] / [[WP:WBOOKS|books]]}</span> 15:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC) == Fails on certain jstor == {{bot bug | title = <!-- Brief description to display in section header --> | status = new bug | reported by = <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|contribs]] / [[WP:PHYS|physics]] / [[WP:WBOOKS|books]]}</span> 16:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC) | type of bug = <!-- Please select one of: Improvement: The bot would be much better if ... Cosmetic: The bot modifies appearance (e.g. capitalization) but not content Inconvenience: Humans must occasionally make immediate edits to clean up after the bot Deleterious: Human-input data is deleted or articles are otherwise significantly affected. Many bot edits require undoing. Catastrophical: The bot should stop editing immediately --> | what happens = Fails on certain jstor like {{jstor|4494763}} (or a different jstor to the same article {{jstor|10.1086/519028}}. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Principle_of_transformation_groups&oldid=446007535] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Principle_of_transformation_groups&oldid=446008178]. The bot works fine when the doi is given, however [http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Principle_of_transformation_groups&oldid=446008351][http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Principle_of_transformation_groups&diff=prev&oldid=446008389]. <!-- and/or: --> | what should happen = | link showing what happens = | how to replicate the bug = | waiting for = Consensus<!-- User: Input from editors Consensus: Agreement on the best solution Operator: Bot operator's feedback on what is feasible Maintainer: A specific edit to the bot's code is requested below. --> | action required from maintainer = <!--specific details--> }} <!-- Discussion starts below this line --> Funny, the JSTOR API seems not to be returning results. The bot plugs the JSTOR identifier into the dc.identifier search term accessible via http://dfr.jstor.org/sru/? ; in the past this has worked, today it doesn't seem to. I wonder whether this is a temporary glitch - I hope so! [[User:Smith609|Martin]] '''<small>([[User:Smith609|Smith609]] – [[User_talk:Smith609|Talk]])</small>''' 16:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC) ==References== {{reflist|name="Bryan1901b"}}
#tag:ref
. That article has moved away from that approach, both because of this and because it is better to stick to the usual syntax when possible. At some point ref-tags may be able to be nested ;) It seems to me that (past) limitations of MediaWiki are responsible for millions of references being fleshed-out inline instead of kept in discrete sections. The current inability to nest effectively is similarly forcing practice in other than the best direction. The costs of late software are huge. The cost of developing quality software are huge, too. —
Portuguese Man o' War 05:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)-->
|author-n=
fields|last-n=
and |first-n=
appropriately-->
Why does this bot abbreviate first names, ie in a cite doi template? ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 17:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
For new users of this bot, such as myself yesterday, the results when no changes are made are baffling. I almost gave up on the bot thinking it was another broken or developing Wikipedia function. One sees this at the top of the page:
Followed by the edit window. When one saves the page hoping for some improved citations one sees no changes, and nothing shows up in the revision history.
Fortunately, I used it on a page where it made some changes and now I see how it works. I suggest some kind of indication be added to the results saying something like this:
"Citation bot sees nothing it can fix, and no changes have been made."
Thanks for this bot. It is very useful. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 21:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I think it's pretty much established by now that the bot should not be editing the author fields for any reason. It's removing et al., cluttering citations with additional parameters, etc... This has been raised several times in the past, and I'm re-raising this again because for some reason these changes were re-enabled. The bot does not have consensus to perform changes related to authors fields, so please stop the bot from making them. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
The et al. is removed, indicating that the named author did it all by himself, when in fact he has unnamed coauthors. The name of a collaboration is given after the author in the case of this particular work, but it is unclear if that is an indication of coauthors, or just affiliation information. Since citation templates have no manual of style, there is no way to determine the meaning of the phrase in parenthesis after the author. Readers must not be expected to understand how Citation bot works, or even that it exists, so I preemptively reject any explanation about how the bot looks it up in some database. The rules for presenting authorship in any such database are not incorporated in the description of the citation templates, and thus are not available to readers. Jc3s5h ( talk) 22:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
|display-authors=
parameter works. For example, in the first change, the |author=R. Brandelik et al. (
TASSO collaboration)
is changed to |author=R. Brandelik (
TASSO collaboration)
and two parameters are added: |author-separator=,
|display-authors=1
. This would work as intended if either |author2=
or |last2=
|first2=
were provided, but they aren't. |display-authors=
only operates if there are more authors than the figure specified. As in:
{{
cite journal|author=Doe, John|author2=Public, Joe|journal=A Journal|title=A Paper|year=2011}}
{{
cite journal|author=Doe, John|author2=Public, Joe|journal=A Journal|title=A Paper|year=2011|display-authors=1}}
{{
cite journal|author=Doe, John|journal=A Journal|title=A Paper|year=2011|display-authors=1}}
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |display-authors=1
(
help)
Another example --
Redrose64 (
talk) 17:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
|issn=
- it merely states that |publisher=
is only necessary in the absence of |issn=
or |doi=
- this does not mean that in the presence of a |publisher=
, the |issn=
should be removed. Oh BTW,
here's another. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 19:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)The problem was not about the 'publisher' field. The problem is that if ISSN is presented like e.g. 'id = ISSN 0208-189X', the bot does not replace it with 'issn = 0208-189X', but just remove it. The latest removal I discovered happened just 30 minutes ago. Removing the ISSN field, even if incorrectly formatted, is not the correct solution. Beagel ( talk) 16:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Greetings,
Could Citation bot run at the Hebrew Wikipedia as well? We have translated Template:Cite doi to he:תבנית:ציטוט DOI and the relevant data should be saved to subpage /מזהה DOI. The reference itself should look the same as in the English Wikipedia, preferrably with the aid of a divstyle alignment (i.e. <div style="direction: ltr;">To the left</div>). Many thanks, ליאור • Lior ( talk) 16:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
(login problem : fjanss in fr.wikipedia.org , but cannot unify in en.wikipedia.org )
19:47, 9 June 2010 Vashtihorvat
^ Niemitz, C. (2010). "The evolution of the upright posture and gait--a review and a new synthesis.". Die Naturwissenschaften 97 (3): 241–263. Bibcode 2010NW.....97..241N. doi:10.1007/s00114-009-0637-3. PMC 2819487. PMID 20127307. edit
04:55, 10 June 2010 Citation bot 1
Have you been able to replicate this bug since 2010?
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 03:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Another problem with the same bot edit is that it changed a
pipe character into %7C
, the effect of which was to add extra characters to a valid URL, making it invalid. The change was from |url=http://wales.gov.uk/docs/statistics/2010/100917sb772010en.pdf|September 2010
to |url=
http://wales.gov.uk/docs/statistics/2010/100917sb772010en.pdf%7CSeptember 2010
- it has assumed that the pipe is part of the URL, not a parameter separator. The correct change would have been to insert date=
, as in |url=
http://wales.gov.uk/docs/statistics/2010/100917sb772010en.pdf |date=September 2010
. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 10:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
and {{
citation}}
, were altered so that the points under discussion were no longer suitably illustrated.
I've tagged the page with {{bots|deny=citation bot}}.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 03:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Please do design some short field to stop the bot from changing author lists in references; et al. could be ideal. The bot is very useful, but it is adding long author lists and other code such as "author separator", "display authors= " and "<Please add first missing authors to populate metadata.>". This is a real issue with overloading long articles as it adds so much junk code. The bot is currently designed to care about the article output ignoring the code length. Another undesirable feature is "|postscript = ..; inconsistent citations" which adds so much code just to care about a full stop at the end of the reference. We do love this bot and do not want to disable it on specific articles. Just a little flexibility in its operation (don't change when asked not to) will solve this longstanding issue. Materialscientist ( talk) 00:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Whast on earth is going on here? There are edits removing the whole content of the page and leaving nothing but fragments of code [29], leaving the following edit summary: "Touching page to update categories. ** THIS EDIT SHOULD PROBABLY BE REVERTED ** as page content will only be changed if there was an edit conflict." Paul B ( talk) 10:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the extremely helpful bot! A pity it didn't work for this reference. Maybe this can be helpful for improving the parser; I don't "expect" any action, I just wanted to share this DOI with you, since it didn't work. --
Chire (
talk) 14:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Kenneth Hahn Deleterious. Diff at
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kenneth_Hahn&action=historysubmit&diff=455056890&oldid=454962024
<h1>Sorry! This site is experiencing technical difficulties.</h1><p>Try waiting a few minutes and reloading.</p><p><small>(Can't contact the database server: <span dir="ltr">Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/var/run/mysqld/mysqld.sock' (2) (localhost)</span>)</small></p><hr /><div style="margin: 1.5em">You can try searching via Google in the meantime.<br />
I'm not sure how to report this or if it is new, but the links will show.
jonkerz
♠ 16:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
<indent>The issue might be more general. I perceive it as currently the bot tends to not care about bloating the reference templates with unused text, whereas this has at least two issues (i) the article code becomes hard to work with, especially for newcomers; (ii) reaching parsing limits on some articles. Apart from expanding author lists, the bot adds "author-separator" field and a long line of |postscript= and "{{
inconsistent citations}}
.." note. Can the bot not do that please? Citations are often inconsistent for numerous other (than full stop at the end) reasons which the bot can't assess and which are sorted out manually at WP:GAN or WP:FAC. Cheers.
Materialscientist (
talk) 23:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Given the above I've modified the bot (in r408) so that it only adds the 'bloat' if this is already the editorial preference on the page (i.e. "|display_authors=
" is set in other citations). I would suggest that someone modifies
Template:Citation/doc, which I had been reading to imply that it was incorrect to specify more than one author in the 'author' parameter. I just re-read
Template:Cite journal/doc, says something different. Cheers,
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 14:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Citation bot ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
This bug led to a block request of User:Citation bot 1 per [34] . Because Citation bot 1 does not have a separate user talk page (it redirects here) I am asking for it to be unblocked here. Note that User:Citation bot is not blocked, but User:Citation bot 1 is.
Accept reason:
See below.
|coauthors=
?
|jstor=11345
and a DOI with the JSTOR in it e.g. |doi=10.2307/11345
(not real values), since both resolve to the same place. If there is a jstor and a DOI to a different publisher then both are certainly useful and are not duplication.
Rjwilmsi 08:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Just a quick note that I reverted an edit by this bot. I saw no improvements, and arguably three changes which are all making the article worse. (The citation to cite book change is perhaps arguable, but I have noticed in the past that cite book sometimes does not work with harvtxt templates.)-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 14:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
doesn't work with {{
harvtxt}}
(or any of the other Harvard-group templates); but it can be made to work by the simple addition of |ref=harv
to the {{
cite book}}
, something that is built in to {{
citation}}
. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 16:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
to {{
cite book}}
is for consistency: previous to the bot edit, the article had one each of {{
citation}}
, {{
cite book}}
, {{
cite journal}}
and {{
cite web}}
, which is a ratio of 3:1 of {{
cite xxx}}
over {{
citation}}
, and you shouldn't mix the two styles in the same article.|ref=harv
to a {{
cite book}}
is so that {{
harvtxt}}
will link to it. I now see that in
Causality, {{
harvtxt}}
isn't actually used (nor are any other Harvard-group templates, or {{
sfn}}
), so the absence of |ref=harv
isn't a problem. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 10:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
|ref=harv
when converting from citation to cite xxx, even when there is a short footnote pointing to the reference, and even when other cite xxx templates in the article are using |ref=harv
. This is a bug. A crude solution would be to always add |ref=harv
. A fancy solution would be to detect whether there is a short footnote or parenthetical note pointing to what the anchor would be, and add the parameter when necessary.
Jc3s5h (
talk) 13:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC){{
cite book}}
, {{
cite journal}}
and {{
cite web}}
(collectively known as {{
cite xxx}}
) are all the same style (known as
Help:Citation Style 1); {{
citation}}
is a different style, see
Wikipedia:Citation templates#Introduction, first list, items 2 & 3. There is no harm in using {{
citation}}
exclusively, but if the article is already using the {{
cite xxx}}
templates, new citations should use those, or others in the same group.{{
citation}}
was introduced to that article with
this edit, at a time when there were already one each of {{
cite book}}
, {{
cite journal}}
and {{
cite web}}
. Therefore, in the interests of
WP:CITEVAR, the new reference should have used {{
cite book}}
, not {{
citation}}
. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 13:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I have a hard enough time indicating to editors that chapters in collections need to be cited individually without this occurring where humans get it half right. This needs to be left for manual resolution.
Fifelfoo (
talk) 23:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
In this example, the bot removed the italics from the Latin species name Smilodon fatalis in a journal article title, which of course are appropriate and which are present in the actual title.
Hi
I just saw this by the CitationBot and wanted to know why the bot is removing access dates. I consider them very helpful if I want to verify when the information was obtained, since it could have changed in the mean time. -- Maitch ( talk) 13:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
instead of {{
cite video}}
anyhow? The idea of Amazon as a video "publisher" would be a scary one if it were accurate. But accessdates are for volatile urls, not for permalinks. An ASIN, like an ISBN, is supposed to describe exactly one edition. Do you have reason to think that isn't the case?
LeadSongDog
come howl! 15:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)I'm not entirely sure what you mean. I did not write that article, but Amazon is sometimes used to prove that a DVD simply exists or to document a release date. That part of Amazon is not user edited and therefore can still be considered a RS. " Cape Feare" is a featured article that also uses Amazon as a source. -- Maitch ( talk) 23:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
<ref name="socialnomics.net>...</ref>
, two extra double quotes are introduced <ref name=""socialnomics.net" />
, rather than just one <ref name="socialnomics.net" />
|pmid=0
inserted
Please stop making this edit. It adds nothing useful. When an editor has been reverted, they should not make the same edit again. The edit removes the italics from a scientific name, wrongly, and repeats two pieces of information (the issue number / page number in one instance – many online journals don't fully distinguish the two, and a DOI beginning 10.2307, when a JSTOR link is already included). -- Stemonitis ( talk) 10:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Can someone explain why did the bot add "| ref =harv" to "cite journal" here? Materialscientist ( talk) 12:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
|ref=harv
does not change the referencing style: all it does is to create an anchor to facilitate the linking of parenthetical refs or shortnotes, such parenthetical refs or shortnotes having already been created by means of templates in the {{
harv}}
family, including {{
sfn}}
. The {{
citation}}
template has a |ref=harv
built in by default - the {{
cite xxx}}
family do not.<ref>{{
Harvnb|Noddings|1995|pages=1–6}}
</ref>
. If you click on
the bluelink in that ref, it doesn't go anywhere. You can reveal the broken link as a red error message by following the technique described at
User:Ucucha/HarvErrors. The addition of |ref=harv
to the {{
cite book}}
in
ref 40 will fix that broken link. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 16:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
See http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Category:Cite_doi_templates&from=A . Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
They need adding to the capitalization exclusion list. See
User:Citation bot.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 19:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
does not expand
Shulgin, A. T.; Sargent, T.; Naranjo, C. (1967). "The Chemistry and Psychopharmacology of Nutmeg and of Several Related Phenylisopropylamines" (pdf). Psychopharmacology Bulletin. 4 (3): 13. PMID 5615546.
or cite doi any more. comes back with "the user account at toolserver.org expired" if click on "jump queue" 70.137.134.91 ( talk) 09:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Gives error message
403: User account expired
The page you requested is hosted by the Toolserver user verisimilus, whose account has expired. Toolserver user accounts are automatically expired if the user is inactive for over six months. To prevent stale pages remaining accessible, we automatically block requests to expired content.
If you think you are receiving this page in error, or you have a question, please contact the owner of this document: verisimilus [at] toolserver [dot] org. (Please do not contact Toolserver administrators about this problem, as we cannot fix it—only the Toolserver account owner may renew their account.)
HTTP server at toolserver.org - ts-admins [at] toolserver [dot] org 70.137.134.91 ( talk) 10:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Here. Search for "last2" to find the duplications. I thought the ampersand in the "author=" list tricked the bot; thus replaced ampersands and re-run, with the same result. The bot seems to misunderstand the "author=" field. Materialscientist ( talk) 13:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Oh, of COURSE its starts working as soon as I report the error. -_-'
LikeLakers2 (
talk |
Sign my guestbook!) 20:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Strange: I haven't touched the bot for some time, and it works fine in some cases. Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 17:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
This edit summary from article
Match 2011-11-15: [394]Add: issue, doi, pmid, pmc. Tweak: pages, url, title, issue, doi. |
Innotata
Documentation is ALWAYS as important as the bot's functionality. Yeah, ok, I'm done ranting.
-- Trappist the monk ( talk) 16:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Change to documentation noted. Thanks. But...
Link goes to UCB disambiguation page. Is that where you want it to go?
-- Trappist the monk ( talk) 18:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
In trying to pare down the incomplete doi references page, I've run into a few places where the Citation bot has replaced a jstor.org link with an incorrect doi. These are
Any ideas on the fix? Naraht ( talk) 16:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
url2template
function at line 631 of
expandFns.php. The regular expression fails to recognize all types of JSTOR URLs. It could probably be fixed by changing the regex into something like "~jstor\.org/(?!sici).*[/=](\d+)~"
. However, ideally the bot should retrieve data from the SICI; not sure whether it already has code available that does that.
Ucucha (
talk) 19:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Fixed in GitHub Pull 412{{ resolved}}
The bot was confused by
Template:R, which should not be mixed & matched with <ref> tags.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 17:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I saw this revision on my watchlist. It corrected a dash issue in one citation, but deleted another citation. I don't know much about such things, but I'm guessing the bot was confused by an extra newline in the middle of the second one. Ntsimp ( talk) 14:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
}}
which closes the template and the </ref>
which closes the reference. Both of these are legal uses of newlines. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 18:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
{{ resolved}} - duplicate bug report
(Moved to the end, added by User:Smith609) Reference name bug; http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Phosphatic_fossilization&diff=prev&oldid=470456980
It's the same issue as I reported above. Not an isolated incident, at least. U+003F ?
|url=
and |title=
. I haven't been able to find the bot code that performs these changes; Citation bot's code is rather unstructured in my opinion.
Ucucha (
talk) 20:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
An editor -- SandyGeorgia -- complains of the edits made by the DOI bot. She says the bot edits do not follow the standard practice of editors of medical articles: "We don't use capital case in article titles on Wikipedia-- we use sentence case (which means we don't capitalize the words in the article titles). [Confirmed by WP:MOS, yet DOI bot is substituting capital case.] And, most medical articles use the Diberri format, which uses only one author field." Please advise. Fconaway ( talk) 04:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
|author=
versus |last1=
, and existing case in titles, and follow the existing conventions if present. I'm sure this would be helpful to and appreciated by wikiproject medicine and though it's not my code I wouldn't think it would be that difficult to implement.
Rjwilmsi 20:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)| journal = [Mount Hamilton? Calif.
| journal = <nowiki>[Mount Hamilton? Calif., 1941]</nowiki>
The error was AdsAbs', but I've incorporated a fix in r414.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 17:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the Citationbot is handling angles correctly. On Rubidium telluride, the {{cite doi|10.1002/1521-3773(20020802)41:15<2725::AID-ANIE2725>3.0.CO;2-G}} doesn't seem to get handled correctly, and yet, when I enter that doi at dx.doi.org, it doesn't seem to bat an eyelash. I've tried changing the angles to %3C and %3E but that doesn't seem to help. (Similar issues apparently at Jack D. Dunitz Any ideas? Naraht ( talk) 11:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
<
and >
--
Redrose64 (
talk) 12:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I've attempted to change two cite broken doi entries to cite doi and jump the queue. But I get "Edit may have failed. Retrying: xxx Still no good. One last try: Failed. Error code: BADMD5: The supplied MD5 hash was incorrect." after it seems to have gotten to the end. What's going on with that? (See http://toolserver.org/~verisimilus/Bot/DOI_bot/doibot.php?doi=10.1063%2F1.3633090 as an example) Naraht ( talk) 03:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
|last1=
has gone a bit funny...
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 22:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)First and foremost - I have great respect to this bot and its operator.
Block summary: the bot was introducing minor changes, some of which were questionable and too many of which (IMHO) were hardly an improvement. The block is to initiate a dialogue with the person behind those edits. (If he/she does not show up, then I propose the bot operator makes the user identifiable).
Difs. Let us go from last edit back.
|issue=
, to errors in ISSN formatting, to a long-winded comment over a full stop (correct, but can the message be shorter?), to errors in title re-formatting. Which editor initiated the edits hardly seems relevant, these are bot code problems or improvements. I think it would be sensible that the bot temporarily disable all changes to casing/italics of titles, and a later discussion establishes what changes, if any, the bot could accurately make to titles. Can we establish a list of 'blocker' problems that need to be addressed for an unblock:
|id= ISSN xxxxxxxx
|last1=
etc. when the rest of the article uses |author=
(also Wikiproject medicine concern)Per Rjwilmsi I'll sum up what I am not happy about (I am the blocker, but surely my suggestions need consensus and discussion.
|id=
field is not deprecated, but it is preferred not to use this when another param is designed specifically for the task. {{
citation}}
and {{
cite journal}}
both have an |issn=
parameter, as do {{
cite book}}
, {{
cite encyclopedia}}
and others, although it's not documented on all of them. Where such parameter exists, the use of |issn=0123-4567
is preferable to |id={{
ISSN|0123-4567}}
. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 14:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
|id=
parameter. I discovered this morning that id={{OL|123456M}} can be replaced by |ol=123456M
, and there are likely others not documented.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 16:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
|display-authors=3
(or whatever value they like), so the metadata can attribute up to ten authors without the template imposing them all against editors' stylistic choice.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 17:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Re issn, I believe that this information is almost always redundant and useless for publications for which more accurate identifiers (doi etc) are available. Issn only tells you what journal it is, doi tells you the specific article. But probably actual removal of issns is the sort of editorial decision that should be done by humans not bots. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
{{ cite journal | author=Zalivako, Anke | title=A Critique of the Preservation of Moscow's Planetarium | url=http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/future_anterior/v005/5.1.zalivako.pdf | journal=Future Anterior | year=2008 | volume=5 | issue=1 | id=ISSN 1549-7915 (print), ISSN 1934-6026 (online) }}
rendered
Zalivako, Anke (2008).
"A Critique of the Preservation of Moscow's Planetarium" (PDF). Future Anterior. 5 (1). ISSN 1549-7915 (print), ISSN 1934-6026 (online).
{{ cite journal | author=Zalivako, Anke | title=A Critique of the Preservation of Moscow's Planetarium | url=http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/future_anterior/v005/5.1.zalivako.pdf | journal=Future Anterior | year=2008 | volume=5 | issue=1 | issn=1934-6026 }}
rendered
Zalivako, Anke (2008).
"A Critique of the Preservation of Moscow's Planetarium" (PDF). Future Anterior. 5 (1).
ISSN
1934-6026.
|e-issn=
parameter, hence human intervention would clearly have been better)
LeadSongDog
come howl! 14:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)Is there anything outstanding that requires my attention before the bot is resumed? Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 22:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
|asin=159116401X
and |asin=159116415X
, use |isbn=159116401X
and |isbn=159116415X
- by using ISBN, library catalogues may be linked as well as Amazon, rather than directing people to one specific supplier. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 18:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I can't blame the bot for
not fixing that correctly, but I don't think it should be finding an ISBN there. The check on line 1190 of Citation bot's DOItools.php seems to assume that any 10- or 13-digit number is an ISBN, which is risky. However, I think the bug that led to this problem is in the first part of the regex there, which has (?!<
instead of the correct <code(?<! for the lookbehind.
Ucucha (
talk) 23:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Is there a tool or another way to find duplicate uses of the same "cite doi" reference in an article? Preferably a particular "cite doi" template should only be used once in an article and other references to the same source should use "ref name" and link to only one "cite doi" template. Acadēmica Orientālis ( talk) 11:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
The bot is altered to remove ISSN if a solid link (doi/pmid/pmc/jstor) is present and not remove ISSN otherwise. (Correct me if I missed a "solid link" type.)
The bot is altered to leave the author field untouched if it contains "et al". (Just a matter of flexibility - an editor can always remove et al and rerun the bot.)
|last1=
and |first1=
(or equivalent) which it should certainly fill if empty.
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books} 15:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
|author#=
).
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books} 05:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear enough - the bot appears to have made a number of successive edits over the past few months, getting the first and last names of five authors mixed up and at one point splitting up the names into 6 sets of first = and last =. Need to review all the change log for all the edits to really see what's going on. See [70], [71], [72], [73] The original list of five authors, manually entered by G716, was changed by the bot to a list of 6, incorrect, authors Decstop ( talk) 06:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
All the same, this is yet another example of why hiding content in unwatched template subpages is a bad idea. LeadSongDog come howl! 07:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
The bot is altered not to add "|postscript=<!-- Bot inserted parameter. Either remove it; or change its value to "." for the cite to end in a ".", as necessary. -->{{inconsistent citations}}" to citation templates. (Better solution is welcome, but as a separate thread).
I just did my semi-annual round up of crap cite doi templates. Turns out there's a lot, so I made a BOTREQ to clean things up. See Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 46#Citation Bot cleanup.
IMO, Citation Bot really should check for the input matching '10.Foobar' before doing anything else. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey there, I noticed that a number of {{
Cite|PMID}}
templates were not being filled in on some gene pages, such as
this one, which was created in January. I've pushed a few of them manually (through the 'jump the queue' button), but I was wondering if automatic completion would be restored at some point. Thanks for the awesome utility- it's a huge help!
Pleiotrope (
talk) 17:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I posted this over at Wikipedia:Bot requests:
I am told that this is your dept. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 04:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
, which will get pretty much the same result without creating yet another unwatched template subpage. Initially (before bot improvement populates it) that would look like:{{
cite book}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)Hi, i just created the template {{ cite isbn}} for the purpose of synchronization of citations on different pages. I suppose i could add the openlibrary link to the fill-out form. Although not perfect, this would ease the creation of new references. BR84 ( talk) 18:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
|lastn=
as |authorn=
.|lastn=
and |firstn=
.
I've seen this happen millions of time, it always annoyed me. Can't really say why I didn't bother to report it until now.
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books} 20:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
|author1=
instead of |last1=
, but gets all |firstn=
and all other |lastn=
correctly.
[78].
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books} 19:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Had to edit Template:Cite pmid/20301430 by hand to correct publication date. PubMed says "1993-2006 Jul 31 [updated 2010 Nov 02]". -- Richiez ( talk) 22:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, wondering about Special:Contributions/KBrainbridge. Either this are all good faith edits then hopefully the bot could do them or something strange is going on? 21:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd suggest avoiding {{
Cite pmc}}, it's pretty much an unused orphan. If all you have is a pmc, try {{
Cite journal}} with parameter |pmc=
instead. Will propose deleting.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 18:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
How about having the bot automatically blow away all {{ Cite pmc}} references and convert them to {{ Cite pmid}}, {{ Cite doi}}, or {{ Cite journal}}.
There are almost no pages using that template: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Cite_pmc&limit=500
This template has been deleted - Bug closed. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 20:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
-->
-->
Cite pmc emplate deleted. Closing bug. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 20:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
The account must be renewed before the bot will be operable again.
JJJ (
talk) 01:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
It is alive. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 00:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
{{ wontfix}} At http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Cato_Institute&diff=500664442&oldid=500661433 , the bot changed the string "|Retrieved November 12, 2007" into "|year=2007|unused_date=Retrieved November 12". I fixed it to "|accessdate = November 12, 2007", but I don't see how that raw year should be interpreted as "year=", especially on a {{ cite web}}. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
|unused_data=
, not |unused_date=
. None of the citation templates use positional parameters - they all use named parameters exclusively - so when the bot encounters information in a positional parameter it attempts to put it into the best named parameter. Anything that can't be so assigned ends up in |unused_data=
for a manual fix later on. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 19:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
This makes the PMC bug a couple of bugs above not work-around-able.
Template cite pmc is deleted. Bug no longer relevant. Closing. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 20:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
The bot is still making these pages. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template:Cite_pmc/344826&action=history AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 23:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I assume the bot went wrong because the reference's name was either a short or a long version of another reference's name (ARana vs. ARanard and AR), but that wouldn't fully explain its behaviour. For now the bot has stopped removing the reference.
Huon (
talk) 03:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
The offending PMC value PMC2726758 has a corresponding PMID, so if possible, the Bot should do a PMID lookup and generate a cite PMID template. Some older PMC values may only have the PDF, without a matching PMID entry.
RDBrown (
talk) 08:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
This bug is still present. Here is another instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mental_disorder&diff=506845207&oldid=503912969 — Paul A ( talk) 08:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC) And again: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Radiology&diff=507543374&oldid=507137154 — Paul A ( talk) 01:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
{{cite pmc}}
template was deprecated for a long time and is now deleted:
Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_21#Template:Cite_pmc. See also earlier entries on this page. Most PMC articles have a DOI and are also listed on
PubMed, so you are able to use {{cite doi}}
and {{cite pmid}}
templates.
kashmiri 09:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
{{
resolved}}
{{
resolved}}
|jstor=1305363
instead., Attention: This template ({{
cite jstor}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by jstor:1303024, please use {{
cite journal}} with |jstor=1303024
instead.
jstor refs also don't get expanded if the doi is used instead of the jstor parameter. —
Chris Capoccia
T⁄
C 13:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
This seems like the place to bring up this question, but if not I'd appreciate someone directing me to where would be a good spot. A {{ cite isbn}} template was created not that long ago but it seems to lack the automated process that {{ cite doi}} has (I think that is this bot). Is there a way to get this template added to the automated process? I'd be willing to help work on it, but I have no experience with bots so would at the very least greatly appreciate guidance. Zfeinst ( talk) 16:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help), and introduces all the same problems that {{
cite doi}} et al. bring. The subpages, isolated from the articles which transclude them, do not adapt to the citation format in the article.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 16:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite isbn|0836221192}}
, it shows as {{cite isbn|0836221192}} with the edit link because the subtemplate does not exist until you edit it. If you do use an existing subtemplate, then {{
cite isbn|978067144133}}
shows as {{cite isbn|978067144133}} because the template requires a /
, thus {{
cite isbn/978067144133}} shows as {{cite isbn/978067144133}}. But if you use a slash in the non-existing template {{
cite isbn/0836221192}}
, it shows as {{cite isbn/0836221192}}. ---—
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk 17:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
|ys=
to define the "b" etc, since the value will nearly always be a single letter there doesn't seem much point in making the name long.|year={{{year|1996}}}
. (updated
Mirokado (
talk) 09:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC))|ref=
and |year=
needed particularly for articles using Harvard style (supporting year tidily required rather more extensive changes than I had at first expected)|page=
and |pages=
for single citations with a page range.{{
cite journal}}
work quite well (for articles using cs1 style) as they rarely contain dmy/mdy/iso dates which would not suit all articles, a doi or pmid identifies a unique object, and it is at least arguable that a particular name, initials format for journal article authors can coexist with something else for web pages, books etc. The book citations I have seen also overwhelmingly contain just year so date formats should not be an insuperable problem.Issues which need to be sorted out include:
-- Mirokado ( talk) 22:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Just to emphasize the risks noted above, there is no guarantee that numerous ISBN numbers have not been reused for newer books or a specific book have other edition numbers not matching the {cite_isbn|<ISBN>} on file, confusing people who find a different title/number. Meanwhile, we want to leave each Cite_isbn/xx subpage unprotected to allow others to expand detail and fix typos. However, the use of {Cite_isbn} with unprotected subpages would quickly enter the frequently read pop-culture articles, which do cite from books, and famous books would more likely use {Cite_isbn} entries. Note those articles rarely cite from DOI numbers, which are more common in medical or other journal-related articles. Plus, I can confirm the recent horrors of unprotected templates, even outside of pop-culture article vandalism, where some well-meaning admins unprotected many string-handling templates a year ago, and within months, almost all were vandalized/hacked by IP-address users, then re-protected. It took a while to find where the vandalism was hidden, and with {Cite_isbn}, there would be strong temptation to rename any book as "Celebrity Xxx drug abuse with underage students". The reason vandalism remains for weeks or months is because it is 50x times easier to vandalize than to find and correct. I dred the protected subtemplates of Template:Taxobox or others when attempting improvements, but they must be protected due to extreme risk of hacking, and if {Cite_isbn} subpages were to get automatic protection, then that would thwart the promise of "fix one place" for improvement everywhere. Instead, the reality is most likely, "vandalize one place for embarrassing insults" everywhere. Hence, it is better to repeat a {cite_book} in 20 celebrity articles, rather than risk hideous {cite_isbn} vandalism to attack 20 semi-protected pages, where 99.99% of readers, for days/weeks, would search and not know if or where vandalism had occurred, with drugs for "underage students" (re: History of Facebook). Since there is a critical need to protect string-utility templates from registered editors, then imagine the risk to {cite_isbn} entries in pop-culture articles. Hence, for those reasons, I agree with the fears expressed above, and advise the new {cite_isbn} should be kept limited in usage. - Wikid77 ( talk) 15:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
To solve the problem of incompatible citation format, perhaps alongside some hand-coded citations, then the Template:Cite_isbn and bot (if any) should handle new parameters "fmter=cite book" and "sep=," to optionally put commas as the separator between phrases in the citations. With parameter "fmter=cite book" then the actual stored format would be "{{ {{{fmter|cite book}}} |isbn=1112223334}}" where the name of the cite-template (fmter) could be passed as some other template than {cite_book}. The most obvious small format difference is likely to be separator "," rather than dot "." and the short name "sep" avoids the spelling glitch "seperator" with syllable "-er". Although unusual, the unique parameter name "fmter" would also allow wikisearch to track the use within all prior articles as usage expands (I had imagined calling fmter as "citer" but that word is very common from French sources, already matching 95,000 articles). - Wikid77 ( talk) 13:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Such as this one. Urhixidur ( talk) 14:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
It is fixed now.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 18:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Could you spell out the specific references that you hope that the bot will expand? Thanks,
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 07:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
You need to add the journal acronym to the list of capitalization exclusions; see the bot's user page for instructions.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 07:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
The link does not work. What do you mean by not unfolded?
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 18:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Hope the diff is enough.
mabdul 14:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Wow bot, you are saving me heaps of time. Literally. Cheers,
benzband (
talk) 21:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Improvement: The bot would be much better if ... -->
Why not have a bot do this? Has it been attempted before? I'd guess it has... I'm wondering why it isn't happening. --
Elvey (
talk) 01:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
The article, "I-696: Three Pedestrian Plazas Over Freeway" in the MDOT Context Sensitive Solutions Case Study: Metro Region by the Michigan Department of Transportation appears on page B1-17. The study uses chapter-based pagination, so that's the 17th page of chapter B1, or page B1-17. It isn't a page range, but twice now I've reverted the bot. I'm not sure what can be done to avoid false positives like that. One revert is understandable, but twice (yes, I know, user-requested and no one's looking for the reverts in the page history first) means that the bot has now been blocked from editing the page.
Imzadi 1979
→ 08:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
The bot did not add the {{
references|date=November 2012}}
- it was already present in
your first draft, so you must have put it there yourself.
In
the version immediately prior to the bot edit, the {{
references|date=November 2012}}
is clearly present. This version has two instances of the following construct:
<ref name="BCC Musgrave Park">
[http://www.belfastcity.gov.uk/parksandopenspaces/parks/musgravepark.asp Belfast City Council - Musgrave Park]
</ref>
and four instances of
<ref name="Keep Britain Tidy">
[http://greenflag.keepbritaintidy.org/park-summary/?ParkID=1210 Keep Britain Tidy]
</ref>
One of the first group may be simplified to <ref name="BCC Musgrave Park" />
, similarly, three of the second group may be simplified to <ref name="Keep Britain Tidy" />
, and that is
what the bot did. It added no maintenance templates. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 11:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
|author1=
and |first1=
Can you suggest an algorithm by which the bot can tell whether the data specified as an author is a person's name or not? I can't do anything otherwise.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 07:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
|first1=Inc
, it's probably not a person's name.
GoingBatty (
talk) 04:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
The bot runs to completion, but there is nothing in the article that it needs to change. That's not a bug.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 05:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite doi|10.2307/461317}}
on a page. Then click on the "jump the queue" link.
JSTOR DOI's don't work right anymore (note that {{
cite jstor}} is just a wrapper for {{
cite doi}}). There is nothing the bot can do.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 17:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
The code does this:
} else { echo "not found in JSTOR?"; } } else { // Not a JSTOR doi, use CrossRef $crossRef = $crossRef?$crossRef:crossRefData(urlencode(trim($p["doi"][0]))); }
Note that after the not found in JSTOR complaint, the code does not even try CrossRef AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 17:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
This page's citations are indeed an ugly jumble. So perhaps the bot is easily confused. Perhaps this page should be fixed by hand?
Choor monster (
talk) 17:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
| 2:38 pm|
. None of the citation templates recognise positional parameters. The "p. m." visible in the References section is due to the |page=m
- presumably the bot has decided that pm
is short for p.m.
and interpreted it as a page identifier. The nonexistent parameter |unused_data=
is used by Citation bot to hold anything that it can't place in a recognised parameter, hence |unused_data= 2:38
|url=
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0060925000
to the relative |asin=0060925000
which is essentially the same thing, but is future-proof: if Amazon change their URL format, we only need to modify one or two templates, not thousands of pages. The |accessdate=2012-10-31
was removed because access dates are only meaningful when there is a URL.
History of the Western Insurrection, p. 42, at
Google Books
LeadSongDog
come howl! 21:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Access dates are only useful for online sources. This ref has no URL, hence it's not online, therefore an access date is meaningless. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 23:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
|archiveurl=
is not the same as a |url=
. Although not explicitly stated at
Template:Cite web#URL, the indentation there implies that the use of either |accessdate=
or |archiveurl=
also requires a |url=
to be provided. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 10:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
|archiveurl=
is a child of |url=
.--—
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk 11:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Input was a malformed wikitext to begin, with |id=ISSN 0134-3084 rather than |id={{ISSN|0134-3084}} . This is a plausibly common class of error that either this or another bot could address.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 22:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
This is the same problem as #Update_required_to_avoid_deleterious_impact_on_new_Lua-based_citations. Dragons flight ( talk) 23:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Template:Cite doi/ 10.1126.2Fscience.141.3578.357 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Illia Connell ( talk) 03:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC) {{ resolved}}
This seems to be the intended behaviour. {{
resolved}}
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 14:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
|author=
fields, it deleted the one with the name and kept the one with the date|author=
with letter string and not number string
The link in the function summary section that's supposed to show the progress stats of the bot is broken: http://toolserver.org/~verisimilus/Bot/DOI_bot/progress-doibot.php?date=20091017 Wingman4l7 ( talk) 23:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC) Fixed in GitHub Pull 439 {{ resolved}}
|doi=10.1002/1531-8249(199911)46:5<770::AID-ANA13>3.0.CO;2-U
instead.
|doi= 10.1002/1531-8249(199911)46:53.0.CO;2-U
instead.Ok, I think I'm getting somewhere. You're right, it wasn't my firewall, it rather was my local cache that was puking when Wiley forced the redirect. A manual cache purge and reload gets me past that. The cite doi subpage that I (manually) created was at the wrong path, so I've redirected it from
Template:Cite doi/10.1002.2F1531-8249.28199911.2946:53.0.CO.3B2-U
to the correct subpage at
Template:Cite doi/10.1002.2F1531-8249.28199911.2946.3A5.3C770.3A.3AAID-ANA13.3E3.0.CO.3B2-U.
I'm not sure why cite doi names the subpage with anchorencode but generates the url with urlencode, but that's what it seems to do. (While anchorencode uses .3A urlencode uses %3A for the same character.)
There's a similar doi at Template:Cite doi/10.1002.2F1531-8257.28199901.2914:1.3C95::AID-MDS1016.3E3.0.CO.3B2-8 but it seems to have been created just fine without any special handling, even with the double colon in the doi. That was some time ago though, perhaps a more recent change has created a problem, but I still don't see a clear-cut instance. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
{{
resolved}}
It appears that crossref neglected the author's forename. Try
http://www.crossref.org/guestquery/ and plug in the DOI 10.1097/00005176-198911000-00026 to see.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 21:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
'Junior' is a title and should not be incorporated into the name.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 13:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
{{
resolved}}
-->
There seems to be some problem with Springer's data validation before export to crossref. If you go to that abstract on Springer's site, then click on "export citation" and choose plain text, you get:
Reference Type: Journal Article
Author: Haubrich, C. Haubrich
Author: Krings, T. Krings
Author: Senderek, J. Senderek
Author: Züchner, S. Züchner
Author: Schröder, J. Schröder
Author: Noth, J. Noth
Author: Töpper, R. Töpper
Primary Title: Hypertrophic nerve roots in a case of Roussy-Lévy syndrome
Journal Name: Neuroradiology
Cover Date: 2002-11-01
Publisher: Springer Berlin / Heidelberg
Issn: 0028-3940
Subject: Medicine
Start Page: 933
End Page: 937
Volume: 44
Issue: 11
Url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00234-002-0847-2
Doi: 10.1007/s00234-002-0847-2
Clearly the author names have been mangled, unless one expects "Bond, J. Bond" as the normal form. Still, the handling was incorrect. It is not clear if the cause was the umlauts in the names, or something else, . (As an aside, please note that this paper is a primary source, and so not a wp:MEDRS.) It might be helpful to state the dois for whichever other articles show similar problems. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
|doi=10.1007/s00234-002-0860-5
instead. and another with, e.g. Attention: This template ({{
cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1007/s00234-002-0829-4, please use {{
cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{
cite report}} with |doi=10.1007/s00234-002-0829-4
instead. to see what happens.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 20:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
|doi=10.1007/s00234-002-0860-5
instead.This may be a knockon effect of Springer's recent platform changes. In the mean time, I'd suggest you just don't use cite doi for Springer. LeadSongDog come howl! 23:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
{{
resolved}}
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Bensci54 (
talk •
contribs) 02:32, 5 January 2013
I am trying to see what effect the bot has in improving citation for "bare-urls" at Camp Dubois. They seem like bare urls to me but no change is made by the bot. So, I guess I don't understand what a bare-url is, or I don't understand the bot, probably both. Any help in understanding - to make me a better more efficient editor appreciated. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 14:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
url=
is munging the link recognition. If CBot does not work, then
User:Dispenser/Reflinks should after you remove those snippets. --—
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk 15:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
|last10=
--
Redrose64 (
talk) 10:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
A second example of this unexpected behaviour:
[85]
Illia Connell (
talk) 03:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Is it possible to mechanically convert a BibTeX citation (as generated by Mathematical Reviews), such as
@article {MR0102537,
AUTHOR = {Grothendieck, Alexander}, TITLE = {Sur quelques points d'alg\`ebre homologique}, JOURNAL = {T\^ohoku Math. J. (2)}, FJOURNAL = {The Tohoku Mathematical Journal. Second Series}, VOLUME = {9}, YEAR = {1957}, PAGES = {119--221}, ISSN = {0040-8735}, MRCLASS = {18.00}, MRNUMBER = {MR0102537 (21 \#1328)},
MRREVIEWER = {D. Buchsbaum}, }
into a format which can be pasted into a Wikipedia article?
ranicki ( talk) 06:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
|mr=0102537
, then let the bot expand it. Or doesn't that work?
LeadSongDog
come howl! 16:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)I have software that is capable of doing this. For your example, it produces
{{citation | last = Grothendieck | first = Alexander | journal = The Tohoku Mathematical Journal | mr = 0102537 | pages = 119–221 | series = Second Series | title = Sur quelques points d'algèbre homologique | volume = 9 | year = 1957}}
which renders as
It can also go the other way, from Wikipedia citation or cite templates to BibTeX. However, it currently only runs on OS X. If you're interested in trying it out, drop me an email. — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC) {{ resolved}}
{{ resolved}}
{{
resolved}}
The detection of invalid parameters and the move to 'unused_data' is now obsolete for the Lua versions of the citation templates. These templates now detect invalid parameter names and fields without parameters and immediately show an error and add a category. -- Gadget850 talk 12:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Fixed in GitHub Pull 437 {{ resolved}}
What error? Both |displayauthors=
and |display-authors=
should be supported as synonyms of each other. There is no reason for the bot to be converting one into the other, but it doesn't seem harmful or generate an error as far as I can see.
Dragons flight (
talk) 23:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to suggest a sanity check in PHP; I'd be happy to add this to the source code.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 14:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
{{
cite web}}
i.e. |url=http://benoitpoirierdambreville.com/about/
|accessed 30 April 2013
was altered to %7C
which made it and the following word become part of the preceding URL, i.e.
http://benoitpoirierdambreville.com/about/%7Caccessed|accessed 30 April 2013
:
|accessdate=30 April 2013
|accessed=30 April 2013
which would have thrown the error Unknown parameter |accessed=
ignored (|accessdate=
suggested) (
help) which would have placed the page into
Category:Pages with citations using unsupported parameters, and so can be fixed up by other processes later
In most cases that match this syntax, the pipe is part of the URL. I can't see a way for the bot to always get this right; if you can think of an algorithm to improve its guessing, feel free to suggest a change to the code.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 14:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
|accessed=
-error, but untouched by the bot:{{cite web|url=http://benoitpoirierdambreville.com/about/|accessed 30 April 2013|title=Some title}}
→
{{
cite web}}
: Text "accessed 30 April 2013" ignored (
help)|
correct:{{cite web|url=http://benoitpoirierdambreville.com/about/|accessdate=30 April 2013|title=Some title}}
→
%7C
. There are no templates - not even {{
cite web}}
- where the literal pipe character is anything other than a separator between parameters. Therefore, the pipe character cannot form part of a URL when that URL is a parameter's value. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 23:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
[[foo|bar]]
(including
image syntax), a pair of triple braces (as used in template coding as e.g. {{{url|}}}
), etc.%7C
will do it; elsewhere (such as in a webpage title) the syntax |
works.|url=
--
Redrose64 (
talk) 22:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
|page=693
was marked as |pages=693
. Fixed. Bot added |pages=693–697; discussion 697–700
. Rm'd single |page=693
. Bot readded |page=693
, causing error, x3. Stopped after 4th removal of old |page=
.
{{ resolved}}
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kakkonto may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page
|
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 15:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 11:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
There is no response from bot maintenance to prevent these errors. See
Module talk:Citation/CS1. -
DePiep (
talk) 21:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
|displayauthors=
(though not exactly the same):
[89]. -
DePiep (
talk) 14:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
throws |displayauthors=
suggested when there are exactly nine authors, and |displayauthors=
has not been set. It's a hint that you may either add further authors beyond nine, since we now support many more, or to add an explicit |displayauthors=9
if the paper credits exactly nine authors. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 16:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
, it is basically
Module:Citation/CS1 (see it's
talk). I say: Citation bot should not introduce (or: re-introduce) this error.
(same link again) shows it did (currect ref #7). -
DePiep (
talk) 19:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
as an example, that being the layer used directly in
Samarium.
[91]: a valid |accessdate=
removed by the bot. -
DePiep (
talk) 18:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
|url=
. The bot concluded one, while it would require user-intervention to get the right conclusion & solution. -
DePiep (
talk) 19:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
cite doi page created with error. Bot should know that when there are 9 authors, set |displayauthors=9
. See
Help:CS1_errors#displayauthors. -
DePiep (
talk) 19:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
|displayauthors=3
(4 - 1 = 3) which produces "et al." correctly. This same is valid for situation: "9 listed, unknown number --> |displayauthor=8
". -
DePiep (
talk) 09:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)|displayauthors=1
, then let editors change it if they prefer something else.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 21:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
|displayauthors=
setting in order to force truncation. If 33 authors are entered then 33 are shown. One can think of this as a default setting of infinite for displayauthors, though that is still restrained by the willingness of editors to actually type in a long author list. As far as I know there is no requirement anywhere that an editor has to enter every author. I also don't know of any broad policy that specifies any particular level of truncation as required or preferred. Which suggests that the only controlling issue is
WP:CITEVAR, i.e. that citations should generally be consistent within individual articles.|displayauthors=8
were set because that matches the historical behavior of the templates prior to Lua, i.e. entering exactly nine authors resulted in eight authors being display followed by an "et al.".
Dragons flight (
talk) 05:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
|displayauthors=
- that's from {{
cite journal}}
but it's the same for {{
citation}}
and all the others based upon
Module:citation/CS1. Pre-Lua, if |displayauthors=
were not set explicitly, these templates would behave as if |displayauthors=8
had been set. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 10:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
|displayauthosrs=8
(produces et al., correct).|displayauthors=9
. (No et al. will be added, correct).
So it is [96]. - DePiep ( talk) 23:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
About Darmstadtium.
Bot edit: [97]
Before bot action: [98]: no error (check ref #15)
After bot action: [99]: error (at ref #15)
Citation bot introduced an error. - DePiep ( talk) 22:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
|last2=
. Garbage in, garbage out. If you look at the recommended citation on the e-journal it reads |last2=
or its synonyms like |author2=
, there would have been an error message. The before-input had no errors and was in line with the documentation. -
DePiep (
talk) 09:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC){{cite journal|doi=10.1103/PhysRevC.67.064609|title=Confirmation of production of element 110 by the <sup>208</sup>Pb(<sup>64</sup>Ni,n) reaction|year=2003|author=Ginter, T. N.|journal=Physical Review C|volume=67|page=064609 |last2=Gregorich|first2=K.|last3=Loveland|first3=W.|last4=Lee|first4=D.|last5=Kirbach|first5=U.|last6=Sudowe|first6=R.|last7=Folden|first7=C.|last8=Patin|first8=J.|last9=Seward|first9=N.|first10=P. |last10=Wilk|first11=P. |last11=Zielinski|first12=K. |last12=Aleklett|first13=R. |last13=Eichler|first14=H. |last14=Nitsche|first15=D. |last15=Hoffman |bibcode = 2003PhRvC..67f4609G|issue=6 }}
→which renders as {{quote|Ghiorso, A.; Somerville, L.; Loveland, W.; Nitschke, J.; Ghiorso, W.; Seaborg, G.; Wilmarth, P.; Leres, R.; Wydler, A.; Nurmia, M.; Gregorich, K.; Czerwinski, K.; Gaylord, R.; Hamilton, T.; Hannink, N. J.; Hoffman, D. C.; Jarzynski, C.; Kacher, C. (1995). "Evidence for the possible synthesis of element 110 produced by the 59Co+209Bi reaction". Physical Review C. 51: R2293. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.51.R2293.{{cite journal|doi=10.1103/PhysRevC.51.R2293|title=Evidence for the possible synthesis of element 110 produced by the <sup>59</sup>Co+<sup>209</sup>Bi reaction|year=1995|author=Ghiorso, A.|journal=Physical Review C|volume=51|pages=R2293|last2=Lee|first2=D.|last3=Somerville|first3=L.|last4=Loveland|first4=W.|last5=Nitschke|first5=J.|last6=Ghiorso|first6=W.|last7=Seaborg|first7=G.|last8=Wilmarth|first8=P.|last9=Leres|first9=R.|first10=A. |last10=Wydler|first11=M. |last11=Nurmia|first12=K. |last12=Gregorich|first13=K. |last13=Czerwinski|first14=R. |last14=Gaylord|first15=T. |last15=Hamilton|first16=N. J. |last16=Hannink|first17=D. C. |last17=Hoffman|first18=C. |last18=Jarzynski|first19=C. |last19=Kacher|first20=B. |last2=Kadkhodayan|first21=S. |last2=Kreek|first22=M. |last2=Lane|first23=A. |last2=Lyon|first24=M. A. |last2=McMahan|first25=M. |last2=Neu|first26=T. |last2=Sikkeland|first27=W. J. |last2=Swiatecki|first28=A. |last2=Türler|first29=J. T. |last2=Walton|first30=S. |last2=Yashita|bibcode = 1995PhRvC..51.2293G|issue=5 }}
{{
cite journal}}
: |first20=
missing |last20=
(
help); |first21=
missing |last21=
(
help); |first22=
missing |last22=
(
help); |first23=
missing |last23=
(
help); |first24=
missing |last24=
(
help); |first25=
missing |last25=
(
help); |first26=
missing |last26=
(
help); |first27=
missing |last27=
(
help); |first28=
missing |last28=
(
help); |first29=
missing |last29=
(
help); |first2=
missing |last2=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |action required from maintainer=
(
help)Howdy. I noticed that the bot did this again on June 27 here. I fixed it. Is there any kind of update when this bug might be fixed?-- Rockfang ( talk) 22:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
|journal=
but with |work=Behav Ecol
. What it should have done is change para work to para journal while keeping the value, to have |journal=Behav Ecol
. Instead it simply added |journal=Behav Ecol
. The old template tolerated this redundancy, but the new one (post-Lua) does not, creating a problem.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 18:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC){{ resolved}}
It seems to be impossible to guard against this type of problem, because the root cause is that the citation template parameters were not filled in properly. But this shouldn't be dismissed; if citations were always filled out perfectly then this bot would never be needed! I'm not sure if this was an automated change since the end of the edit summary seems to be cut off. If it was manually triggered by an editor than obviously that's that editor's fault for not checking the preview properly. In that case please let us know how to find out who the user is so that they can be informed. If it was an automatic change then I think the bot should be disabled for all such changes, especially if the maintainer is no longer active.
Quietbritishjim (
talk) 20:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I've now
blanked the parameters and hope this will stop a further automated edit. I wasn't expecting the citation bot to revisit the page, perhaps the bot should not re-edit pages it has already touched once?
Gareth Jones (
talk) 15:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
|last2=<!-- leave blank to exclude bad data -->
I'm not sure about leaving the parameter undefined.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 21:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
A correction request has been submitted to the ADS, we'll see if they correct their record. Meanwhile, something's odd about what happened with this, but it should work with this. I'll see if I can determine why they're treated differently. LeadSongDog come howl! 06:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC) {{ resolved}}
Can't replicate. Looks like a one-off data glitch.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 16:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC){{
Resolved}}
Content:text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
TY - JOUR AU - Milius, Susan TI - Botany under the mistletoe: Twisters, spitters, and other flowery thoughts for romantic moments JO - Science News JA - Sci News VL - 158 IS - 26-27 PB - Society for Science & the Public SN - 1943-0930 UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/4018592 DO - 10.2307/4018592 SP - 411 EP - 413 PY - 2000 ER -
This is a database error. JSTOR - to where this DOI links - sometimes provides duplicate dois. Try using the DOi from Wiley & Son.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 16:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Look, I'm sure I'll get an earful about why the hell I even bothered to add {{thinsp}} ( thinsp is a "thin space"). But whether or not that was a good idea, the bot certainly shouldn't do what it did -- no doubt this wanders into an unanticipated corner case in some regex.
<ArticleTitle>"No longer Gage": frontal lobe dysfunction and emotional changes.</ArticleTitle>
|title="No longer Gage": frontal lobe dysfunction and emotional changes.
as the value to be automagically inserted by the bot. Your version substituted &squot; for the leading ", presumably to improve legibility, but breaking the automatic check against published metadata. I note that of the published works citing that paper, many mangle the quotation marks in even stranger ways. This may be a special-enough case to be worth avoiding cite journal entirely, manually writing the cite doi subpage instead. The problem only arises when the title properly begins with a double quotation mark, invoking the substitution of the single...
LeadSongDog
come howl! 22:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
FYI: Any HTML entity is currently rendered without parsing in the COinS metadata:
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-000000AC-QINU`"'<cite id="CITEREFStussGowHetherington1992" class="citation journal cs1">Stuss, D. T.; Gow, C. A.; Hetherington, C. R. (1992). " 'No longer gage': Frontal lobe dysfunction and emotional changes". ''Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology''. <b>60</b> (3): 349–359. [[doi (identifier)|doi]]:[https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-006X.60.3.349 10.1037/0022-006X.60.3.349]. [[PMID (identifier)|PMID]] [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1619089 1619089].</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Consulting+and+Clinical+Psychology&rft.atitle=%26thinsp%3B%27No+longer+gage%27%3A+Frontal+lobe+dysfunction+and+emotional+changes&rft.volume=60&rft.issue=3&rft.pages=349-359&rft.date=1992&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1037%2F0022-006X.60.3.349&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F1619089&rft.aulast=Stuss&rft.aufirst=D.%26thinsp%3BT.&rft.au=Gow%2C+C.%26thinsp%3BA.&rft.au=Hetherington%2C+C.%26thinsp%3BR.&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AUser+talk%3ACitation+bot%2FArchive+2" class="Z3988"></span><span class="cs1-maint citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{[[Template:cite journal|cite journal]]}}</code>: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ([[:Category:CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list|link]])</span>
--
Gadget850
talk 15:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It's not easy for a novice to find the relevant documentation. It could be better integrated but I lack the time and skill. As a stopgap I suggest that something like the following be added as hatnotes (or whatever) to Template:Cite doi/subpage
EEng ( talk) 22:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
in Cancer and nausea, citation bot incorrectly added " |last=Schwartz" ( diff). This creates the somewhat confusing error message "More than one of |last1= and |last= specified". — Chris Capoccia T⁄ C 01:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
I've found a couple of pages that have a {{cite doi|10.2307/number}} that the citebot doesn't seem to be able to handle. 10.2307 is JSTOR. OTOH, if I change that to {{cite jstor|number}} it seems to be able to find the appropriate information and create the template. Any ideas? At least as of right now, Vetigastropoda is an example. I could change it to {{cite jstor|1306561}}, but I'm going to leave it there as an example for the moment. Naraht ( talk) 13:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Your bug report didn't say where you saw this problem, making it difficult for others to duplicate and diagnose. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
{{cite doi|10.4035/foo.bar.20130915}}
in an article and then Preview or Save your article, Citation Bot will come along in a short while and fill in that template for you using the citation information that exists at the web page of that doi. Citation Bot can sometimes also expand existing citations in articles using the "Expand Citations" Gadget, which you can add to your left-side Toolbox by enabling it in Preferences. I have not had much luck with expanding citations using this Gadget on articles, but it works very well for me on cite doi templates. Citation Bot does not just swoop in and fill in partial citations in articles after you have edited them.Please send your bot over there. I created a small problem. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 00:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help)
The ADS database record seems rather bizarre at
Bibcode:
2005JChPh.123c4103G, showing "pp. 034103-034103-7" for a 7 page article. Crossref just shows it as page 034103.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 18:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
This is user error. The DOI includes bogus hidden characters right before the / Try this:
Attention: This template ({{
cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1161/CIR.0b013e318214914f, please use {{
cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{
cite report}} with |doi=10.1161/CIR.0b013e318214914f
instead.
Looks like a
race condition (a.k.a.
wp:edit conflict). All four edits were inside a 4 minute window, and that is a large, extensively referenced article which takes quite a while to process. The bot didn't exactly undo your revert, it simply started from the same (vandalized) version as you did, and by the time it committed, you had jumped in with your quick revert. It's rare but it does happen. Unfortunately, it happens disproportionately often on these massive articles.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 13:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Looks like a race condition. nondeleterious. Don't think there's anything to be done.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 18:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I suppose the bug is arguably with the citation template?--
Elvey (
talk) 01:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I have a question about the edit summary of this edit by the bot: [106]. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the edit itself, and I'm not objecting to it in any way. However, the edit summary refers to an editor who is currently blocked, and so I have a question as to what the link to the username indicates. Does this mean that someone who is blocked can, nonetheless, activate the bot to make an edit? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
{{ Resolved}}
Another possible change, if the maintainer is unwilling to add this feature: Add a note like "(username not verified)" when the bot is not run by a logged-in user. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 03:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I think this is what's happening, anyway, based on the Version History of
Template:Cite doi/10.1152.2Fajprenal.00006.2008. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 23:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
|authors=
would be much more suitable in these cases.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 10:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
|author=
is an alias of |authors=
and the underlying template code treats them identically. Like it or not, there are large numbers of citations that contain a single author parameter that were generated for example using
Diberri's template filler tool. Other editors have then imbedded wiki links into the author lists. Not everyone likes to use verbose "first1, last1, ..." parameters. Using a single author parameter to store the author list is much more compact and less cluttered.
Boghog (
talk) 11:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
|last1=Doe
|first1=John
|authorlink1=John Doe (biologist)
|author2=United Nations Secretariat
|author3=Ban Ki-moon
|authorlink3=Ban Ki-moon
. See also
Template talk:Citation#Lastname, Firstname. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 11:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
The bot went wrong by removing the second of two references. The article uses a list of named references in the reference section between reference and /reference. The reference in the text can be referred to by name, but the full reference needs to be in the reference list.
StarryGrandma (
talk) 00:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Two different references with the same name seems to confuse the bot AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 04:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm just reporting a one off diff here, haven't looked into it much, but it wasn't pretty.
bridies (
talk) 13:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
The Citation bot does all sorts of horrible things with {{
cite pmc}}, but we closed those bugs when {{
cite pmc}} was deleted. Some one recreated {{
cite pmc}} for no good reason.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 02:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Example of bot destroying good stuff: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template%3ACite_pmc%2F112890&diff=531588177&oldid=530155864 AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 15:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Just use template bots | deny = citation bot to exclude the bot from a page.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 15:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
|authors=
, |author1=
/|author2=
..., |last1=
/|last2=
, and |coauthors=
. These mixes do not seem to be consistently resolved, either with the bot or manually. There should be a discussion on this question in a broader forum.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 14:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
(
talk page stalker) - It appears that the bot incorrectly deleted two instances of <ref name="foobar" />...</ref>
-
GoingBatty (
talk) 22:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your interest, but grouping the references is a bit premature as the article is only just starting. Please don't group the references in any of the other articles which I am currently in the process of creating because they are only drafts, at this stage. --
Rskp (
talk) 06:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
| status = {{ resolved}}
{{
cite news}}
templates had two of its parameters placed between valid HTML comment markers, i.e. <!--| archiveurl=
http://www.webcitation.org/5nospLAte | archivedate=February 25, 2010-->
the bot has taken the open-comment marker <!--
and decided it was "unused data", moved it after the close-comment marker
Does this systematically occur when going from, say, two digits to three? Or could it be that the data the bot is using is from a pre-publication version that has different pagination?
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 14:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
|pages=
parameter held a meaningful value, even if, as a single page number, it should actually have been in the |page=
parameter; but after the bot edit, it is no longer meaningful, because the number representing the end of the page range is lower than the number representing the start of the range. I have found out that the second example was probably supposed to be |pages=3–11
which suggests that it has been truncated; but using the same method on the first, I came up with |pages=87–96
which cannot become |pages=97–10
by simple truncation. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 22:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi there. This bot is blocked and inactive, as a result its bot flag will soon be removed to try and tidy up our list of accounts with bot flags. If you have any problems get in touch with me on my talk page! ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 10:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
{{ Resolved}}
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Redrose64 (
talk) 23:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Citation bot ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
see below
Accept reason:
Unblocked. Closedmouth ( talk) 14:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
A temporary fix is to add: "{{bots|deny=Citation bot}}" to the article. I strongly agree that full CS1 support needs to be implemented, but at the same time, blocking the bot is causing more problems than it solves. Boghog ( talk) 19:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
{{
bots|deny=citation bot}}
. -
DePiep (
talk) 08:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Quite simply: since the bot relies on {{ citation}} templates (basically, that was {{ citation/core}}, now Module:citation/CS1) it should comply with that one. It should not introduce errors because of this omission. Putting the load and responsibility on the invoking editor for this is incorrect attitude -- that is not why is is a bot. - DePiep ( talk) 08:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Citation bot ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Please also unblock User:Citation bot 1, which was missed when the above unblock request was actioned. This block is stopping me from fixing bugs! Thanks. Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 09:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Accept reason:
this one unblocked as well Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 21:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
-->
|author1=C.A.R.
. Wait for bot to restore it.
It added a large mess of text to the reference here [
[118]].
Bhny (
talk) 15:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
.citation-comment { display: inline !important; color: red; }
I've just noticed that this error happened to a citation, not to a cite book template. Apparently (or so it seems from the documentation) Citation Bot will not make such changes to cite book templates.
However, in the same article Citation Bot changed a bunch of cite book templates to citation templates. This opens the way for a two step corruption process in which on round one a cite book template is changed to a citation template, and in round two the citation template is corrupted by adding a review. SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 17:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC) Looks like a
Look, I'm sure I'll get an earful about why the hell I even bothered to add {{thinsp}} ( thinsp is a "thin space"). But whether or not that was a good idea, the bot certainly shouldn't do what it did -- no doubt this wanders into an unanticipated corner case in some regex.
<ArticleTitle>"No longer Gage": frontal lobe dysfunction and emotional changes.</ArticleTitle>
|title="No longer Gage": frontal lobe dysfunction and emotional changes.
as the value to be automagically inserted by the bot. Your version substituted &squot; for the leading ", presumably to improve legibility, but breaking the automatic check against published metadata. I note that of the published works citing that paper, many mangle the quotation marks in even stranger ways. This may be a special-enough case to be worth avoiding cite journal entirely, manually writing the cite doi subpage instead. The problem only arises when the title properly begins with a double quotation mark, invoking the substitution of the single...
LeadSongDog
come howl! 22:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
FYI: Any HTML entity is currently rendered without parsing in the COinS metadata:
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-000000D8-QINU`"'<cite id="CITEREFStussGowHetherington1992" class="citation journal cs1">Stuss, D. T.; Gow, C. A.; Hetherington, C. R. (1992). " 'No longer gage': Frontal lobe dysfunction and emotional changes". ''Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology''. <b>60</b> (3): 349–359. [[doi (identifier)|doi]]:[https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-006X.60.3.349 10.1037/0022-006X.60.3.349]. [[PMID (identifier)|PMID]] [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1619089 1619089].</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Consulting+and+Clinical+Psychology&rft.atitle=%26thinsp%3B%27No+longer+gage%27%3A+Frontal+lobe+dysfunction+and+emotional+changes&rft.volume=60&rft.issue=3&rft.pages=349-359&rft.date=1992&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1037%2F0022-006X.60.3.349&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F1619089&rft.aulast=Stuss&rft.aufirst=D.%26thinsp%3BT.&rft.au=Gow%2C+C.%26thinsp%3BA.&rft.au=Hetherington%2C+C.%26thinsp%3BR.&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AUser+talk%3ACitation+bot%2FArchive+2" class="Z3988"></span><span class="cs1-maint citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{[[Template:cite journal|cite journal]]}}</code>: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ([[:Category:CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list|link]])</span>
--
Gadget850
talk 15:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
<bump> I would really appreciate an answer per above. What I'm looking for is the precise test by which the bot decides whether or not it should overwrite existing data. Or is the code somewhere I can look at it myself? EEng ( talk) 13:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
-->
Thanks for the report; I'll aim to fix this in the next major release.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 05:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I suspect bad data on the far end. Also see my attempt to
create a cite doi template for the same article. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 03:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
-->
{{
resolved}}
It looks like all comments in references were replaced with the same text. I reverted the whole edit.
{{
Cite journal}}
which has been given several mutually-exclusive parameters: |first1=L.
|last2=Rawat
|author2=Rawat
|first2=M.
|author3=La Clair
|last4=Jothivasan
|last3=La Clair
|last5=Budiarto
|first3=J.
|author4=Jothivasan
|first4=K.
|last7=Claiborne
|author5=Budiarto
|last8=Helmann
|first5=T.
|last1=Newton
|last9=Fahey
|first6=J.
|author7=Claiborne
|last6=Hamilton
|author6=Hamilton
|first7=A.
|author8=Helmann
|first8=D.
|author9=Fahey
|first9=C.
Can you spell out the problem and desired outcome? At a cursory glance the above string doesn't seem to cause an error.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 14:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
{{ cite journal}} now uses the new Module:Citation/CS1 core. The new core has more error checking, such as duplicate parameters. See Help:CS1 errors. The older version of this citation was:
Newton, L.; Rawat, M.; La Clair, J.; Jothivasan, K.; Budiarto, T.; Hamilton, J.; Claiborne, A.; Helmann, D.; Fahey, C. (2009).
"Bacillithiol is an antioxidant thiol produced in Bacilli". Nature chemical biology. 5 (9): 625–627.
doi:
10.1038/nchembio.189.
ISSN
1552-4450.
PMC
3510479.
PMID
19578333. {{
cite journal}}
: More than one of |author2=
and |last2=
specified (
help); More than one of |author3=
and |last3=
specified (
help); More than one of |author4=
and |last4=
specified (
help); More than one of |author5=
and |last5=
specified (
help); More than one of |author6=
and |last6=
specified (
help); More than one of |author7=
and |last7=
specified (
help); More than one of |author8=
and |last8=
specified (
help); More than one of |author9=
and |last9=
specified (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
If you check the history, you will see that the bot added these duplicate parameters. -- Gadget850 talk 15:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
|class=foobar
matches |eprint=foobar/barboo
, then remove |class=foobar
. That would probably cover 99% of cases.
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books} 18:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)@Martin: Your idea is probably correct, but I think checking the existence of a slash is surer. Let me elaborate:
Arxiv.org uses two formats, the old one, and the new (i.e. current). In the old, eprint=<class>/<numbers>, and in the new, eprint=<numbers>, or more precisely, <YYMM.numbers>. Since it's two-digit YY, it'll sometime change, and that's the subtlety I indicated above.
In the old format (which had been used for papers submitted by some 2007), you shouldn't add the "class", or if one is already present, class should be deleted. -- Teika kazura ( talk) 02:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Here's a diff that shows what I mean. The original citation, created by an older version of the bot, limited the authors to nine (I understand why this happened). With the revised bot's wonderful ability to add more authors, using the citation expander tool to add more authors adds "last10" before the doi, then "first10" and the rest of the author params after the doi. It looks strange when you edit the template, though of course it renders just fine. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 01:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I used citation expander on about ten existing cite pmid templates with just nine authors, expecting to gain the remaining authors, and this is the only one that this happened to. The other ones expanded just fine. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 02:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
This seems to happen when there is an "author" parameter. When this happens and I remove the "author" parameter, replacing it with a blank "last1 =" and "first1 =" and run the citation expander again, it usually works fine. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 05:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Here's an example of this or a similar problem still happening. I thought that 449 was in production, but it looks like I'm still using 443. If you look at the subsequent history, you can see the manual changes I made to clean it up so that citation bot could fill it in cleanly. I don't know why this workaround works, but it does. It seems to happen only when something is unusual in the first author's parameter(s), like when "author" exists or "last" and "first" exist instead of "last1" and "first1". – Jonesey95 ( talk) 23:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Here's an example of this happening with a cite pmid template, with citation bot r458. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 23:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
This has been a bug as long as I have been using citation bot (3-4 months). The link at the top of the output page goes to the WP main page instead of to the template, and if there are no changes to the citation, there is no link to the template at the bottom of the page. The output in question appears to be produced in line 25 of expand.php. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 13:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
My question is simple: when was this bot approved for this behavior? Specifically, where was it discussed to have the bot run on new FAC nominations? With the US 23 example linked above, nothing visible was changed, but some extra spaces were removed. Is that not a violation of bot policy to only make changes if they'll be visible?
Imzadi 1979
→ 02:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Example article containing more than 30 authors. Cite doi template for this article is listed above. I have not looked at the XML at the doi's source to see if 30 authors is a limitation imposed by the article's XML itself, but it seems like a citation bot limit, since it happens with journals all over the place.
One note: This situation has the potential to put us in the same situation we ended up in with the "displayauthors" Lua error that appears on 11,000+ articles that have 9 authors listed in the cite journal template, so the enhancement, if implemented, should be done in a way that avoids splashing a bunch of red text all over the place. Ideally. I think. Or maybe that's what we want, once there is a fix, so that we can run the citation expander on those articles again and get the problem fixed. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 12:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I've tried to use the citation expander gadget to add remaining authors to this citation, but the bot appears to stop processing and generate a portion of the normal output without adding the authors. It looks like it is finding a graceful way to exit out of the code for some reason, but I don't think it should. I haven't seen this one before. I did note that there are curly braces in the title parameter. I don't know if that causes any problems. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 23:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Here's the output I get:
Establishing connection to Wikipedia servers ... Using account Citation bot. Fetching parameter list ... done. Welcome to Citation Bot Please wait while the Citation bot processes the page you requested. Activated by Jonesey95 Expanding 'Template:Cite_doi/10.1073.2Fpnas.0401080101'; will commit edits. Revision #443 [00:00:00] Processing page 'Template:Cite_doi/10.1073.2Fpnas.0401080101' — edit—history * Looking for bare references... * Tidying reference tags... - No references found. - No references found. ---- Blank page. Perhaps it's been deleted? ** Blank page retrieved. # # # End of output # # #
– Jonesey95 ( talk) 21:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
These work, however the adabs and doi URLs don't work if they are reframed to https protocol
LeadSongDog come howl! 13:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
|displayauthors=29
to these citations so that they will show all authors and remove the error message. I recommend a value of 29 instead of 9 or some other value because the 9-author articles should show all authors, and the unexpanded templates may eventually be able to expand to more than 9 authors, up to the current apparent limit of 30.Please wait while the Citation bot processes the page you requested. Activated by Headbomb Expanding 'OPERA_experiment'; will commit edits. Revision #442 [00:00:00] Processing page '[/info/en/?search= OPERA_experiment]' — [https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=OPERA_experiment&action=edit edit]—[https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=OPERA_experiment&action=history history]
[00:00:00] Processing page '[/info/en/?search=OPERA_experiment OPERA experiment]' — [https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=OPERA_experiment&action=edit edit] — [https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=OPERA_experiment&action=history history]
Note the first link (and the spacing of the emdashes).
Hasn't this been fixed in the latest version? How are you activating the bot?
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 09:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I mistakenly posted my experience of this bug in another section, but this
diff demonstrates the problem again. I'm not sure what consensus needs to occur for the solution. If "author" is specified, shouldn't the bot just refrain from adding "last" or "first" parameters?
Azaghal of Belegost (
talk) 18:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Can you suggest a protocol by which the bot can determine whether the pipe is genuinely part of the title paramete (so should be escaped as you suggest), or whether a user has mis-typed the following parameter — for example title = All about things | journal - Journal of Science
or title = All about things | <!-- url =
http://not.working.com -->
Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 09:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Please suggest a method by which the bot can distinguish institutional from human authors.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 07:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I think I've thought this one all the way through. There may be some nuance that I'm missing. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 21:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Fatal error: Call to undefined function expand() in /data/project/citations-dev/public_html/doibot.php on line 105
. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 00:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mesoionic may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 12:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Done. While you two bots were flirting, I fixed the bracket problem. Carry on. Don't let me interrupt. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 20:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Fixed in GitHub Pull 528
See
this edit. The bot seems to have forgotten to add |lastn=
parameters to match all of the |firstn=
parameters that it added. The bot added |author1=
and |last=
which are aliases of each other and as such, when present simultaneously in a citation, cause an error. I have reverted.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 03:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
|author
is already present. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 04:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)|pages=
when it should use |page=
and occasionally adds extraneous text: |journal=Astronomical Journal (ISSN 0004-6256)
. The ISSN belongs in |issn=
. The title of the journal is
The Astronomical Journal. And too much white space. I have fixed one of the mangled citations.{{
reflist}}
as part of |refs=
. It gets them out of the article text so makes reading in the edit window easier. I've moved the citation that I fixed as an example.
Are you activating the bot yourself, or is the bot jumping in and editing your article after you save it?
I believe that this is a page caching problem that exists for all quick-succession edits, not just edits by Citation Bot. I have experienced it when doing a manual edit of a cite doi template, followed a few seconds later by running Citation Bot using the "Expand citations" gadget in my Toolbox. The bot edits the previous version, ignoring my manual edits. Let's see if I can find it.... Maybe bugzilla:46014, and it looks like a patch has been developed for the MediaWiki software, presumably to be deployed at some future date. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 04:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
This bug is similar to one
reported above. The citation bot sometimes has trouble with citations when "author" parameters are present. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 15:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
|author4=Van Den Hoek Ostende LW
- but it was already present, in slightly different form, as |last4=Hoek Ostende
|first4=L. W.
|last4=
This is not a new error. To my certain knowledge it has come up many times before. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 18:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Assumed to be fixed in r505.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 16:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
{{{last|Voelker}}}
when according to both pubmed and crossref it should be satisfied with {{{last1|Bachert}}}
and {{{last5|Voelker}}}
. Fortunately in this particular case it doesn't matter, the template is never transcluded.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 20:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
the bot puts it right back!
Sorry. Duplicate of "Author was already present" and "Organochloride bad edit: spurious lastn parameters added" above. I agree: stop the bot now. It is causing a lot of work to be undone.
Quebec99 (
talk) 16:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
1: Tidy citation and try to expand
- Checking CrossRef for more details [DOItools.php/expand_from_crossref]
+ last2: Von Bohlen Und Halbach (ok)
- Searching PubMed... no results. 1 result found; updating citation
+ author2: von Bohlen und Halbach O
2: DOI already present
3: PMID already present
- Checking PMID 12845521 for more details [DOItools.php/get_data_from_pubmed]
+ author2: von Bohlen und Halbach O
4: Expand citation
- Checking CrossRef for more details [DOItools.php/expand_from_crossref]
+ last2: Von Bohlen Und Halbach (ok)
- No changes since last PubMed search.
5: Formatting and other tweaks
First: Cite Doi formatting [expand.php/expand_text]
+ first2: O.
{{ resolved}}
Improvement: The bot would be much better if ... Cosmetic: The bot modifies appearance (e.g. capitalization) but not content Inconvenience: Humans must occasionally make immediate edits to clean up after the bot Deleterious: Human-input data is deleted or articles are otherwise significantly affected. Many bot edits require undoing. Catastrophical: The bot should stop editing immediately -->
<noinclude>{{template doc|Template:cite_pmid/subpage}}</noinclude>
{{Documentation|etc.</noinclude>
Thanks for the detailed report; fixed.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 18:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it's better, just not fixed. See
this recent diff. Under line 64, it fails to recognize display-authors=3, and goes on to add displayauthors=30.
A tip: I could be totally wrong about this, but the r490 fix message log lists it in uppercase ("Displayauthors", not "displayauthors"). Case-sensitivity perhaps? meteor_sandwich_yum ( talk) 22:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
|last=
and |last1=
, which it should not do. It also created a template with exactly four editors without adding |displayeditors=29
, which it should do (see similar bug report above with more details). The bot also did not format the editors' names in the same way that it formats author names. The bot also left HTML markup in |title=
. It also failed to pick up all of the authors' last names.
<ref name="ReferenceA">
to <ref name="RailMagazine2007">
, which caused an error Cite error: The named reference ReferenceA
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page). which was not previously present.
The new version of the bot won't edit reference names. (It's too complicated.)
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 19:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Warning: session_start() [<a href='function.session-start'>function.session-start</a>]: Cannot send session cookie - headers already sent by (output started at /data/project/citations/public_html/text.php:9) in /data/project/citations/public_html/expandFns.php on line 3
Random warning message appears, twice at top of page being edited every time I use the Citation bot. --
Iamozy (
talk) 20:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Citation bot 2 created the following templates. I can't figure out why they were created in the first place, and I can't figure out why they were recreated after I CSD'd them. Time stamps are UTC-8.
Can you explain what happened here and how it might be prevented? – Jonesey95 ( talk) 23:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
|doi_inactivedate=2014-02-03 |doi_brokendate=2014-02-03
to this reference, which causes the error:
More than one of |doi_brokendate= and |doi_inactivedate= specified
Thanks for catching this. Boy, parameters seem to have proliferated whilst I wasn't looking!
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 07:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
It looks like there is no change in the rendered output or even the content of the citation. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 06:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
When running Citation bot on the citation
Pu H, Kobayashi Y, Lü J, Xu L, Wu Y, et al. (2013) An Unusual Basal Therizinosaur Dinosaur with an Ornithischian Dental Arrangement from Northeastern China. PLoS ONE 8(5): e63423. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0063423, the corresponding editor's name (Leon Claessens) gets appended, which contradicts convention and the Citation itself. Editors are standard when citing books and encyclopedia, but not in articles such as this. This vexing problem has arisen on other PLoS articles, please modify the code to not insert editor name.
It's been a while that I couldn't run the bot in the "edit" mode, i.e., after clicking "edit" on an article and a radio button "citations" at the bottom. This mode is most important for the bot, as it allows to preview changes before they are automatically saved (with potential errors, as done when clicking "expand citations"). Please restore this mode, or tell me if I miss something obvious. The error messages when trying to use this mode look like
Warning: session_start() [<a href='function.session-start'>function.session-start</a>]: Cannot send session cache limiter - headers already sent (output started at /data/project/citations/public_html/text.php:9) in /data/project/citations/public_html/expandFns.php on line 3
Materialscientist (
talk) 00:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I get this error message when running the bot from the toolbar on the left-hand-side:
- Internal error
- The URI you have requested,
http://tools.wmflabs.org/citations/doibot.php?edit=toolbar&slow=1&user=Josve05a&page=Quassinoid, appears to be non-functional at this time.
- Perhaps the webserver has temporarily lost its mind, or the link you've followed doesn't actually lead somewhere useful?
If you're pretty sure this shouldn't be an error, you may wish to notify the project administrators about the error and how you ended up here.
( t) Josve05a ( c) 17:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I can't run the bot on
Steve Jobs. Is it due to the fact that the article is semi-protected? (
t)
Josve05a (
c) 10:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Bot inserted "|first14=H.|[E.]|" instead of "|first14=H.|". Something bad happened with the accented character in this author's first name.
Here's the article in question. The 14th author is Hervé Tettelin.
It is possible that this bug has been fixed in a later revision of the bot. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 00:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Please make the Written to Example.
red agin, it is easier to see if the article has been edited that way. (
t)
Josve05a (
c) 10:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
{{cite web|url=http://www.ibo.org/school/search/index.cfm?programmes=&country=®ion=&find_schools=Find|url=http://www.ibo.org/school/search/index.cfm?programmes=&country=US®ion=&find_schools=Find|title=Find an IB World School|accessdate=June 18, 2013}}
to {{cite web|DUPLICATE_url=http://www.ibo.org/school/search/index.cfm?programmes=&country=®ion=&find_schools=Find|url=http://www.ibo.org/school/search/index.cfm?programmes=&country=US®ion=&find_schools=Find|title=Find an IB World School|accessdate=June 18, 2013}}
(chaning url to DUPLICATE_url)
It really can't delete the URL, since they are not the same and the bot has no way of knowing which one is better. Putting the DUPLICATE_url in the wiki makes it clear that there is a problem that requires human intervention.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 21:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I added {{cite doi|10.1086/663750}}
to my Sandbox page, clicked Preview, and then clicked "jump the queue" in the Preview mode. I like to do this so that I can create a cite doi template before saving an article with a new cite doi template. I received the following response from Citation Bot:
Welcome to Citation Bot Please wait while the Citation bot processes the page you requested. Revision #532 Establishing connection to Wikipedia servers ... Using account Citation bot. Fetching parameter list ... done. Expanding 'Template:Cite doi/10.1086.2F663750'; will commit edits. Page 'Template:Cite doi/10.1086.2F663750' not found. End of output # # #
I then created the cite doi template by hand, populated the doi parameter, and Citation Bot filled in the rest with no trouble. Something about the "jump the queue" link didn't work for me. This used to work just fine. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 22:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
if (!($authors = $this->get('author'))) $authors = $this->get('authors');
if (!($authors = $this->get('authors'))) $authors = $this->get('author');
Cheers, LeadSongDog come howl! 23:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
|number=
parameter is now listed as deprecated. Thus the bot's current behaviour – changing |number=
to |issue=
– is correct. Having resolved this issue, I am requesting that
User:Citation bot 1 is unblocked.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 10:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)|number=
get deprecated? As far as
Module:Citation/CS1 is concerned, |number=
is an active and valid alias for |issue=
and will remain so for the foreseeable future.|number=
as an alias of |issue=
in CS1 citations, I have undone the change made by Editor Smith609 to
Help:Citation_Style_1#Edition_identifiers with
this edit.Citation bot ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Please unblock User:Citation bot 1 (which shares this talk page). The bot was blocked because it was changing 'number' to 'issue'. It was unclear whether this was the correct behaviour. It has now been clarified that 'number' is a deprecated parameter and should be replaced with 'issue.
Decline reason:
Procedural decline: I hate to sound bureaucratic, but for unblock request tracking purposes, the unblock request MUST be made on that bot's individual usertalk page (been there, done that myself). Once the unblock is accepted, the redirect can be reinstated D P 14:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
The Original Barnstar | |
Thank you, you have been very helpful to me as a new user and contributor. Tonythetiger89 ( talk) 16:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC) |
At least in Germany, "H.-P." would be the canonical shortening. No whitespace is inserted, as this is a single first name, and there was no whitespace in it originally either.
Worse, the bot even undid my manual fix in this edit, probably triggered by adding the issue, a similar change happened in one where it added the ISBN. -- Chire ( talk) 10:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
The bot should add "displayeditors=29" if there are exactly four editors to avoid the Lua error described for exactly 9 authors above. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 23:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm wondering if this might be related to this edit [139] recently where the bot de-accented the characters from some names (I don't know if this is correct) but also completely lost the vowel in Guzmán, changing it to Guzmn. Metadox ( talk) 04:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Please would you actually fix some of these issues, or must I block the bot again? --
Redrose64 (
talk) 14:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
|year=2009-03-17
. The correct behavior would have been to change it to |date=2009-03-17
. I do not, though, understand why rev 442 is still running after all the subsequent code revisions that @
Smith609: has made.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 15:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
|date=
in |year=
problem. That aside, the citationbot could at least ignore an ISO date for endash conversion.
Rjwilmsi 17:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
|year=2009-03-17
was intended by the human editor as an ISO date, rather than a (malformed) year range, except by comparison with records in citation databases. Such a date range would, of course, call for the endash.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 18:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)|last11=Füssel
became |last11=Fussel
), inserted undesirable spaces (|first11=H.-M.
and |first15=J.-P.
became |first11=H. -M.
and |first15=J. -P.
), and capitalised a word which is not normally capitalised (|last15=van Ypersele
became |last15=Van Ypersele
. There was also no need to remove the linebreaks: that just makes comparison more difficult. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 18:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
|date=March 2009
, which would be consistent with other citations in those articles.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 20:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
|day=
parameter" (it's been deprecated for years). --
Redrose64 (
talk) 21:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
|date=
don't give a full date including the day, just give month & year. Or just give year in |year=
". Reason being that print journal publications came out weekly/monthly or less often, so issue number & month/year mattered, exact day did not. |day=
is long gone so it's not referring to that. However, now we have online-only or online first publishing, I'm particularly thinking of PLoS as a good example, the full date of publication is given on the website and it seems most sensible to give that. So while I agree with where the documentation was coming from, I'm not sure it's fully up to date for online/online first journal publications. Either way a full date or month & year lives in |date=
, not |year=
and the citation bot needs a bit more validation, year ranges could be checked to match nnnn-nnnn format before endashes applied. Now that we have the CS1 date errors category some cleanup will happen over time.
Rjwilmsi 22:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
|date=
value.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 14:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Please note that the ToolServer, on which the bot is hosted, is scheduled to be decommissioned on Jan 6th. I am in the process of transferring the bot to WikiMedia servers at
http://tools.wmflabs.org/citations/. If you can help, please let me know. Otherwise I will endeavour to complete the transition as soon as possible.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 17:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
! Function updateBacklog() in expandFns.php requires mysql support, not yet available on WMFlabs servers.
Backlog not updated.
(
t)
Josve05a (
c) 16:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
@ Jonesey95: not for me. Have you purged/cleared your cache? ( t) Josve05a ( c) 16:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I can't explain what happened here. Valid CS1 cite templates like "cite journal" and "cite press release" (and many others) were turned into "citation" templates. "author3=and others" was added to some citations. Blank |postscript=
was added to many citations.
Just to let you know that the new version of the bot has now gone live at http://tools.wmflabs.org/citations/. Users should not notice any difference, other than the resolution of many long-standing bugs. Please do be extra vigilant when initiating the bot (in case there's anything I've missed) and continue to report bugs here as usual. Cheers, Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 07:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC) |
This version is a substantial rewrite and has bugs that the old version did not have (see below). It's not just a bug fix version. Have you considered whether it might be appropriate to file a new BRFA in order to get a wider set of (willing) QA testers who can put the new code through its paces? I worry that you might be asked to undo large batches of Citation Bot changes that cause errors like the ones filed below, or that the bot might be stopped by a short-fused admin. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 22:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
e.g. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
That book review blog has the byline "staff blogger". I've removed the long list of authors that didn't belong.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 14:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
|trans_quote=
with |trans_chapter=
. |trans_quote=
is not valid, but |trans_chapter=
doesn't make sense as a replacement. |trans_chapter=
without |chapter=
creates a CS1 error, "Pages with citations using translated terms without the original".|trans_quote=
alone.|trans_quote=
alone.
Please add 'trans_quote' to the
list of supported parameters.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 08:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
|trans_quote=
is not a valid parameter. It properly produces an error. Changing it to |trans_chapter=
is not a good fix, since that does not match the original editor's intent. It should be left alone in the "unsupported parameter" category for a human editor to sort out. Thanks. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 02:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
-->
The code for Citation Bot 4 needs to be checked to ensure that, at a minimum, it is replacing only Module/CS1 templates with "citation". Please stop Bot 4 until this is done. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 15:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Related,
this edit. Bot breaks down three "authors" into last4,5,6 etc vice 1,2,3 in error.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 04:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
{{Cite jstor|30246725}}
. Citation Bot 2 appears to have created {{
Cite pmid/30246725}} based on that edit.
Get well soon Citation Bot. The bot also seems unable to process dois.
Blue Rasberry
(talk) 17:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
{{cite pmid|1980765}}
in my Sandbox, hit Preview, clicked "jump the queue", and the bot created the template just fine. I still can't click "jump the queue" to create a {{
cite doi}} template; I reported this error above. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 08:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)I don't know if this is the same bug, but when I click the Expand Citations gadget (or the Click here link in the template doc) in {{ Cite_doi/10.1111.2Fresp.12102}}, for example, the bot gives me minimal feedback and does not expand the template. Here's the output:
Revision #532 Establishing connection to Wikipedia servers ... Using account Citation bot. Fetching parameter list ... done.Activated by Jonesey95 Expanding ''; will commit edits. [21:22:16] Processing page '' — edit—history * 0 {{Citation}} templates and 0 {{Cite XXX}} templates identified. Using dominant template {{Cite XXX}}. # No changes required. # # # -[#TODO unhandled DB request]- End of output # # #
It doesn't do anything. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 02:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
|eprint=
, which does not appear to be valid|url=
with |eprint=
, which created two errors and one undesirable result in one citation. First, |format=
requires |url=
, so when |url=
went away, an error was displayed. Second, |eprint=
results in an "unsupported parameter" error. Third, the title link went away when |url=
was removed.|eprint=
and should not remove |url=
when it is present.|eprint=
and should not remove |url=
when it is present.
|arxiv=
, not |eprint=
, but in this case the arxiv parameter was already set correctly (and the url was completely redundant). The correct thing to do in this case was to convert url to arxiv, notice that arxiv was already present and matching, just delete the url, and also delete the no-longer-relevant |format=
. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 08:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
|url=
is useful because it links |title=
. If url is removed, title won't have a link. It has been stated elsewhere that readers are more likely to understand a linked title than a doi, pmid, pmc, or arxiv link. That seems a reasonable accommodation to me. I would delete the url only if it were likely to lead the reader somewhere unhelpful; that will take human judgment. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 15:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)Users of Citation bot might be interested in this discussion to delete the Cite PMID template family. Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 08:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
-->
Please would you actually fix some of these issues, or must I block the bot again? --
Redrose64 (
talk) 14:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
|year=2009-03-17
. The correct behavior would have been to change it to |date=2009-03-17
. I do not, though, understand why rev 442 is still running after all the subsequent code revisions that @
Smith609: has made.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 15:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
|date=
in |year=
problem. That aside, the citationbot could at least ignore an ISO date for endash conversion.
Rjwilmsi 17:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
|year=2009-03-17
was intended by the human editor as an ISO date, rather than a (malformed) year range, except by comparison with records in citation databases. Such a date range would, of course, call for the endash.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 18:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)|last11=Füssel
became |last11=Fussel
), inserted undesirable spaces (|first11=H.-M.
and |first15=J.-P.
became |first11=H. -M.
and |first15=J. -P.
), and capitalised a word which is not normally capitalised (|last15=van Ypersele
became |last15=Van Ypersele
. There was also no need to remove the linebreaks: that just makes comparison more difficult. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 18:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
|date=March 2009
, which would be consistent with other citations in those articles.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 20:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
|day=
parameter" (it's been deprecated for years). --
Redrose64 (
talk) 21:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
|date=
don't give a full date including the day, just give month & year. Or just give year in |year=
". Reason being that print journal publications came out weekly/monthly or less often, so issue number & month/year mattered, exact day did not. |day=
is long gone so it's not referring to that. However, now we have online-only or online first publishing, I'm particularly thinking of PLoS as a good example, the full date of publication is given on the website and it seems most sensible to give that. So while I agree with where the documentation was coming from, I'm not sure it's fully up to date for online/online first journal publications. Either way a full date or month & year lives in |date=
, not |year=
and the citation bot needs a bit more validation, year ranges could be checked to match nnnn-nnnn format before endashes applied. Now that we have the CS1 date errors category some cleanup will happen over time.
Rjwilmsi 22:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
|date=
value.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 14:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Please note that the ToolServer, on which the bot is hosted, is scheduled to be decommissioned on Jan 6th. I am in the process of transferring the bot to WikiMedia servers at
http://tools.wmflabs.org/citations/. If you can help, please let me know. Otherwise I will endeavour to complete the transition as soon as possible.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 17:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
! Function updateBacklog() in expandFns.php requires mysql support, not yet available on WMFlabs servers.
Backlog not updated.
(
t)
Josve05a (
c) 16:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
@ Jonesey95: not for me. Have you purged/cleared your cache? ( t) Josve05a ( c) 16:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
That book review blog has the byline "staff blogger". I've removed the long list of authors that didn't belong.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 14:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
At least in Germany, "H.-P." would be the canonical shortening. No whitespace is inserted, as this is a single first name, and there was no whitespace in it originally either.
Worse, the bot even undid my manual fix in this edit, probably triggered by adding the issue, a similar change happened in one where it added the ISBN. -- Chire ( talk) 10:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
I can't explain what happened here. Valid CS1 cite templates like "cite journal" and "cite press release" (and many others) were turned into "citation" templates. "author3=and others" was added to some citations. Blank |postscript=
was added to many citations.
-->
The code for Citation Bot 4 needs to be checked to ensure that, at a minimum, it is replacing only Module/CS1 templates with "citation". Please stop Bot 4 until this is done. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 15:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Related,
this edit. Bot breaks down three "authors" into last4,5,6 etc vice 1,2,3 in error.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 04:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Get well soon Citation Bot. The bot also seems unable to process dois.
Blue Rasberry
(talk) 17:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
{{cite pmid|1980765}}
in my Sandbox, hit Preview, clicked "jump the queue", and the bot created the template just fine. I still can't click "jump the queue" to create a {{
cite doi}} template; I reported this error above. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 08:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)I don't know if this is the same bug, but when I click the Expand Citations gadget (or the Click here link in the template doc) in {{ Cite_doi/10.1111.2Fresp.12102}}, for example, the bot gives me minimal feedback and does not expand the template. Here's the output:
Revision #532 Establishing connection to Wikipedia servers ... Using account Citation bot. Fetching parameter list ... done.Activated by Jonesey95 Expanding ''; will commit edits. [21:22:16] Processing page '' — edit—history * 0 {{Citation}} templates and 0 {{Cite XXX}} templates identified. Using dominant template {{Cite XXX}}. # No changes required. # # # -[#TODO unhandled DB request]- End of output # # #
It doesn't do anything. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 02:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
-->
Revision #532 Establishing connection to Wikipedia servers ... Using account Citation bot. Fetching parameter list ... done.Activated by LeadSongDog
Expanding 'Amyotrophic_lateral_sclerosis'; will commit edits. [01:28:06] Processing page 'Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis' — edit—history * 0{{ citation}}
: Empty citation ( help) templates and 0 {{Cite XXX}} templates identified. Using dominant template {{Cite XXX}}. # No changes required. # # # -[#TODO unhandled DB request]- End of output # # #
This despite presence of cite journal templates. LeadSongDog come howl! 01:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
pages
field.
It seems the bot has not processed an existing page since 11 Feb except for a few page-range hyphenation edits. Something went amiss with rev 535?
LeadSongDog
come howl! 08:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
This edit also did not space author initials. It should and always has, per
WP:INITS. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 06:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
|authors=
parameter exists for multiple authors. Placing multiple authors in the |author=
parameter suggests a user input error. The bot preserves output formatting whilst making metadata available to services that use it.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 08:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
|author=
populated with a comma-separated list of author names. This tool has been very widely used.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 22:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC){{cite journal |author = |year= |title= |url= |journal= |publisher= |volume= |issue= |pages= |doi= |pmc= |pmid= }}
{{cite journal |last= |first= |last2= |first2= |year= |title= |url= |journal= |publisher= |volume= |issue= |pages= |doi= |pmc= |pmid= }}
Can't reproduce: can you give an example of where the bot changes the English variety ( WP:RETAIN, quoted in report)? Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 19:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it's better, just not fixed. See
this recent diff. Under line 64, it fails to recognize display-authors=3, and goes on to add displayauthors=30.
A tip: I could be totally wrong about this, but the r490 fix message log lists it in uppercase ("Displayauthors", not "displayauthors"). Case-sensitivity perhaps? meteor_sandwich_yum ( talk) 22:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I am copying this section from the archive, because this bug is back in dev532. Please fix again. Thanks. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 05:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
|url=
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ac200974w?prevSearch=%255Bauthor%253A%2BWorkman%255D%2BNOT%2B%255Batype%253A%2Bad%255D%2BNOT%2B%255Batype%253A%2Bacs-toc%255D&searchHistoryKey=
(which is a correct and accepted url) to |doi=
10.1021/ac200974w?prevSearch=%255Bauthor%253A%2BWorkman%255D%2BNOT%2B%255Batype%253A%2Bad%255D%2BNOT%2B%255Batype%253A%2Bacs-toc%255D
(which is not accepted)|doi=
10.1021/ac200974w
(The DOI might be inactive but it is the "correct" DOI, and not the full string above.
It looks like the code that converts certain URLs to DOIs fails to strip the text after the DOI. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 23:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I got athis message when trying to reach some pages. I will list them as I find them below.
Pages
Message
Proxy Error The proxy server received an invalid response from an upstream server. The proxy server could not handle the request GET /citations/doibot.php. Reason: Error reading from remote server
( t) Josve05a ( c) 19:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
08:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Just to let you know that the new version of the bot has now gone live at http://tools.wmflabs.org/citations/. Users should not notice any difference, other than the resolution of many long-standing bugs. Please do be extra vigilant when initiating the bot (in case there's anything I've missed) and continue to report bugs here as usual. Cheers, Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 07:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC) |
This version is a substantial rewrite and has bugs that the old version did not have (see below). It's not just a bug fix version. Have you considered whether it might be appropriate to file a new BRFA in order to get a wider set of (willing) QA testers who can put the new code through its paces? I worry that you might be asked to undo large batches of Citation Bot changes that cause errors like the ones filed below, or that the bot might be stopped by a short-fused admin. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 22:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Your bot messed up.
[154] The reference was fine, it just adding nonsense.
Dream Focus 11:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Duplicate report: {{ resolved}}
|issue=
when |number=
was already present|issue=
when |number=
was already present
This edit created a "redundant parameter" error. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 17:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
| last=Russell | first=MJ | last2=Hall | first2=AJ | last3=Cairns-Smith
| first3=AG | last4=Braterman | first=PS |
| first4=PS |
, citation bot does this| last=Russell | DUPLICATE_first=MJ | last2=Hall | first2=AJ | last3=Cairns-Smith
| first3=AG | last4=Braterman | first4=P. S. | first=PS |
| last=Russell | first=MJ | last2=Hall | first2=AJ | last3=Cairns-Smith
| first3=AG | last4=Braterman | first4=P. S. | DUPLICATE_first=PS |
The value that the template sees is the last value listed. Your solution would thus change the appearance of the citation, which should be avoided unless necessary.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 13:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Template:Cite doi/10.5665.2Fsleep.1378 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ricky81682 ( talk) 08:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC) {{ resolved}}
This one could get you blocked, which would be unfortunate. Please desist ASAP. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 04:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
|accessdate=
at the various template/module/CS1 talk pages. At least:
|accessdate=
is not required for unchanging source material. B. Having an |accessdate=
on a citation to an "unchanging" source is not an actual error (i.e. it is not something that negatively affects the ability of the citation to perform its primary function of providing information pointing to the reference which supports the article text). C. There is certainly no consensus that removing an |accessdate=
with a valid date is appropriate at any time.|accessdate=
should be removed, it is not something a bot should be doing.
Bots are supposed to only do things for which there is a clear consensus. There is not such a consensus for removing |accessdate=
. Only performing actions for which there is consensus is one of the prime requirements for a bot.|accessdate=
is helpful in some circumstances even when it is in a citation to an unchanging source. —
Makyen (
talk) 18:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
|accessdate=
without a valid |url=
is not necessarily a clear error. Editors do crazy stuff, like putting URLs in |title=
or putting
url: instead of url=, or
adding an archiveurl without a url, or
adding a URL but forgetting the "url=". If a bot had removed |accessdate=
from any of those citations, it would have done so in error. You can quibble with my examples, but those are just edits I have performed in the last 24 hours. There are plenty more like them.
Among other reasons, the edits above show why there is no consensus for a bot to remove |accessdate=
from citations. I am not against a bot doing so after a consensus is reached, followed by a well-thought-out BRFA. None of that has happened yet, so the bot should not perform such edits. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 21:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
|website=
, an alias for |work=
, was used instead of |url=
, a mistake by an editor that needs human correction. I have made that correction.|accessdate=
from citations that had URLs without "|url=
", removing useful information.|nurl=
was populated with a valid URL. Again, a mistake by an editor that needs human correction.
|author=
and |coauthor=
in CS1 templates. Cleaned up now. I hope there are not many more like that?
LeadSongDog
come howl! 19:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)this edit was completely malformed- lots of "# # # Citation Bot : Template Placeholder 19 # # #". -- Pres N 20:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
|issue=
when |number=
was already present|issue=
when |number=
was already present
This edit created a "redundant parameter" error. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 17:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
| last=Russell | first=MJ | last2=Hall | first2=AJ | last3=Cairns-Smith
| first3=AG | last4=Braterman | first=PS |
| first4=PS |
, citation bot does this| last=Russell | DUPLICATE_first=MJ | last2=Hall | first2=AJ | last3=Cairns-Smith
| first3=AG | last4=Braterman | first4=P. S. | first=PS |
| last=Russell | first=MJ | last2=Hall | first2=AJ | last3=Cairns-Smith
| first3=AG | last4=Braterman | first4=P. S. | DUPLICATE_first=PS |
The value that the template sees is the last value listed. Your solution would thus change the appearance of the citation, which should be avoided unless necessary.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 13:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
|coauthors=
replaced with |authors=
incorrectly|coauthors=
with |authors=
in four places. In all cases, since there was already data in either |author=
or |first=
and |last=
, this created a duplicate parameter error. In the third edit, the bot properly parsed all the additional author names into |first#=
and |last#=
, but left them in |authors=
as well. I'm mystified as to why it only parsed the names in this one correction instead of in all of them.|coauthors=
with |authors=
, but instead deleting |coauthors=
and what it contains, since its contents will have been properly parsed.
This edit shows the same error. |coauthors=
should be replaced with |authors=
only if there are no authors already listed. There are currently no articles in that error category. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 23:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
|coauthors=
that you change the bot's |authors=
to |author2=
? That way the page gets fixed and doesn't have to be revisited. Just a thought.—
D'Ranged 1
VTalk 06:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)|author=
. Due to the difficulty of reliably parsing such data it would be better to leave it in a form that essentially flags it as having a problem. Searching for "author" or even "author2" could (and presumably does) include many valid instances, whereas "coauthors" effectively says "here be a problem!" As the bot can't fix these kinds of errors, I think it should not change the parameter, but leave it as a flag for a human editor. ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 22:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)Please fix this bug. Here is the bot wreaking havoc on a pile of citations that were minding their own business. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 20:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Smith609, I just fixed 19 of these errors that were created in the last 24 hours. I have posted here. I have notified the bot's owner on the owner's Talk page. I have e-mailed the bot's owner. I don't know what else to do to get this bug fixed. I don't want to stop this bot, because it is extremely useful, but this is getting old, and it should be easy to comment out this code.
The only reason I am seeing this bug is that the articles are being placed into
Category:Pages with citations having redundant parameters when there is already a |last=
and |authors=
is added. If |authors=
is already present and |coauthors=
is replaced with |authors=
, information (the first author/authors in the citation) will be silently removed from the rendered article. I have no way of finding that kind of damage. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 14:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
|coauthors=
renaming feature? The main code is
here. Thanks. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 04:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
|coauthors=
was removed from the bot's list of valid parameters. It will now be replaced with a supported synonym, |author2=
.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 15:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
|coauthors=
, I suggest leaving |coauthors=
alone. Will Citation Bot change |coauthors=
to |author2=
if |last2=
is already present? It should not, because it will create redundant parameter errors. Will Citation Bot ignore |coauthors=
within {{
citation}}
or when ref = harv
is present? It should, because it will break links from {{
sfn}}
references. This is why BRFA and test edits are a good thing. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 15:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)Template:Cite doi/10.5665.2Fsleep.1378 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ricky81682 ( talk) 08:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC) {{ resolved}}
This one could get you blocked, which would be unfortunate. Please desist ASAP. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 04:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
|accessdate=
at the various template/module/CS1 talk pages. At least:
|accessdate=
is not required for unchanging source material. B. Having an |accessdate=
on a citation to an "unchanging" source is not an actual error (i.e. it is not something that negatively affects the ability of the citation to perform its primary function of providing information pointing to the reference which supports the article text). C. There is certainly no consensus that removing an |accessdate=
with a valid date is appropriate at any time.|accessdate=
should be removed, it is not something a bot should be doing.
Bots are supposed to only do things for which there is a clear consensus. There is not such a consensus for removing |accessdate=
. Only performing actions for which there is consensus is one of the prime requirements for a bot.|accessdate=
is helpful in some circumstances even when it is in a citation to an unchanging source. —
Makyen (
talk) 18:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
|accessdate=
without a valid |url=
is not necessarily a clear error. Editors do crazy stuff, like putting URLs in |title=
or putting
url: instead of url=, or
adding an archiveurl without a url, or
adding a URL but forgetting the "url=". If a bot had removed |accessdate=
from any of those citations, it would have done so in error. You can quibble with my examples, but those are just edits I have performed in the last 24 hours. There are plenty more like them.
Among other reasons, the edits above show why there is no consensus for a bot to remove |accessdate=
from citations. I am not against a bot doing so after a consensus is reached, followed by a well-thought-out BRFA. None of that has happened yet, so the bot should not perform such edits. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 21:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
|website=
, an alias for |work=
, was used instead of |url=
, a mistake by an editor that needs human correction. I have made that correction.|accessdate=
from citations that had URLs without "|url=
", removing useful information.|nurl=
was populated with a valid URL. Again, a mistake by an editor that needs human correction.
|author=
and |coauthor=
in CS1 templates. Cleaned up now. I hope there are not many more like that?
LeadSongDog
come howl! 19:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)this edit was completely malformed- lots of "# # # Citation Bot : Template Placeholder 19 # # #". -- Pres N 20:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
I'm wondering if this might be related to this edit [157] recently where the bot de-accented the characters from some names (I don't know if this is correct) but also completely lost the vowel in Guzmán, changing it to Guzmn. Metadox ( talk) 04:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
last17=Schr|[Ouml]|Der
.
|trans_quote=
with |trans_chapter=
. |trans_quote=
is not valid, but |trans_chapter=
doesn't make sense as a replacement. |trans_chapter=
without |chapter=
creates a CS1 error, "Pages with citations using translated terms without the original".|trans_quote=
alone.|trans_quote=
alone.
Please add 'trans_quote' to the
list of supported parameters.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 08:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
|trans_quote=
is not a valid parameter. It properly produces an error. Changing it to |trans_chapter=
is not a good fix, since that does not match the original editor's intent. It should be left alone in the "unsupported parameter" category for a human editor to sort out. Thanks. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 02:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
|eprint=
, which does not appear to be valid|url=
with |eprint=
, which created two errors and one undesirable result in one citation. First, |format=
requires |url=
, so when |url=
went away, an error was displayed. Second, |eprint=
results in an "unsupported parameter" error. Third, the title link went away when |url=
was removed.|eprint=
and should not remove |url=
when it is present.|eprint=
and should not remove |url=
when it is present.
|arxiv=
, not |eprint=
, but in this case the arxiv parameter was already set correctly (and the url was completely redundant). The correct thing to do in this case was to convert url to arxiv, notice that arxiv was already present and matching, just delete the url, and also delete the no-longer-relevant |format=
. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 08:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
|url=
is useful because it links |title=
. If url is removed, title won't have a link. It has been stated elsewhere that readers are more likely to understand a linked title than a doi, pmid, pmc, or arxiv link. That seems a reasonable accommodation to me. I would delete the url only if it were likely to lead the reader somewhere unhelpful; that will take human judgment. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 15:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
|url=
is also useful when the DOI, PMC, PMID, or other identifier is incorrect. I have recently fixed dozens of citations with incorrect DOI, PMID, and PMC values. Removing the URL removes a reader's second chance to find the correct cited source. Please do not remove the URL. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 02:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Users of Citation bot might be interested in this discussion to delete the Cite PMID template family. Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 08:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC) {{ resolved}}
It was suggested (but not agreed to) in a
previous bug report, that if multiple authors are placed in a single field, the parameter name should be "authors" instead of "author". The above
diff demonstrates the following errors occur when the bot processes a citation where the full list of authors is stored in a single "authors" parameter:
| authorformat = vanc | author-separator = , | author-name-separator =  
". A much better solution is not to add the "first1, last1, ..." parameters in the first place (see below).|last=
|first=
are for a person and |author=
is for a committee, department or organisation. I have therefore avoided using |authors=
, |coauthor=
and |coauthors=
. --
79.67.241.76 (
talk) 00:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
|authorlink=
parameters are available for that. |authorlink=John Doe
|last=Doe
|first=J.
or |authorlink=John Doe
|author=Doe, J.
will both yield output that is visually identical to |author=
[[John Doe|Doe, J.]]
but emit clean metadata. It's all covered at
Template:Cite journal#csdoc_author. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 10:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
|last=International Council of Medical Journal Editors
Please point me to the page that documents the correct use of the 'authors' parameter so that I can update the bot's behaviour accordingly. – Template:Cite_journal#Usage (See Vancouver system citation of a scientific journal - Year ). The bot should not touch the 'author(s)' parameter or add additional "author1, author2, ..." or "first1, last1, first2, last2, ..." parameters if not asked to. Boghog ( talk) 14:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
<ref name="iauc5731">
{{cite journal | author=J. Ripero, F. Garcia, D. Rodriguez, P. Pujol, A. V. Filippenko, R. R. Treffers, Y. Paik, M. Davis, D. Schlegel, F. D. A. Hartwick, D. D. Balam, D. Zurek, R. M. Robb, P. Garnavich, B. A. Hong | year=1993 | title=Supernova 1993J in NGC 3031 | journal=[[IAU Circular]] | volume=5731 | pages=1 | bibcode=1993IAUC.5731....1R }}</ref>
into this<ref name="iauc5731">{{cite journal | author=J. Ripero, F. Garcia, D. Rodriguez, P. Pujol, A. V. Filippenko, R. R. Treffers, Y. Paik, M. Davis, D. Schlegel, F. D. A. Hartwick, D. D. Balam, D. Zurek, R. M. Robb, P. Garnavich, B. A. Hong | year=1993 | title=Supernova 1993J in NGC 3031 | journal=[[IAU Circular]] | volume=5731 | pages=1 | bibcode=1993IAUC.5731....1R | last2=Garcia | last3=Rodriguez | last4=Pujol | last5=Filippenko | last6=Treffers | last7=Paik | last8=Davis | last9=Schlegel }}</ref>
and I dread to think how many thousands of articles now have corrupted author lists. --
79.67.241.229 (
talk) 23:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)|last2=
|first2=
, etc, but one of those numbered entries contains a duplicate of the author name already previously specified in the |author=
parameter. --
79.67.241.229 (
talk) 01:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
When Citation Bot comes across something like this:
| last=Doe | first=John | author2=et al. |
it usually changes it to something like this:
| last=Doe | first=John | author2=et al. | last3=Smith | first=Dave |
It may be more useful if Citation Bot could detect the presence of [^a-z]et\ al[^a-z]
and produce
| last=Doe | first=John | REPLACED_author2=et al. | last2=Richards | first2=Mike | last3=Smith | first=Dave |
Likewise this:
| author=Doe, John; Richards, Mike; et al. |
is currently changed to this:
| author=Doe, John; Richards, Mike; et al. | last2=Richards | first2=Mike | last3=Smith | first3=Dave |
It may be more useful to see something like this:
| REPLACED_author=Doe, John; Richards, Mike; et al. | last=Doe | first=John | last2=Richards | first2=Mike | last3=Smith | first3=Dave |
In both cases the amended references would be complete. The now redundant original parameter could be manually removed later. -- 79.67.241.229 ( talk) 13:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
|coauthor=
and |coauthors=
deprecated. Looking forward to seeing |authors=
and |editors=
deprecated, and |author=
clearly defined as being intended for a single entry, not for lists of names. --
79.67.241.229 (
talk) 14:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)there have been multiple discussions on whether [CITEVAR] applies to these trivial aspects of internal formatting, and the discussions always end with a rough consensus that it does apply to basically anything and everything.
— User:WhatamIdoing
— diff
|author=
clearly defined as being intended for a single entry, not for lists of names – false. That change in the documentation was made fairly recently without wide consensus. Furthermore the current cite journal documentation (see
Template:Cite_journal#Usage, see Vancouver system citation of a scientific journal - Year ) clearly documents placing a list of names in a single author parameter. There is no reason to deprecate the author parameter.
Boghog (
talk) 15:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC){{ resolved}}
{{
and }}
.{{inconsistent citations}}
|isbn2=
to |issn=
|isbn2=
with |issn=
, creating an ISSN error.|isbn2=
, which already causes an "unsupported parameter" error and will be dealt with by a human editor. Changing |isbn2=
to |issn=
just confuses things.|isbn2=
to |issn=
.
When accessing https://tools.wmflabs.org/citations-dev/doibot.php?edit=toolbar&slow=1&user=Josve05a&page=Allies_of_World_War_I I get this message:
No webservice The URI you have requested, http://tools.wmflabs.org/?503, is not currently serviced. If you have reached this page from somewhere else... This URI is not currently part of any tool. If you're pretty sure this shouldn't be an error, you may wish to notify the project administrators about the error and how you ended up here.
What is worng? ( t) Josve05a ( c) 16:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
No webservice The URI you have requested, http://tools.wmflabs.org/citations-dev/doibot.php?edit=toolbar&slow=1&user=Josve05a&page=H_II_region, is not currently serviced. If you have reached this page from somewhere else... This URI is part of the citations-dev tool, maintained by Smith609. That tool might not have a web interface, or it may currently be disabled. If you're pretty sure this shouldn't be an error, you may wish to notify the tool's maintainers (above) about the error and how you ended up here. If you maintain this tool You have not enabled a web service for your tool, or it has stopped working because of a fatal error. You may wish to check your logs or common causes for errors in the help documentation.
( t) Josve05a ( c) 10:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if this is a bug in the bot or something on the far end. Clicking on the DOI in this template results in an article, but running the bot on it using the "Expand citations" gadget results in this:
Revision #543 Establishing connection to Wikipedia servers ... Using account Citation bot. Fetching parameter list ... done.Activated by Jonesey95 Expanding 'Template:Cite_doi/10.3233.2FSW-2012-0088'; will commit edits. [04:28:31] Processing page 'Template:Cite doi/10.3233.2FSW-2012-0088' — edit—history * 0 {{Citation}} templates and 1 {{Cite XXX}} templates identified. Using dominant template {{Cite XXX}}. * Expand citation: [..> process> rifydoi] . Checking that DOI 10.3233/SW-2012-0088 is operational... ! Broken doi: 10.3233/SW-2012-0088 - Checking AdsAbs database [..> process> yadsabs]: no record retrieved. [..> process> indpmid] - Searching PubMed... no results. nothing found. # No changes required. # # # -[#TODO unhandled DB request]- End of output # # #
|year=2010-11-2
to |year=2010–11–2
|year=
value
The bot inserted two endashes into |year=
, replacing hyphens. I presume that the bot has code looking for "YYYY-YY" in the year field and changes it to "YYYY–YY". That makes sense, but if the bot finds two dashes in the same field, it should either ignore the whole thing or (possibly) change "year" to "date", since the value was intended as YYYY-MM-DD, which needs to go in |date=
. The latter "solution" could end up with some buggy changes as well. It's probably better to just ignore this garbage, since it's already flagged with a CS1 date error. A human will get to it eventually. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 21:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
{{cite journal|pmid=12578157}}
is not processed even though {{cite pmid|12578157}}
is.
Thanks for the report. status =
Fixed in
GitHub Pull 567
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 11:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Physics articles are well known for having many co-authors, sometimes upto 100. Its standard practices just to list the first with et. al. It really does not help to list all authors as in the above diff.--
Salix alba (
talk): 18:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
|displayauthors=1
to the citation, which will display it as you desire. Unless it has a bug, Citation bot will respect that parameter. Adding authors to citations is a feature of Citation bot. If you want to keep the bot out of the article entirely, you can do so. Instructions are at
User:Citation_bot#Stopping_the_bot_from_editing. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 00:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |displayauthors=
ignored (|display-authors=
suggested) (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |displayauthors=
ignored (|display-authors=
suggested) (
help)In the first I've left it in, in the second I've removed it. Neither look ideal as the et al. should be before the name of the collaboration. Related to this is it seems have duplicated the second author, perhaps because it could not understand the first author.-- Salix alba ( talk): 13:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
* Expand citation: Towards sustainable solutions for fly ash through mechanical Activation [..> process> rifydoi] . Checking that DOI 10.1016/j.resconrec.2007.06.007 is operational... DOI ok. - Checking AdsAbs database [..> process> yadsabs] Match for pagination but database journal "Physics in Medicine and Biology" didn't match "journal = Resources Conservation and Recycling". [..> process> indpmid] - Searching PubMed... no results. nothing found.
Basically it appears that the bot is looking at the pmid and consulting a database to determine the journal title. Then does nothing.
{{ resolved}}
Please check line 897 of DOItools.php and line 690 of expandFns.php for apparent typos. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC) {{ resolved}} good catch, thanks Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 11:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
The bot did this edit in order to remove a red CS1 citation error that displays when there are exactly nine authors and no display-authors parameter. I do not know how the bot determined that "9" was the correct value; sometimes it inserts a value of "8" instead. I have added the parameter with a value of "8" in order to mimic the previous display without the error message. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 01:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
|encyclopedia=
on {{
cite encyclopedia}}
and adds a superfluous, duplicate |title=
.{{cite encyclopedia}}
cite.
Which is preferred? the |title=
or |encyclopedia=
? The {{cite encyclopedia}}
template documentation implies they are the same, and yet they display differently. Obviously the bot is getting the title from the ur.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 14:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
|article=
, |encyclopedia=
, and |title=
(and their aliases) (essentially a copy of the comments in the CS1 code):
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
:
|encyclopedia=
and |title=
then map |title=
to |article=
and |encyclopedia=
to |title=
|encyclopedia=
and |article=
then map |encyclopedia=
to |title=
|encyclopedia=
then map |encyclopedia=
to |title=
|trans_title=
maps to |trans_chapter=
when |title=
is re-mapped|encyclopedia=
, |title=
, and |article=
are not modified.{{cite enyclopedia}}
without |title=
but with |article=
and |encyclopedia=
.
The bot is still making this error. It leaves an auto-generated "too many author paramaters" warning in red in the references, ( example). I consider this a disruption to articles, an error is generated where there was none before, consequently I am blocking this bot. No idea how many of these errors the bot has generated, the bot's operator needs to sift through the bot's history and fix them all. Spinning Spark 18:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
|coauthors=
. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 05:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
{{Cite jstor|30246725}}
. Citation Bot 2 appears to have created {{Cite pmid/30246725}}
based on that edit.
Processing page 'Football records in Spain' — edit—history * 0{{Citation}}
templates and 82{{Cite XXX}}
templates identified. Using dominant template{{Cite XXX}}
. # No changes required. # # # -[#TODO unhandled DB request]- End of output # # #
This has been the case for several weeks but I thought that it would be reported by someone else and fixed by now.
I noticed this too. It was one of the best things about this tool.-- Auric talk 23:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I tried changing the Persondata template to be uppercase parameters as is normal for this template and Citation bot has left the article alone this time. However, it did previously change the uppercase version
[158]. No idea why Citationbot is changing the Persondata template anyway?
Periglio (
talk) 12:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Fixed error for
New France article. Bots are great until they mess up the article!
{{ Resolved}} Getting "user blocked error" when trying to run doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/48144 using template:cite doi (did it manually)
As an aside - when getting from Oxford Dictionary of National Biography the returned data lacks most fields and has to be manually entered. I assume this is the fault of the meta data being supplied from ODNB.
Prof.Haddock ( talk) 21:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
|title=
to |DUPLICATE_title=
in the absence of a second title parameter|title=
to |DUPLICATE_title=
in the absence of a second title parameter. That's how it looks to me, anyway.
This may have happened because |title=
existed in {{
cite web}} in the absence of |url=
. This citation is already flagged with a red error message, "|archiveurl= requires |url=", so Citation Bot does not need to take any action unless it can find a working URL for the article and insert it into the citation. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 00:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Also https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Pluto&diff=600741903&oldid=600677187
The bot converted |title=
to |DUPLICATE_title=
, then |url=
to |eprint=
. Neither 'DUPLICATE_title' nor 'eprint' are supported by the CS1 templates; unknown parameters have generated an error for quite some time. If the bot can't properly repair a citation, perhaps it should just tag it for manual processing. --
Gadget850
talk 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
|archivedate=
to |DUPLICATE_archivedate=
in the absence of a duplicate archivedate, causing an error message, in
this edit. Please fix. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 06:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
|title=
was converted to |DUPLICATE_title=
in the absence of a second |title=
. The word "title" did appear in a comment in the citation, FWIW. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 05:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC){{ resolved}} I've been working on getting the Citation parameters cleaned up for AWB and someone pointed me to your bot as well. I made an initial edit removing all invalid parameters that were on the list. Then I took the Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist and created a fresh list of parameters, with 99 authors and 45 editors, with all their attendant numbered options. I lowered the number of "given" and "surname" to 20; as I doubt they would ever be used 99 times in one citation; however, I've arranged the parameters in a way which I hope makes it easy to see what's there and what can be added. I started with the parameters that are all capital letters, followed by parameters using mixed case, followed by numbered parameters using mixed case, followed by lower-case parameters, and ending with numbered lower-case parameters. I hope you find this helpful!— D'Ranged 1 VTalk 04:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Citation bot ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have now updated the bot so that it runs the latest version of the software, which fixed the outstanding bugs. Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 10:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Accept reason:
|coauthors=
-related edits that I had previously undone, and the bot replaced |coauthors=
with |author2=
correctly in each case. I did notice that sometimes the "last edit" link in the Citation Bot output page linked to the edit before Citation Bot's edit instead of linking to Citation Bot's edit. A minor bug that happened about three out of six times. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 14:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Please note that month, coauthor and coauthors are deprecated. -- 79.67.241.255 ( talk) 23:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
This is a general summary of my observations from fixing these. |coauthor=
and |coauthors=
are hard to replace, due to the various list formats used. If the bot could detect which one, it could fix it. Otherwise, a human should do it. Common formats are these:
The last two are hard for a bot to fix, as the name may be an organization or have a different order for family names or titles, so they should probably be replaced with |author=
series rather than |first=
and |last=
series. There are also other hybrid formats, some using slashes or other symbols to separate authors, and organizations that don't have a "first" name so care is needed. Some citations only use |coauthors=
without listing any authors separately in other parameters, and others already have |author=
or |first=
and |last=
or even |author2=
or |first2=
and |last2=
or more, so the next author number would need detecting.
—PC
-XT
+ 05:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC) 05:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
|lastn=
|firstn=
should be used for persons and |authorn=
for committees, departments and organisations.|first=
or |first1=
contains the whole name, there is no |last=
or alias of, and the rest of the names are jammed into |coauthors=
in a long list.|first=John Doe
and tries to fix it, the end result is two parameters, but with the surname in both: |first=John Doe
and |last1=Doe
. Note they are widely separated in the template as can be seen in this
recent example. Separately look for each of these four parameters: | last1 = Parro | last1 = Keating | last1 = McKay | last1 = Schuerger |
. These particular examples have since been manually fixed, but there are many others out there. --
79.67.241.76 (
talk) 00:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
|first=
without |last=
followed by |coauthors=
is indeed somewhat common. Apparently, some editors think "first" means the same as |author1=
, perhaps due to the 1. Also, I have seen the surname repeated in both |first=
, after the given name, and |last=
, and doubted a human would do that so often, but didn't know which tool did it. It may be better for documents with doi or other identifiers to retrieve the author list and redo it from scratch. I often do that, myself, then compare changes before saving. Sometimes later authors are listed in a different order, but I don't think it would really matter to change to the doi order.
—PC
-XT
+ 05:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)|month=
can simply be deleted if it is empty or already in |date=
. If it is not in |date=
, it could be added, using |year=
if |date=
is empty. It sometimes is a number, 1 to 12, which should be converted to the month name for comparison or adding to |date=
. |day=
, which is also deprecated, can often be added to |date=
in a similar manner, if it is a number from 1 to 31.
—PC
-XT
+ 05:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC) 05:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
|month=
parameter within. --
79.67.241.76 (
talk) 00:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Sounds good to me! Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 05:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC) {{ resolved}}
Just a wild guess: Citation bot didn't like the comment it found in |doi=
. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 02:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
-->
The code for Citation Bot 4 needs to be checked to ensure that, at a minimum, it is replacing only Module/CS1 templates with "citation". Please stop Bot 4 until this is done. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 15:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
{{cite doi|10.1021/ja00521a034}}
displays:|doi=10.1021/ja00521a034
instead.{{cite doi|doi=10.1021/ja00521a034}}
displays:{{
citation}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
It may be that these templates can't be filled when there is more than one author in the cited journal article. There may also be something else going on here. This did not happen with the previous version (r543?) –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 06:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Citation bot made a bit of a mess in the Graphene article.
Starting with this reference, with all eight names stuffed in the "author" parameter
Revision 600716072 contained
<ref name=0909.1193>{{cite journal |author = Samuel Lara-Avila, Alexei Kalaboukhov, Sara Paolillo, Mikael Syväjärvi, Rositza Yakimova, Vladimir Fal'ko, Alexander Tzalenchuk, Sergey Kubatkin |year = 2009 |title = SiC Graphene Suitable For Quantum Hall Resistance Metrology |doi = 10.1038/nnano.2009.474 |journal = Nature Nanotechnology |volume = 5 |issue = 3 |pages = 186–9 |pmid = 20081845 |arxiv=0909.1193|bibcode = 2010NatNa...5..186T }}</ref>
[example1 1]{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Citation bot made
these changes and
Revision 601061881 contained
<ref name=0909.1193>{{cite journal |author = Samuel Lara-Avila, Alexei Kalaboukhov, Sara Paolillo, Mikael Syväjärvi, Rositza Yakimova, Vladimir Fal'ko, Alexander Tzalenchuk, Sergey Kubatkin |year = 2009 |title = SiC Graphene Suitable For Quantum Hall Resistance Metrology |doi = 10.1038/nnano.2009.474 |journal = Nature Nanotechnology |volume = 5 |issue = 3 |pages = 186–9 |pmid = 20081845 |arxiv=0909.1193|bibcode = 2010NatNa...5..186T |last2 = Lara-Avila |last3 = Kalaboukhov |last4 = Paolillo |last5 = Syväjärvi |last6 = Yakimova |last7 = Kazakova |last8 = Janssen |last9 = Fal'Ko |last10 = Kubatkin }}</ref>
[example2 1]{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Notice the number of last names has increased to ten, there are no first names, and the original eight authors continue to be listed in the "author" parameter.
I have
manually fixed the reference, amending back to 8 authors, using "last" and " first" for each and
Revision 601513133 contains
<ref name=0909.1193>{{cite journal |first=Samuel |last=Lara-Avila |first2=Alexei |last2=Kalaboukhov |first3=Sara |last3=Paolillo |first4=Mikael |last4=Syväjärvi |first5=Rositza |last5=Yakimova |first6=Vladimir |last6=Fal'ko |first7=Alexander |last7=Tzalenchuk |first8=Sergey |last8=Kubatkin |year=2009 |title=SiC Graphene Suitable For Quantum Hall Resistance Metrology |doi=10.1038/nnano.2009.474 |journal=Nature Nanotechnology |volume=5 |issue=3 |pages=186–9 |pmid=20081845 |arxiv=0909.1193 |bibcode=2010NatNa...5..186T }}<!-- sources differ --></ref>
[example3 1]The primary reason for the number of authors changing from 8 to 10 is that the orginal author list and article title in the citation were derived from the arXiv data but citation bot has subsequently used the author data from either the Bibcode, doi or PMID data when "correcting" the citation. A problem arises because the latter three identifiers point to a different article!
I have subsequently split the reference into two separate items and
Revision 605142634 contains
<ref name="0909.1193">{{cite journal |first=Samuel |last=Lara-Avila |first2=Alexei |last2=Kalaboukhov |first3=Sara |last3=Paolillo |first4=Mikael |last4=Syväjärvi |first5=Rositza |last5=Yakimova |first6=Vladimir |last6=Fal'ko |first7=Alexander |last7=Tzalenchuk |first8=Sergey |last8=Kubatkin |year=2009 |title=SiC Graphene Suitable For Quantum Hall Resistance Metrology |journal=Science Brevia |date=Submitted 7 July 2009 |arxiv=0909.1193 |doi=<!-- none --> |bibcode=<!-- none -->|PMID=<!-- none --> }}</ref>
[example4 1]<ref name="0909.1220">{{cite journal |last=Tzalenchuk |first=Alexander |last2=Lara-Avila |first2=Samuel |last3=Kalaboukhov |first3=Alexei |last4=Paolillo |first4=Sara |last5=Syväjärvi |first5=Mikael |last6=Yakimova |first6=Rositza |last7=Kazakova |first7=Olga |last8=Janssen |first8=T. J. B. M. |last9=Fal'Ko |first9=Vladimir |last10=Kubatkin |first10=Sergey |year=2010 |title=Towards a quantum resistance standard based on epitaxial graphene |journal=Nature Nanotechnology |volume=5 |issue=3 |pages=186–9 |arxiv=0909.1220 |doi=10.1038/nnano.2009.474 |bibcode=2010NatNa...5..186T |pmid=20081845 }}</ref>
[example4 2]{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
I am wary that citation bot may come back and attempt to add incorrect doi, Bibcode and PMID data to the first of these two references. Will using a commented <!-- none -->
for the value prevent that?
Does citation bot ever check that arXiv, doi, Bibcode, PMID and other identifiers actually all point to the same article? I am sure this isn't an isolated case. -- 79.67.241.210 ( talk) 12:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
|author-link4=
is a legitimate variant and works just fine. There was nothing incorrect about it.{{
citation}}
all evolved out of the muck in different ways, created by different groups of editors. It is therefore not surprising that there are differences. As all of these citations have further evolved they are becoming more and more alike but now we have an overabundance of parameters that are aliases of each other. All of these are fully synonymous: |authorn-link=
, |author-linkn=
, |authornlink=
, |authorlinkn=
, |subjectlinkn=
. Do we really need so many? When the list of pages with deprecated parameters is down to a more manageable level, then perhaps we can consider paring the list down to one or two aliases. My vote would be for |authorlinkn=
and it's hyphenated pal |author-linkn=
.|authorn-link=
and |authornlink=
seem the most logical. These parameters point to the single link for authorn. --
91.84.87.119 (
talk) 15:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)It's been disabled for over a week now. JMP EAX ( talk) 13:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
It seems that eventually it got to some of my work, but there are problems with titles and everything; the templates are created blank basically, with just the doi in them. See Interval (graph theory) for example. JMP EAX ( talk) 03:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
This is a bad way to source the fact that a book was published on a particular date, so it doesn't trouble me much that the bot makes it worse. Can't you find the same information somewhere more reliable and more suited to the purpose, such as worldcat? —
David Eppstein (
talk) 03:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Quite aside from the questionability of blindly converting "Citation" templates to "Cite", the conversion is f****** things up (I'm just a little pissed about this) and introducing garbage. Stop it! ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 21:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
|postscript=
is intended to ensure that no visible change is made to the citation postscript ("." or " " as the case may be). This could have the unwanted effect of an edit with no visible effect. The hidden wikitext added to draw human editor attention to the postscript was recently changed to
UTF-8 encoding, but I'm not sure why it was rendered visible. Clearly a bug, but the human editor invoking the bot should catch it easily if they're paying attention.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 15:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I think a better fix for this problem would be to simply not attempt to convert templates. To do so is a huge assumption, and a bot should not be trying to count the "dominant" form and then force everything to conformity. E.g., there is a place where I deliberately used a {cite} template where otherwise I was using predominately {citation} (at this point I don't recall why, but I felt it was justified). It is not for a stupid bot to do a mindless conversion based on mere arithmetic. If mixed citation/cite is really a problem then the most that the bot should do is collect a list for real editors to examine. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 20:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
It looks like maybe the bot is failing to check CrossRef for citation parameters. Just a guess. This is a new problem with dev575. The previous released version was working, except for the multiple authors bug. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 04:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
|doi=10.1109.2F32.126773
instead.|doi=10.1145.2F800152.804919
instead.|doi=10.1016.2Fj.scico.2009.10.007
instead.|doi=10.1145.2F2366145.2366191
instead.I blocked this bot as it was creating empty pages like here and here. Ruslik_ Zero 18:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Citation bot ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The bug that caused a user to block the bot has been fixed (revision 577). Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 09:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Accept reason:
I've unblocked the bot. Otherwise, for what's it worth, I consider blocking the bot to be a legitimate response to the malfunction. PhilKnight ( talk) 10:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Since the bot was moved from the Toolserver, I've managed to expand citations only a few times. In 99% of other cases I get a white screen (immediately), or some timeout screen (after some time). After the migration I've never managed to run the bot on a large article; the bot expanded a few cite doi templates for me, but even this function halts these days. Am I doing something wrong? I have the bot activated in gadgets, and in User:Materialscientist/monobook.js + User:Materialscientist/vector.js. Thanks. Materialscientist ( talk) 06:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
{{ Resolved}}
|work=
in the following diff, but it was marked as a duplicate.
Anyone know why this happened? Am I missing something? I reverted the edit, and it seemed to work fine in preview. I then also converted the template to {{
cite news}} before saving, in case that matters.
—PC
-XT
+ 04:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
How frustrating. Until I get the chance to look into this, you can replace 'citations/' with 'citations-dev/' in the URL to access a working version of this tool.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 07:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
This is a feature, not a bug. There were two |date=
parameters in the same citation. Citation bot renamed one of the parameters, which puts the article in
Category:Pages with citations using unsupported parameters for a human to fix. Citation bot should not simply delete one of the two parameters, because people sometimes put the access date in a duplicate date field. They sometimes do even stranger things. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 22:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
This is a feature, not a bug. There were two |publisher=
parameters in the same citation. Citation bot renamed one of the parameters, which puts the article in
Category:Pages with citations using unsupported parameters for a human to fix. Citation bot should not simply delete one of the two parameters, because people sometimes put something useful in a duplicate parameter. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 15:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Not a bug. That paper has two authors but whomever added the citation neglected to correctly identify them both. Citation bot has made that edit twice. Correctly. Perhaps you should look more carefully at what it is telling you.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 22:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
|last=
parameters in the same citation. Citation bot renamed one of the parameters, which puts the article in
Category:Pages with citations using unsupported parameters for a human to fix. Citation bot should not simply delete one of the two parameters, because people sometimes put something useful in a duplicate parameter. In this case, I changed the second |last=
to the proper |last2=
to fix the underlying problem. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 00:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
How frustrating. Until I get the chance to look into this, you can replace 'citations/' with 'citations-dev/' in the URL to access a working version of this tool.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 07:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
This is a feature, not a bug. There were two |date=
parameters in the same citation. Citation bot renamed one of the parameters, which puts the article in
Category:Pages with citations using unsupported parameters for a human to fix. Citation bot should not simply delete one of the two parameters, because people sometimes put the access date in a duplicate date field. They sometimes do even stranger things. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 22:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
This is a feature, not a bug. There were two |publisher=
parameters in the same citation. Citation bot renamed one of the parameters, which puts the article in
Category:Pages with citations using unsupported parameters for a human to fix. Citation bot should not simply delete one of the two parameters, because people sometimes put something useful in a duplicate parameter. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 15:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Not a bug. That paper has two authors but whomever added the citation neglected to correctly identify them both. Citation bot has made that edit twice. Correctly. Perhaps you should look more carefully at what it is telling you.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 22:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
|last=
parameters in the same citation. Citation bot renamed one of the parameters, which puts the article in
Category:Pages with citations using unsupported parameters for a human to fix. Citation bot should not simply delete one of the two parameters, because people sometimes put something useful in a duplicate parameter. In this case, I changed the second |last=
to the proper |last2=
to fix the underlying problem. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 00:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)|isbn=
with |DUPLICATE_isbn=
in {{
cite book}}, but |DUPLICATE_isbn=
does not appear to be a valid parameter, and an "unknown parameter" warning is shown (in the ref list).
This is a feature, not a bug. There were two |isbn=
parameters in the same citation. Citation bot renamed one of the parameters, which puts the article in
Category:Pages with citations using unsupported parameters for a human to fix. Citation bot should not simply delete one of the two parameters, because people sometimes put something useful in a duplicate parameter. In this case, the proper fix is to remove the redundant 10-digit ISBN in favor of the 13-digit ISBN. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 04:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
|isbn=
with |DUPLICATE_isbn=
in {{
cite book}}, but |DUPLICATE_isbn=
does not appear to be a valid parameter, and an "unknown parameter" warning is shown (in the ref list).
This is a feature, not a bug. There were two |isbn=
parameters in the same citation. Citation bot renamed one of the parameters, which puts the article in
Category:Pages with citations using unsupported parameters for a human to fix. Citation bot should not simply delete one of the two parameters, because people sometimes put something useful in a duplicate parameter. In this case, the proper fix is to remove the redundant 10-digit ISBN in favor of the 13-digit ISBN. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 04:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
|last12=Jäger |first12=Jäger
These edits will be a pain to identify and fix. Note that the problem is intermittent: the edit on Hassium includes both adding parameters (apparently) properly and adding parameters badly (i.e. this bug). {{ Nihiltres| talk| edits}} 20:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I was wondering if this bot adds the DOI if another id (e.g. JSTOR) and the standard information already exist. For example, several of the cites at Bargaining problem have JSTOR (and other info) but not DOI. If not, I would encourage the addition of this feature as the DOI is probably a safer long-term ID than JSTOR. Often times JSTOR doesn't list the DOI through its API for older articles, but crossref/guestquery has it. Thanks for the great bot! -- Bequw ( talk) 22:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
{{ notabug}}
Why has the bot recreated Template:Cite doi/n and Template:Cite pmid/n? Both pages were previously requested for speedy deletion as errors. Spinning Spark 07:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
{{ notabug}}
|year=YYYY
is used instead of |date=YYYY
(
example 1 (line 190),
example 2 (line 41)).|date=YYYY
should be used per
Template:Citation Style documentation#date.|date=YYYY
should be used per
Template:Citation Style documentation#date.
[ec] What is the bug here? That editors use "year=" rather "date="? That citation bot chokes on usage that we used to allow? I have never understood why "year=" was deprecated, in that there are dates that are validly only the year. As "date=" (presumably) can handle can such cases, why isn't "year=" just aliased to "date="? ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 21:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
|year=
has not been deprecated. Furthermore, the
Template:Citation Style documentation#date clearly documents cases where |year=
is required. Even in cases where it is not required, why fix something that isn't broke?
Boghog (
talk) 21:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)|year=
per the documentation? If not, then I don't see a reason to keep using |year=
. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
contribs ⋅
dgaf) 21:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)|year=
in which case it would be easier for editors to integrate the citation bot edited citation. Where was the consensus to change the documentation? Furthermore, what harm is caused by using |year=
? If the parameter value is a year, it is reasonable to use the more specific |year=
parameter. The bug is in the documentation, not the bot.
Boghog (
talk) 22:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)|year=
were to be deprecated and there were an active effort to convert |year=
to |date=
(via some other bot, presumably), it would be reasonable to ask this bot to stop adding |year=
to articles. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 01:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
This bug was fixed long ago. The edit history shows that these poorly-encoded author names were added in 2010. I blanked the authors and ran the bot again, which filled in the author names. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 16:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Category:Pages_using_citations_with_accessdate_and_no_URL looks ripe for the bot to fix things.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 00:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
|url=
or remove |access-date=
. Editors should try to determine why the citation has |access-date=
without |url=
. For example, the citation may never have had a |url=
, or |url=
may have been removed because it links to a site that violates the creator's copyright (see
WP:COPYLINK), or because |url=
was deemed to be dead and (mistakenly) removed. If the citation never had |url=
or it was removed for copyright violations, remove |access-date=
. When a dead |url=
has been removed, restore the |url=
and if possible repair it (see
WP:LINKROT).
Admittedly I don't know whether the error springs from the bot or from
Rjwilmsi whose username appears in the edit summary. Feel free to nuke this bug report if I've logged it in error.
--
Mathieu ottawa (
talk) 04:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
|source=
to |laysource=
(which is another matter, and not a problem, since there are only ever one or two citations on en.WP with |source=
erroneously entered by a human), but it did not replicate this old bug. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 14:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)|archiveurl=
and |archivedate=
This edit. ( t) Josve05a ( c) 09:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
This is not a citation bot bug. You are seeing an inadequacy in how diff works. Citation bot correctly populated the Cite arxiv template, as you can see in the "link showing what happens" that you provided. The Cite arxiv template does appear to have a small bug in it, however, in that it showed the "jump the queue" prompt even after the citation had been populated. I worked around that problem in the article by deleting some of the empty parameters. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 04:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
This really isn't a bot problem that if you include an invisible character AFTER the number that is not handled by {{
cite pmid}} or {{
cite jstor}}.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 03:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite doi}}
template is documented at
Template:Cite_doi#Formatting. The bot should fill in the {{
cite doi}}
template in accordance with the documentation. This bug report does not address the formatting of {{
cite journal}}
or other similar templates that the bot might work on within articles. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 17:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
{{ notabug}} https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template%3ACite_pmid%2F14623081&diff=622774160&oldid=622720893 (Full details to follow) Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 11:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
{{ wontfix}} Seems the bot doesn't recognise Umlaut (linguistics), or was I just unlucky? [168] FunkMonk ( talk) 10:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Just another note, while I appreciate the work done by the operator of this bot, maybe in the future if changes are made to an article on the main page (such as the
WP:TFA in this case), it may be best to have any bot edits checked manually. Especially as any errors will be so visible. --
Shudde
talk 02:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Diffs on my corrections on what the bot just did. When adding a second name, adding "Author2" instead of "last 2" and "first2" threw the Harv Ref into error mode. Also, on the Time Inc. article, there was no author, as writers don't always get a byline. The bot decided the publisher was also the author. — Maile ( talk) 18:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
|author=Staff writer
instead of |author=Staff
|first=writer
so that the citation renders without an extraneous comma between
Staff and writer. Alternately, it is common to do this: |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.-->
{{
wontfix}}
Hi. I just filed a bug here and the
pre-filled form is really rough. We should either dramatically improve the wiki bug reporting or we should switch to somewhere else (such as
Phabricator). Pre-filling the editing text area with {{
bot bug}}
and then mixing obscure template markup with HTML comments in a single blob really isn't acceptable. --
MZMcBride (
talk) 04:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is a bug or just me misunderstanding something, but pretty much every time I use the cite DOI template, the full page ranges are not given, only the first number, and I have to change it manually, as in here: [170] FunkMonk ( talk) 13:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Seems to depend upon the quality of the metadata. Many have full range. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 20:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC) {{ notabug}}
In
this edit the bot has removed accessdate=
from a number of citations with the edit note "[579]Removed accessdate with no specified URL". Whilst the citations altered do not have url=
parameters, they do have external links formed using doi=
. Should the bot, therefore, be removing access dates in these situations?--
DavidCane (
talk) 11:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
|access-date=
applies to ephemeral urls and only when those urls are identified in |url=
or |chapter-url=
and its aliases. External links created by identifiers like |doi=
, |pmc=
, |pmid=
, etc. are considered permanent so |access-date=
is not needed. And, when there is more than one of these permanent identifiers in a cs1|2 template, as is often the case, to which identifier would |access-date=
apply if it did apply to these identifier parameters?{{ notabug}}
I've added a section header.
Editor Ricky81682 wrote: However, if the update to
Module:Citation/CS1 has happened, there is no bug at all.
This is false. {{
dead link}}
should not be placed in |format=
. That is not a function of
Module:Citation/CS1 but is or was a function of Citation bot. An update to the module will have no effect on the bot.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 20:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Can you provide an example of an edit?
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 22:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
99.9% of the time what the bot is doing is correct. People almost never are linking to amazon content, they are linking to the book. I suggest you use [http:|text] instead and include a comment that this is a link to Amazon and not the book. Or, just block the bot on those pages.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 20:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
|publisher=Amazon
, it is sometimes legitimate, so the bot should not remove it wholesale. A human editor can do an search for insource:/\|\s*publisher\s*=\s*Amazon/
and fix the ones that are wrong; I get over 3,000 hits on that search string, so it could keep someone busy for quite a while. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 14:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the bot locates and tags the duplicate citation parameters, causing the citations in question to emit red error messages. Until the duplicate template parameter errors emit their own error messages (which is in the works, apparently), the bot's tagging makes it a lot easier to locate these otherwise hidden errors. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 01:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
{{
PDFlink}}
from CS1 citations. Most times {{PDFlink}}
is used as the value in |title=
but occasionally, editors have used it in |url=
so when the external link portion of {{PDFlink}}
is disassembled into |url=
and |title=
, there are now two titles. Initially, I simply commented out the title portion of the {{PDFlink}}
parameter but that draws no attention. So, on consideration I have adopted Citation bot's |DUPLICATE_title=
so that the change can be noticed and fixed.
{{ resolved}} I have just blocked the bot for misbehaving. Block can be lifted when cause is determined and bot is fixed. -- NeilN talk to me 03:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
{{ resolved}} This block has been lifted as of my time stamp. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 00:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
|eprint=
, which was supposedly fixed in r572|eprint=
, which is not a valid parameter in {{
cite journal}}
|eprint=
It looks like the bug that was fixed in r572 was the removal of a valid URL for citations sourced in the arXiv database. The bot is still adding |eprint=
, however, which I believe is valid in {{
cite arxiv}}
but not in {{
cite journal}}
. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 06:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
In this edit the bot deleted the entire article text. Zero talk 03:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
This seems like a feature request. I would not expect an accessdate unless url and only url were used, since a "chapterurl" is not necessary (even in an ebook) for identifying the work. Even for a "bookurl" I'd be awfully skeptical. This one requires further discussion regardless IMO. --
Izno (
talk) 00:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I can confirm, encountered this today.--
RoadTrain (
talk) 10:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Back in March 2014 this bot change {{ cite DNB}} to {{ Citation}} this was a mistake see diff], and if this Bot is to resume this bug needs fixing. -- PBS ( talk) 18:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
{{ fixed}}
I just ran my sidebar Citation Bot link (called "Expand citations") to try to expand {{ Cite doi/10.1063.2F1.455515}}. It ran, but the Results page has lots of links to test.wikipedia.org instead of to en.wikipedia.org. This is the link in my sidebar when I am on that template's page. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 00:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
In the square brackets at the start of the bot's edit summary, it says "[Revision]". It should have a revision number here, I believe. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 02:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
References to SVN have now been cleared out of the code, and the fix has been merged into the running bot: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Lise+Meitner&diff=prev&oldid=683372161. -- Fhocutt (WMF) ( talk) 21:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
No longer does it
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 13:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
This bug has already been reported in
#Butchered author names,
#duplicated last name,
#Creating spurious fields for last name of editors, yet it is still happening.
[177]
[178] Please disable the bot until it is fixed. It should be easy to check for commas or semicolons in the author
parameter.
KateWishing (
talk) 13:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
|vauthors=
parameter will soon be added to {{
cite journal}} (see
discussion). If an author list contains only commas as punctuation, it is likely to be formatted in the
Vancouver system. In these cases, it would be appropriate for the bot to rename |author=
to |vauthors=
instead of adding redundant author parameters. One of the arguments for not supporting multiple authors in a single author parameter in {{
cite journal}} was that it was not documented. |vauthors=
will soon be documented hence there are no more excuses for not fixing this bug. The problem of course is that this bot is no longer supported.
Boghog (
talk) 03:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Re: this edit to Supernova. Thanks! ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ contribs ⋅ dgaf) 12:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Is there any other bot that can be used for inserting citations, even temporarily, as long as the Citation Bot is down? Especially PMIDs and DOIs? Thanks! Peteruetz ( talk) 15:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
|firstn=
, |lastn=
parameters. This can be written and displayed more compactly using the new |vauthors=
parameter:|vauthors=
as an answer for "HNoA" problems is you then run afoul of CITEVAR. While I favor giving coauthors some visibility, where there are more than about a dozen there is much to said for an "et al.". Or even "Abramowski and 226 others". ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 21:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC){{ resolved}}
@ Smith609: The WMF Community Tech team is interested in trying to help fix Citation bot (as requested at the All Our Ideas survey). Two questions: Would you actually like us to help fix it? Do you have any suggestions for where to start? Ryan Kaldari (WMF) ( talk) 00:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
I believe that I have made the changes requested before bot re-activation. Please go ahead and test it.
What are the next steps to getting Citation bot unblocked? -- Fhocutt (WMF) ( talk) 21:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
On Monday:
^ @ Materialscientist and Xaosflux:
Good to see the bot back and alive and getting it up is now {{ resolved}} cool! AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 15:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, when I try to use the cite PMID shortcut, I receive the following message (though the citation does not expand)
Improvement: The bot would be much better if ... cite PMID functions were appropriate -->
Please advise, thank you. Plumpy Humperdinkle ( talk) 08:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
There is no way to know until you try. Some work, some don't. Either the data is in crossref or not. Remember that {{ cite jstor}} was just a wrapper for {{ cite doi}} AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 01:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
There are ongoing discussions (mostly parallel but since each one is argued as separate consensus, separate) regarding the use of (A) Template:Cite wdl (which creates subpages for a wrapper of cite web) here; (B) Template:Cite pmid (which is a wrapper for cite journal either in-article or via pages at Category:Cite pmid templates) here; and (C) another RFC at Template:Cite doi (a cite journal wrapper with almost 60k pages at Category:Cite doi templates) here. There are unique wrinkles to each one but basically all three discussions concern whether to deprecate these templates or not. Please comment there if everyone could. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 06:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I was in List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 1869 and clicked "jump the queue" on reference #5, an incomplete DOI citation. Instead creating {{ cite doi/10.1093/ref:odnb/36519}}, Citation Bot ran on the whole article. It is supposed to run only on the Cite DOI template. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 00:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
|work=
and "Henry Thuillier" into |title=
. I don't know if that is possible given the metadata that is available. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 02:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
If this is still an issue, please discuss:
Thank you. -- Fhocutt (WMF) ( talk) 23:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
The new bot puts parameter values on the line following the parameter when the parameters are laid out vertically. It should put the values on the same line as the parameter, leaving the existing line breaks in place. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 02:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
If this is a bug then it is a bug in the citation JavaScript that puts the button there and not the bot. The back button in JavaScript and editing windows is pure evil and I have seen this with other tools.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 23:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I believe this is intentional. Read the full discussion above.
Lithopsian (
talk) 14:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Re-running does not repair the broken_doi errors (with me). Blocked to avoid potential damage, hoping this will be fixed/resolved soon. Materialscientist ( talk) 00:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Suggestion: before marking a doi as inactive, the bot could verify it at dx.doi.org/[doi number] rather than the crossref database. Materialscientist ( talk) 07:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
This is still happening. Here Ealdgyth - Talk 12:08, 28 April 2015 (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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
URLs like like "
http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.4523" should be tidied up to |id=
{{
arxiv|0710.4523}}
AKA
Should become
Also {{ cite web}} with a URL that matches an arxiv preprint should be converted to {{ cite arxiv}}
AKA
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)Should become
{{
cite arXiv}}
: |class=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
|arxiv=SOMETHING
— due to recent changes in the {{
cite journal}} and {{
citation}} templates |arxiv=
is now a separate parameter so we don't need to go through the |id=
parameter. Also www.arxiv.org and xxx.lanl.gov are the same as arxiv.org without the www. The SOMETHING part may have a couple of different formats: either yymm.nnnn or archive/identifier, but I think it's easier just to treat it as a atomic unit. There are some rarer access paths (
two of them in here) and some other mirror sites but that should at least get most of them safely. Urls that do not have the "/abs/" or "/pdf/" parts in them should be avoided. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 23:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Here's the full list of mirrors:
The regex I used to match them is \|(\s*)?url(\s*)?=(\s*)?http://(www\.)?(|au\.|br\.|cn\.|de\.|es\.|fr\.|il\.|in\.|jp\.|ru\.|tw\.|ul\.|aps\.|lanl\.|xxx\.)?(arxiv|lanl)\.(org|gov)/(abs|eprint|pdf)/
.
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books} 18:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Likewise a bare <ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.4523</ref> or <ref>[http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.4523]</ref> should be converted to <ref>{{cite arxiv|eprint=0710.4523}}</ref> Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
|0123456789=
|id={{
ASIN|0123456789|country=fr}}
|id={{
ASIN|0123456789|country=uk}}
{{ resolved}}
|bibcode=1998MNRAS.301..787L
.I think most of this was covered at User talk:Citation bot/Archive 1#Bibcodes 2, but I don't know how refined the logic was so I'm reposting it. Also, the "articles.adsabs.harvard.edu" url might have been missed in the midst of the discussion. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC) {{ resolved}}
|jstor=1424736
.|jstor=3562296
Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC) Not sure whether converting bare URLs to references would be covered by existing bot request? If not, please feel free to make a request for this function. Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 23:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC) {{ resolved}}
User input needed. This bug has been marked as needing user verification.
|
Not sure that it's possible to convert from Title Case to Sentence Case, or desirable to convert in the opposite direction. Thoughts?
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 23:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite doi|doi:10.xxxx}}
or {{
cite doi|
http://dx.doi.org/10.xxxx}}
, the bot uploads the template at {{Cite doi/doi:10.xxxx}} or {{Cite doi/http:.2F.2Fdx.doi.org.2F10.xxxx}}. The bot should first clean {{
cite doi|doi:10.xxxx}}
/{{
cite doi|
http://dx.doi.org/10.xxxx}}
to {{
cite doi|10.xxxx}}
, then upload at {{
cite doi|10.xxxx}}
User input needed. This bug has been marked as needing user verification.
|
Yup. See [ [3]] again. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
This should be useful for the bot. I chose the "endnote", since it returns the full name of the journal, but there are other formats. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite journal|bibcode=1998ApJ...502..538B}}
(for example) on
Gravitational microlensing and the
bot failed to expand the citation.
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books} 12:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)Although the journal field gets cluttered with weird stuff and it missed a few (like .
Bibcode:
2001A&A...375..701D. {{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)).
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books} 19:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Because arxiv use :s in their XML, the bot couldn't extract the journal or DOI. I've worked around this in r289.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 03:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Awesome. I didn't test it yet, but would it be possible to assign priorities to databases? Like CrossRef > ADSABS> arXiv.org? As in, if you find a doi in the arXiv.org database, query CrossRef with the DOI first, if that fails, query ADSABS with the DOI, and only then use the other information from Arxiv.org? I'm mentionning this because data from ArXiv.org tends to be the crappiest, and CrossRef seems to give the best. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Examples:
Old link was:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-9002(197008)7%3A2%3C508%3AOAR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Y
Bot changed to: jstor=197008) -- note trailing parenthesis
Actual correct short url:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3211992 -- No, I don't know how you're meant to work that out either.
Old link was:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-4851(197212)43%3A6%3C%3AAR1%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1
Bot changed to: jstor=197212) -- again, note trailing parenthesis
Actual correct short url:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2240189 -- again, seems to be no way to determine this.
Note that http://www.jstor.org/pss/197008, which the new link resolves to if you take the bracket away, goes to a completely different article in a completely different journal.
Is this true even if a webpage is cited with
Template:Citation?
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 18:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
|url=
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1998MNRAS.301..787L
(which I've seen a few times), and then someone (bot, script, human) later cleaned up the url into |bibcode=1998MNRAS.301..787L
. We've gone a bit off topic; the citation bot should NOT remove URLs just because they are dead, nobody should be doing this (need to look for correct URL if moved / mirror / archive link but not just drop URL). Removal of |accessdate=
when a URL is converted to an identifier is fine and a sensible housekeeping step.
Rjwilmsi 14:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
|nested=yes
" did not prevent damage, nor did it cleanup anything other than the edit window. This was raised many times, and you kept doing it against consensus. Removing |accessdate=2005-06-28
from an article without a url however, it not such an edit. If there's no url, but there's an accessdate, when another editor comes along and adds a URL without noticing or updating the existing accessdate field, you have a false accessdate that is displayed. That is why accessdate should be cleaned up, unlike the |nested=yes
which got your AWB access revoked. Were it up to me, I'd have sent a bot (and not a human with AWB, per the watchlist thing) to nuke the |nested=yes
from talk pages templates, however regardless of my personal position on the issue, the community doesn't like these low-value edits when done on their own.Its not a digression when a concern is raised about policy. Just because you don't like the policy doesn't mean you don't have to follow it. But I won't post here again because its obvious that knowone cares. So it seems policy is only policy when we want it to be and perhaps this is a WP:IAR scenario. -- Kumioko ( talk) 04:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Also
[9] for Nature DOI & Bibcode.
Rjwilmsi 09:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
where {{
cite book}}
is intended", but I won't. If a citation has an ISBN the bot should not add data pertaining to a publication in a serial, with a possible exception where that citation appears in an article that is in
Category:Books. If the input data provides ambiguos key data (such as title and author only) but searches find both a target with an ISBN and a target with a serial title or ISSN then it would not hurt to explicitly flag the bot-added wikitext for human consideration. Another option is to show {{
cite book}}
{{
cite journal}}
), though there could be objections to that on
wp:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT grounds.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 17:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
The example given for this bug was
{{citation|last=Shirley|first=John W[illiam]|title=Thomas Harriot: A Biography|location=Oxford|publisher=[[Oxford University Press|Clarendon Press]]|year=1983|isbn=978-0-19-822901-8}}
which the bot changed to
{{citation|last=Shirley|first=John W[illiam]|title=Thomas Harriot: A Biography|location=Oxford|journal=Journ. History of Astronomy V.17|volume=17|pages=71|publisher=[[Oxford University Press|Clarendon Press]]|year=1983|isbn=978-0-19-822901-8|bibcode=1986JHA....17...71D}}
If instead the entry had been
{{cite book |last=Shirley|first=John W[illiam]|title=Thomas Harriot: A Biography|location=Oxford|publisher=[[Oxford University Press|Clarendon Press]]|year=1983|isbn=978-0-19-822901-8}}
the ambiguity would not have been there in the first place. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
and {{
cite book}}
take almost the same parameters as each other, and display similarly-named parameters in almost the same manner (punctuation being the main difference). As regards specifics, {{
cite book}}
allows both |trans_title=
and |trans_chapter=
whereas {{
citation}}
doesn't, conversely,|journal=
and its four synonyms) which cite book doesn't. It is the presence of any one of |journal=
, |periodical=
, |newspaper=
, |magazine=
or |work=
which causes {{
citation}}
to use the "journal" format; if all five are absent, it uses the "book" format. A smaller matter is that if you want harvard referencing to link, and you're not intending to use a custom link (ie |ref={{
harvid|...}}
), you must provide an explicit |ref=harv
to cite book, whereas that is the default action for citation. Apart from those {{
citation}}
and {{
cite book}}
primarily differ in some very minor ways such as the separator between the various items of information. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 11:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC) amended
Redrose64 (
talk) 13:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
of |journal=
or its synonyms is not the same as an active entry saying "this is a book I'm citing". Use of {{
cite book}}
provides that additional bit of information. The problem can also be seen as the ambiguity of |title=
which may be used to mean an entire book or a single letter to the editor of a newspaper in the same {{
citation}}
.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 20:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}} 21:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
This link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/magazine/06Economic-t.html causes the bot to hang in Mainstream economics. Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 14:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Fixed in GitHub Pull 334
$title = preg_replace(array('/[`‘’]/u', '/[“”]u/'), array("'", '"'), $title);
or something somewhere in your code.
Ucucha 11:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
$str = preg_replace('~̵[679];|[\x{2039}\x{203A}\x{2018}-\x{201B}]|&[rl]s?[ab]?quo;~u', "'", $str);
. I'm stumped. Suggestions welcome!
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 23:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
-->
-->
I can't reproduce this. Does it work now?
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 22:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Those diffs seem to be the result of near-simultaneous edits by the bot and a human (note the timestamps), which MediaWiki doesn't always handle well. I don't think much can be done about this problem.
Ucucha 03:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Speaking of that, this edit does look like a preventable error. Presumably the page size exceeds the bot's buffer. Ucucha 13:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
You probably need to add the u
pattern modifier to some preg_replace call.
Ucucha 10:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
This is not fixed; see this recent edit. nb - seems to work fine using IE on a windows box, but not using Firefox 3.6.18 on Mac OS 10.6.7 pablo 13:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)Kirthi V, Derry S, Moore RA, McQuay HJ (2010). Moore, Maura (ed.). "Aspirin with or without an antiemetic for acute migraine headaches in adults". Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 4 (4): CD008041.
doi:
10.1002/14651858.CD008041.pub2.
PMID
20393963.{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Derry S, Moore RA, McQuay HJ (2010). Moore, Maura (ed.). "Paracetamol (acetaminophen) with or without an antiemetic for acute migraine headaches in adults". Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 11 (11): CD008040.
doi:
10.1002/14651858.CD008040.pub2.
PMID
21069700.{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Actually, doing a conversion to {{ cite cochrane}} might be better.
{{
cite journal}}
: External link in |coauthors=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Apparently this is the same bug as affected
Ilium_(novel); bug reports combined.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 00:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template%3ACite_doi%2F10.1098.2Frstb.1985.0005&diff=prev&oldid=434588043 - Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 13:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC) {{ resolved}}
I've found that this is the same error as reported above with t article
Artificial intelligence. -
Salamurai (
talk) 06:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
{{
resolved}}
I didn't realise that placing spaces between "name = 'Playfair'" was legit. The bot now allows for this behaviour.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 23:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing.
Ucucha 00:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
{{
resolved}}
The
bot says DOI 10.1111/j.1096-0031.2009.00255.x at
Mollusca is "broken", but it works perfectly. Please fix the bot and rmv the linked "edit" note. --
Philcha (
talk) 21:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
The bot made a bit of a mess of my citations on
2 April. It erased about 50 citations and credited them all to one source. Could you revert what it did, and I'll redo the edits I made today? Thanks,
Yoninah (
talk) 16:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment That's a really, really bad use of |id=
.
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books} 18:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
{{
resolved}}
I have not tried to read the source code, but from this page and the actions of the bot, I infer that the logic for handling authors is to count how many authors were specified by the editor (if any), count how many authors are specified in the database, and examine the editor-specified authors for a few special cases, such as a trailing "et al." It is presumed that if the editor specified fewer authors than the database, and didn't specify "et al.", he must have forgot and more authors should be added, and further, that the first editor-specified author matches the first database-specified author, etc.
I regard this behavior as dangerous. The bot is drawing conclusions about parameters it can't actually interpret (the editor-specified authors). If the number of authors specified by the editor does not match the number specified by the database, and the last author does not contain "et al.", the bot could add a category and comment indicating there is a citation that needs manual attention, but should not try to "fix" it. The only entries that should be fixed are those that have no creators listed (no authors, editors, translators, or any similar designation). Jc3s5h ( talk) 11:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I have no knowledge of bots, but this edit just made things worse. Cheers, Huldra ( talk) 03:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi there. Someone pointed me to this edit, which I am assuming is an edit-conflict error? Anyhow, just thought you should be aware. Cheers, 28bytes ( talk) 20:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
See Special:Contributions/Citation bot. Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 19:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC) {{ resolved}} - Fixed in GitHub Pull 391
Here, the bot changes page=109 to pages=21-4. That makes no sense. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
See [17]. What gives? Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
See [18]. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
|origdate=
isn't a valid parameter name.
Rjwilmsi 07:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC){{ resolved}}
I see now that the ref that the bot named Rynasiewicz already had the same material as an existing ref that had already been misnamed as Rynasiewicz. I have corrected manually-- JimWae ( talk) 20:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
|pages=S08007–S08007
|pages=S08007
|author=
even if the displayed result is unchanged and meta data becomes available.
Rjwilmsi 10:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC){{ resolved}}
Please describe what happens and what should happen, so that I can understand the problem.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 21:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
<ref name="Holland1909" />
links. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 22:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
|language=
The full template prior to the bot edit was as follows:
{{cite journal |last=Dossena |first=G |authorlink= |year=1954 |month=January |title=Quello che la medicina deve ad Agostino Bassi |language=Italian |trans_title=Debt of medicine to Agostino Bassi |journal=Rivista d'ostetricia e ginecologia pratica |volume=36 |issue=1 |pages=43–53 | publisher = | location = | issn = | pmid = 13168166 | bibcode = | oclc =| id = | url = | language = | format = | accessdate = | laysummary = | laysource = | laydate = | quote = }}
The |language=
parameter occurs twice, but only the first instance has a value. It is a feature of MediaWiki template expansion that should any named parameter occur more than once, all are ignored except the last one. So, |language=Italian
|language=
is exactly equivalent to |language=
and therefore the rendered appearance before and after the bot edit would be the same. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 19:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Same thing happened here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Turner_syndrome&diff=prev&oldid=444016097 --
Openmouth (
talk) 07:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
{{
resolved}}
The documentation for {{
Cite book}} contains the example "pages=100–110" while the documentation for {{
Citation}} contains the example "pages=153–61". There does not appear to be any standard about how to format such page ranges, and it is wrong for the bot to create a standard where none exists.
Jc3s5h (
talk) 15:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
LeadSongDog, you stated "It's pretty clearly just following the source." If by that you mean it is using the page range as stated in Pubmed, or some other database, then it's doing the wrong thing, and should leave any page or pages parameter entered by an editor alone. That's both a matter of style, and a matter of substance, because it may not be appropriate to list all the pages that the article occupies. Jc3s5h ( talk) 17:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
If by that you mean:
- does not consume resources unnecessarily
- performs only tasks for which there is consensus
- carefully adheres to relevant policies and guidelines
That's something of a reach to "not annoy editors". Or am I looking at the wrong set of bullets?
Anyhow, I just quickly reread all the approvals, and the discussion of what to do with the basic citation parameters doesn't seem to have been very explicit. You seems to have spent more attention on the basic questions such as whether bare urls should be replaced. Still, you certainly seem to feel strongly about this, for whatever reason. I'll just drop the stick and move away. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
{{ resolved}}
I don't know if this happens frequently or not, but it might be worth looking into why the bot did this and whether it can be prevented from doing it.
{{ resolved}}
{{
resolved}}
I undid your edit because it said you fixed the problem I pointed out, but it wasn't fixed. Maybe you can try again. Arkmanda ( talk) 04:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
{{ resolved}}
Concerning
Function 10, does that mean the bot adds something like |url=
http://dx.doi.org/foobar/
? Or does it add something like |doi-free=yes
?
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books} 03:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Thanks for the quick fix.
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books} 17:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
{{
resolved}}
I've tested things pretty extensively, and this regex cleans absolutely everything flawlessly. I highly-recommend you add this to an article "pre-cleaning" logic that would kick in before doing queries and whatnots.
Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
|jstor=
is not listed as a parameter for
Template:Cite news. I've tweaked the regexp so that this format will be okay in {{
cite journal}} (etc.) templates.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 18:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
{{
resolved}}
The Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll page has a lot of messy references on it, so it is possible that something else is triggering the deletion of the London Gazette template (note; it's not doing them all; 8 out of 11. Of course, I may be missing something in what I was trying to do.
See this; it's another article that was using the same approach of template:London Gazette in a template:reflist. While the article was using the same approach, I ran citation bot on it and it did nothing. Good luck, Victoria and Albert ( talk) 00:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC) {{ resolved}}
{{
resolved}}
{{
cite journal|pmc=foobar}}
is not expanded
Example that I should have checked is Epidemiol Infect. 1992 August; 109(1): 1–22. PMCID: PMC2272232, which isn't an antique PDF only PMC target and has
citation_pmid as 1499664 in the meta tags. Existence of a PMCID doesn't guarantee the existence of a PMID and Diberri's template filler at least requires finding the PMID to populate the data. Note that this case happens mainly on older articles — 1960s and earlier.
RDBrown (
talk) 05:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
ref name = bare_url? http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Film_pull&action=historysubmit&diff=450311078&oldid=450310741 Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 15:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC) Fixed in GitHub Pull 402 Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 19:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC) {{ resolved}}
Sample had two LDR entries "ilo" and "ilo2", otherwise identical. Former had two inline callout instances [2a, 2b], latter had one [6]. Bot deleted both LDR definitions and converted [6] to [2c], eg <ref name "ilo" /> LeadSongDog come howl! 18:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC) {{ resolved}}
{{
resolved}}
{{reflist | group = lower-alpha | refs = {{#tag:ref | Experimental data for BB-1 and BB-2 was lumped together and the rounded average calculated.<ref name="Bryan1901" /> | name = range }} }} {{reflist | refs = <ref name="Bryan1901"> {{cite doi|10.1111/j.1559-3584.1901.tb03372.x}} </ref> }}
in the above, the bot changed the entire ref-definition using {{ cite doi}} to <ref name="Bryan1901" /> leaving the citation undefined and spilling red in the article. This edit took things in another direction—moved cite def out of reflist and invoked it with {{ sfn}}—and the bot isn't offering to change the page at all, now (which is fine). — Portuguese Man o' War 07:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
The sentence being supported.{{#tag:ref |Experimental data for BB-1 and BB-2 was lumped together and the rounded average calculated.<ref name="Bryan1901b"> {{cite doi |10.1111/j.1559-3584.1901.tb03372.x }}</ref> |group="foots" }} == Bot incorrectly combines multiple references == {{bot bug | title = Bot incorrectly combines multiple references | status = {{tl|resolved}} | reported by = [[User:Nick Thorne|<font color = "darkblue">'''Nick Thorne'''</font>]] [[User talk:Nick Thorne|<font color = "darkblue"><sup>''talk''</sup></font>]] 04:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC) | type of bug = Deleterious<!-- Please select one of: Improvement: The bot would be much better if ... Cosmetic: The bot modifies appearance (e.g. capitalization) but not content Inconvenience: Humans must occasionally make immediate edits to clean up after the bot Deleterious: Human-input data is deleted or articles are otherwise significantly affected. Many bot edits require undoing. Catastrophical: The bot should stop editing immediately --> | what happens = Bot incorrectly combines separate inline references to different page ranges within a source to only one page range. This makes complete nonsense of the references. <!-- and/or: --> | what should happen = Leave these references alone | link showing what happens = [http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Timeline_for_aircraft_carrier_service&curid=18976493&diff=453554448&oldid=444016821 here] | how to replicate the bug = | waiting for = Consensus<!-- User: Input from editors Consensus: Agreement on the best solution Operator: Bot operator's feedback on what is feasible Maintainer: A specific edit to the bot's code is requested below. --> | action required from maintainer = <!--specific details--> }} <!-- Discussion starts below this line --> The problem here is that the same ref name was in use for two different page ranges: *<code>21 February — {{HMS|Implacable|R86|6}} laid down.<ref name="ches-128-129">Chesneau (1998), pp.128–129</ref></code> *<code>December — HMS ''Indefatigable'' decommissioned.<ref name="ches-128-129">Chesneau (1998), pp.134–139</ref></code> --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#d30000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 08:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC) == Error in journal article title == {{bot bug | title = Error in journal article title<!-- Brief description to display in section header --> | status = {{tl|Resolved}} | reported by = [[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 22:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC) | type of bug = Inconvenience: Humans must occasionally make immediate edits to clean up after the bot | what happens = The bot changed the title of a journal article to the title of a ''different'' journal article that was cited on the same page. | link showing what happens = [https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Opioid_receptor&action=historysubmit&diff=455282882&oldid=455277152] | how to replicate the bug = | waiting for = Consensus<!-- User: Input from editors Consensus: Agreement on the best solution Operator: Bot operator's feedback on what is feasible Maintainer: A specific edit to the bot's code is requested below. --> | action required from maintainer = <!--specific details--> }} <!-- Discussion starts below this line --> :The cite for Ingoglia had the wrong PMID and the PMC and DOI for the wrong PMID, which I've now fixed for you. The bot picked up the title off those identifiers. [[User talk:Rjwilmsi|<font color="darkgreen">'''''Rjwilmsi'''''</font>]] 07:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC) ::Thanks! That certainly explains it. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 20:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC) == Enacted small enhancements == *<s>Missed reference combination opportunity ([http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Grisellatheca&diff=prev&oldid=425207413 example]) [[User:Smith609|Martin]] '''<small>([[User:Smith609|Smith609]] – [[User_talk:Smith609|Talk]])</small>''' 18:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)</s> {{fixedin|351}} *<s>NB seems to break when trying to expand endnote templates, for instance http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template:Molluscan_diets&oldid=425855201. [[User:Smith609|Martin]] '''<small>([[User:Smith609|Smith609]] – [[User_talk:Smith609|Talk]])</small>''' 17:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)</s> *<s> Some URLs are crashing the bot, in articles [[Sexually_dimorphic_nucleus]], [[Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome ]], and [[Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans]]. [[User:Smith609|Martin]] '''<small>([[User:Smith609|Smith609]] – [[User_talk:Smith609|Talk]])</small>''' 01:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)</s> {{Fixedin|355}} [[User:Smith609|Martin]] '''<small>([[User:Smith609|Smith609]] – [[User_talk:Smith609|Talk]])</small>''' 01:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC) *Pipes in titles with cite web? e.g. {{cite web | url=http://www.meteorologynews.com/2009/10/29/cloud-streets-photographed-over-gulf-of-mexico/ | title=Cloud Streets Photographed over Gulf of Mexico: Gallery of Cloud Streets Images | Meteorology News | accessdate=2009-10-29}} [[User:Smith609|Martin]] '''<small>([[User:Smith609|Smith609]] – [[User_talk:Smith609|Talk]])</small>''' 16:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC) **To me, that should be formatted as {{para|title|Cloud Streets Photographed over Gulf of Mexico}} {{para|work|Meteorology News}}. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#d30000; background:#ffeeee">Red</span>rose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 20:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC) *(Also e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Trevor_Linden&diff=prev&oldid=434161461 and http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Turn_Left_(Doctor_Who)&diff=prev&oldid=434585064) {{fixedin|374}} * In press page ranges may be denoted | pages = n/a–n/a . See {{Cite journal | last1 = Leliaert | first1 = F. | last2 = Verbruggen | first2 = H. | last3 = Zechman | first3 = F. W. | title = Into the deep: New discoveries at the base of the green plant phylogeny | doi = 10.1002/bies.201100035 | journal = BioEssays | volume = 33 | issue = 9 | pages = 683-692 | year = 2011 | pmid = 21744372| pmc = }}.[[Special:Contributions/192.75.204.31|192.75.204.31]] ([[User talk:192.75.204.31|talk]]) 15:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC) * "| Volume: 12 " and "| Issue: 12" are replaced by "Volume = : | unused_data=12". [[User:Smith609|Martin]] '''<small>([[User:Smith609|Smith609]] – [[User_talk:Smith609|Talk]])</small>''' 14:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC) *NB still rearranging citation parameters: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template%3A+Cite+doi%2F10.2307.2F2400629&diff=prev&oldid=425351739 [[User:Smith609|Martin]] '''<small>([[User:Smith609|Smith609]] – [[User_talk:Smith609|Talk]])</small>''' 15:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC): This was in r338; cannot replicate now. [[User:Smith609|Martin]] '''<small>([[User:Smith609|Smith609]] – [[User_talk:Smith609|Talk]])</small>''' 22:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC) *Remove leading zero ({{diff2|424890924|example}}). [[User talk:Ucucha|Ucucha]] 18:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC) *:{{fixedin|374}} [[User:Smith609|Martin]] '''<small>([[User:Smith609|Smith609]] – [[User_talk:Smith609|Talk]])</small>''' 13:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC) == Suggested small enhancements == *NB http://toolserver.org/~verisimilus/Bot/DOI_bot/category.php?cat=Refs_for_Citation_Bot is down. [[User:Smith609|Martin]] '''<small>([[User:Smith609|Smith609]] – [[User_talk:Smith609|Talk]])</small>''' 19:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC) == Dead bot == {{bot bug | title = The bot is dead | status = {{tl|resolved}} | reported by = [[Special:Contributions/70.137.134.91|70.137.134.91]] ([[User talk:70.137.134.91|talk]]) 09:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC) | type of bug = <!-- Please select one of: Improvement: The bot would be much better if ... Cosmetic: The bot modifies appearance (e.g. capitalization) but not content Inconvenience: Humans must occasionally make immediate edits to clean up after the bot Deleterious: Human-input data is deleted or articles are otherwise significantly affected. Many bot edits require undoing. Catastrophical: The bot should stop editing immediately --> | what happens = <!-- and/or: --> | what should happen = | link showing what happens = | how to replicate the bug = | waiting for = Consensus<!-- User: Input from editors Consensus: Agreement on the best solution Operator: Bot operator's feedback on what is feasible Maintainer: A specific edit to the bot's code is requested below. --> | action required from maintainer = <!--specific details--> }} <!-- Discussion starts below this line --> Above bug report was a mess, but it seems to be regarding a (now remedied) toolserver account issue, not a bot bug. [[User:LeadSongDog|LeadSongDog]] <small>[[User talk:LeadSongDog#top|<font color="red" face="Papyrus">come howl!</font>]]</small> 01:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC) == RFC on identifiers == There is an [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RFC_on_the_bot-addition_of_identifier_links_to_citations|RFC on the addition of identifier links to citations by bots]]. Please comment. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|contribs]] / [[WP:PHYS|physics]] / [[WP:WBOOKS|books]]}</span> 15:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC) == Fails on certain jstor == {{bot bug | title = <!-- Brief description to display in section header --> | status = new bug | reported by = <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|contribs]] / [[WP:PHYS|physics]] / [[WP:WBOOKS|books]]}</span> 16:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC) | type of bug = <!-- Please select one of: Improvement: The bot would be much better if ... Cosmetic: The bot modifies appearance (e.g. capitalization) but not content Inconvenience: Humans must occasionally make immediate edits to clean up after the bot Deleterious: Human-input data is deleted or articles are otherwise significantly affected. Many bot edits require undoing. Catastrophical: The bot should stop editing immediately --> | what happens = Fails on certain jstor like {{jstor|4494763}} (or a different jstor to the same article {{jstor|10.1086/519028}}. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Principle_of_transformation_groups&oldid=446007535] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Principle_of_transformation_groups&oldid=446008178]. The bot works fine when the doi is given, however [http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Principle_of_transformation_groups&oldid=446008351][http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Principle_of_transformation_groups&diff=prev&oldid=446008389]. <!-- and/or: --> | what should happen = | link showing what happens = | how to replicate the bug = | waiting for = Consensus<!-- User: Input from editors Consensus: Agreement on the best solution Operator: Bot operator's feedback on what is feasible Maintainer: A specific edit to the bot's code is requested below. --> | action required from maintainer = <!--specific details--> }} <!-- Discussion starts below this line --> Funny, the JSTOR API seems not to be returning results. The bot plugs the JSTOR identifier into the dc.identifier search term accessible via http://dfr.jstor.org/sru/? ; in the past this has worked, today it doesn't seem to. I wonder whether this is a temporary glitch - I hope so! [[User:Smith609|Martin]] '''<small>([[User:Smith609|Smith609]] – [[User_talk:Smith609|Talk]])</small>''' 16:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC) ==References== {{reflist|name="Bryan1901b"}}
#tag:ref
. That article has moved away from that approach, both because of this and because it is better to stick to the usual syntax when possible. At some point ref-tags may be able to be nested ;) It seems to me that (past) limitations of MediaWiki are responsible for millions of references being fleshed-out inline instead of kept in discrete sections. The current inability to nest effectively is similarly forcing practice in other than the best direction. The costs of late software are huge. The cost of developing quality software are huge, too. —
Portuguese Man o' War 05:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)-->
|author-n=
fields|last-n=
and |first-n=
appropriately-->
Why does this bot abbreviate first names, ie in a cite doi template? ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 17:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
For new users of this bot, such as myself yesterday, the results when no changes are made are baffling. I almost gave up on the bot thinking it was another broken or developing Wikipedia function. One sees this at the top of the page:
Followed by the edit window. When one saves the page hoping for some improved citations one sees no changes, and nothing shows up in the revision history.
Fortunately, I used it on a page where it made some changes and now I see how it works. I suggest some kind of indication be added to the results saying something like this:
"Citation bot sees nothing it can fix, and no changes have been made."
Thanks for this bot. It is very useful. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 21:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I think it's pretty much established by now that the bot should not be editing the author fields for any reason. It's removing et al., cluttering citations with additional parameters, etc... This has been raised several times in the past, and I'm re-raising this again because for some reason these changes were re-enabled. The bot does not have consensus to perform changes related to authors fields, so please stop the bot from making them. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
The et al. is removed, indicating that the named author did it all by himself, when in fact he has unnamed coauthors. The name of a collaboration is given after the author in the case of this particular work, but it is unclear if that is an indication of coauthors, or just affiliation information. Since citation templates have no manual of style, there is no way to determine the meaning of the phrase in parenthesis after the author. Readers must not be expected to understand how Citation bot works, or even that it exists, so I preemptively reject any explanation about how the bot looks it up in some database. The rules for presenting authorship in any such database are not incorporated in the description of the citation templates, and thus are not available to readers. Jc3s5h ( talk) 22:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
|display-authors=
parameter works. For example, in the first change, the |author=R. Brandelik et al. (
TASSO collaboration)
is changed to |author=R. Brandelik (
TASSO collaboration)
and two parameters are added: |author-separator=,
|display-authors=1
. This would work as intended if either |author2=
or |last2=
|first2=
were provided, but they aren't. |display-authors=
only operates if there are more authors than the figure specified. As in:
{{
cite journal|author=Doe, John|author2=Public, Joe|journal=A Journal|title=A Paper|year=2011}}
{{
cite journal|author=Doe, John|author2=Public, Joe|journal=A Journal|title=A Paper|year=2011|display-authors=1}}
{{
cite journal|author=Doe, John|journal=A Journal|title=A Paper|year=2011|display-authors=1}}
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |display-authors=1
(
help)
Another example --
Redrose64 (
talk) 17:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
|issn=
- it merely states that |publisher=
is only necessary in the absence of |issn=
or |doi=
- this does not mean that in the presence of a |publisher=
, the |issn=
should be removed. Oh BTW,
here's another. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 19:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)The problem was not about the 'publisher' field. The problem is that if ISSN is presented like e.g. 'id = ISSN 0208-189X', the bot does not replace it with 'issn = 0208-189X', but just remove it. The latest removal I discovered happened just 30 minutes ago. Removing the ISSN field, even if incorrectly formatted, is not the correct solution. Beagel ( talk) 16:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Greetings,
Could Citation bot run at the Hebrew Wikipedia as well? We have translated Template:Cite doi to he:תבנית:ציטוט DOI and the relevant data should be saved to subpage /מזהה DOI. The reference itself should look the same as in the English Wikipedia, preferrably with the aid of a divstyle alignment (i.e. <div style="direction: ltr;">To the left</div>). Many thanks, ליאור • Lior ( talk) 16:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
(login problem : fjanss in fr.wikipedia.org , but cannot unify in en.wikipedia.org )
19:47, 9 June 2010 Vashtihorvat
^ Niemitz, C. (2010). "The evolution of the upright posture and gait--a review and a new synthesis.". Die Naturwissenschaften 97 (3): 241–263. Bibcode 2010NW.....97..241N. doi:10.1007/s00114-009-0637-3. PMC 2819487. PMID 20127307. edit
04:55, 10 June 2010 Citation bot 1
Have you been able to replicate this bug since 2010?
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 03:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Another problem with the same bot edit is that it changed a
pipe character into %7C
, the effect of which was to add extra characters to a valid URL, making it invalid. The change was from |url=http://wales.gov.uk/docs/statistics/2010/100917sb772010en.pdf|September 2010
to |url=
http://wales.gov.uk/docs/statistics/2010/100917sb772010en.pdf%7CSeptember 2010
- it has assumed that the pipe is part of the URL, not a parameter separator. The correct change would have been to insert date=
, as in |url=
http://wales.gov.uk/docs/statistics/2010/100917sb772010en.pdf |date=September 2010
. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 10:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
and {{
citation}}
, were altered so that the points under discussion were no longer suitably illustrated.
I've tagged the page with {{bots|deny=citation bot}}.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 03:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Please do design some short field to stop the bot from changing author lists in references; et al. could be ideal. The bot is very useful, but it is adding long author lists and other code such as "author separator", "display authors= " and "<Please add first missing authors to populate metadata.>". This is a real issue with overloading long articles as it adds so much junk code. The bot is currently designed to care about the article output ignoring the code length. Another undesirable feature is "|postscript = ..; inconsistent citations" which adds so much code just to care about a full stop at the end of the reference. We do love this bot and do not want to disable it on specific articles. Just a little flexibility in its operation (don't change when asked not to) will solve this longstanding issue. Materialscientist ( talk) 00:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Whast on earth is going on here? There are edits removing the whole content of the page and leaving nothing but fragments of code [29], leaving the following edit summary: "Touching page to update categories. ** THIS EDIT SHOULD PROBABLY BE REVERTED ** as page content will only be changed if there was an edit conflict." Paul B ( talk) 10:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the extremely helpful bot! A pity it didn't work for this reference. Maybe this can be helpful for improving the parser; I don't "expect" any action, I just wanted to share this DOI with you, since it didn't work. --
Chire (
talk) 14:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Kenneth Hahn Deleterious. Diff at
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kenneth_Hahn&action=historysubmit&diff=455056890&oldid=454962024
<h1>Sorry! This site is experiencing technical difficulties.</h1><p>Try waiting a few minutes and reloading.</p><p><small>(Can't contact the database server: <span dir="ltr">Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/var/run/mysqld/mysqld.sock' (2) (localhost)</span>)</small></p><hr /><div style="margin: 1.5em">You can try searching via Google in the meantime.<br />
I'm not sure how to report this or if it is new, but the links will show.
jonkerz
♠ 16:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
<indent>The issue might be more general. I perceive it as currently the bot tends to not care about bloating the reference templates with unused text, whereas this has at least two issues (i) the article code becomes hard to work with, especially for newcomers; (ii) reaching parsing limits on some articles. Apart from expanding author lists, the bot adds "author-separator" field and a long line of |postscript= and "{{
inconsistent citations}}
.." note. Can the bot not do that please? Citations are often inconsistent for numerous other (than full stop at the end) reasons which the bot can't assess and which are sorted out manually at WP:GAN or WP:FAC. Cheers.
Materialscientist (
talk) 23:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Given the above I've modified the bot (in r408) so that it only adds the 'bloat' if this is already the editorial preference on the page (i.e. "|display_authors=
" is set in other citations). I would suggest that someone modifies
Template:Citation/doc, which I had been reading to imply that it was incorrect to specify more than one author in the 'author' parameter. I just re-read
Template:Cite journal/doc, says something different. Cheers,
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 14:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Citation bot ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
This bug led to a block request of User:Citation bot 1 per [34] . Because Citation bot 1 does not have a separate user talk page (it redirects here) I am asking for it to be unblocked here. Note that User:Citation bot is not blocked, but User:Citation bot 1 is.
Accept reason:
See below.
|coauthors=
?
|jstor=11345
and a DOI with the JSTOR in it e.g. |doi=10.2307/11345
(not real values), since both resolve to the same place. If there is a jstor and a DOI to a different publisher then both are certainly useful and are not duplication.
Rjwilmsi 08:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Just a quick note that I reverted an edit by this bot. I saw no improvements, and arguably three changes which are all making the article worse. (The citation to cite book change is perhaps arguable, but I have noticed in the past that cite book sometimes does not work with harvtxt templates.)-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 14:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
doesn't work with {{
harvtxt}}
(or any of the other Harvard-group templates); but it can be made to work by the simple addition of |ref=harv
to the {{
cite book}}
, something that is built in to {{
citation}}
. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 16:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
to {{
cite book}}
is for consistency: previous to the bot edit, the article had one each of {{
citation}}
, {{
cite book}}
, {{
cite journal}}
and {{
cite web}}
, which is a ratio of 3:1 of {{
cite xxx}}
over {{
citation}}
, and you shouldn't mix the two styles in the same article.|ref=harv
to a {{
cite book}}
is so that {{
harvtxt}}
will link to it. I now see that in
Causality, {{
harvtxt}}
isn't actually used (nor are any other Harvard-group templates, or {{
sfn}}
), so the absence of |ref=harv
isn't a problem. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 10:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
|ref=harv
when converting from citation to cite xxx, even when there is a short footnote pointing to the reference, and even when other cite xxx templates in the article are using |ref=harv
. This is a bug. A crude solution would be to always add |ref=harv
. A fancy solution would be to detect whether there is a short footnote or parenthetical note pointing to what the anchor would be, and add the parameter when necessary.
Jc3s5h (
talk) 13:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC){{
cite book}}
, {{
cite journal}}
and {{
cite web}}
(collectively known as {{
cite xxx}}
) are all the same style (known as
Help:Citation Style 1); {{
citation}}
is a different style, see
Wikipedia:Citation templates#Introduction, first list, items 2 & 3. There is no harm in using {{
citation}}
exclusively, but if the article is already using the {{
cite xxx}}
templates, new citations should use those, or others in the same group.{{
citation}}
was introduced to that article with
this edit, at a time when there were already one each of {{
cite book}}
, {{
cite journal}}
and {{
cite web}}
. Therefore, in the interests of
WP:CITEVAR, the new reference should have used {{
cite book}}
, not {{
citation}}
. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 13:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I have a hard enough time indicating to editors that chapters in collections need to be cited individually without this occurring where humans get it half right. This needs to be left for manual resolution.
Fifelfoo (
talk) 23:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
In this example, the bot removed the italics from the Latin species name Smilodon fatalis in a journal article title, which of course are appropriate and which are present in the actual title.
Hi
I just saw this by the CitationBot and wanted to know why the bot is removing access dates. I consider them very helpful if I want to verify when the information was obtained, since it could have changed in the mean time. -- Maitch ( talk) 13:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
instead of {{
cite video}}
anyhow? The idea of Amazon as a video "publisher" would be a scary one if it were accurate. But accessdates are for volatile urls, not for permalinks. An ASIN, like an ISBN, is supposed to describe exactly one edition. Do you have reason to think that isn't the case?
LeadSongDog
come howl! 15:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)I'm not entirely sure what you mean. I did not write that article, but Amazon is sometimes used to prove that a DVD simply exists or to document a release date. That part of Amazon is not user edited and therefore can still be considered a RS. " Cape Feare" is a featured article that also uses Amazon as a source. -- Maitch ( talk) 23:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
<ref name="socialnomics.net>...</ref>
, two extra double quotes are introduced <ref name=""socialnomics.net" />
, rather than just one <ref name="socialnomics.net" />
|pmid=0
inserted
Please stop making this edit. It adds nothing useful. When an editor has been reverted, they should not make the same edit again. The edit removes the italics from a scientific name, wrongly, and repeats two pieces of information (the issue number / page number in one instance – many online journals don't fully distinguish the two, and a DOI beginning 10.2307, when a JSTOR link is already included). -- Stemonitis ( talk) 10:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Can someone explain why did the bot add "| ref =harv" to "cite journal" here? Materialscientist ( talk) 12:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
|ref=harv
does not change the referencing style: all it does is to create an anchor to facilitate the linking of parenthetical refs or shortnotes, such parenthetical refs or shortnotes having already been created by means of templates in the {{
harv}}
family, including {{
sfn}}
. The {{
citation}}
template has a |ref=harv
built in by default - the {{
cite xxx}}
family do not.<ref>{{
Harvnb|Noddings|1995|pages=1–6}}
</ref>
. If you click on
the bluelink in that ref, it doesn't go anywhere. You can reveal the broken link as a red error message by following the technique described at
User:Ucucha/HarvErrors. The addition of |ref=harv
to the {{
cite book}}
in
ref 40 will fix that broken link. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 16:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
See http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Category:Cite_doi_templates&from=A . Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
They need adding to the capitalization exclusion list. See
User:Citation bot.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 19:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
does not expand
Shulgin, A. T.; Sargent, T.; Naranjo, C. (1967). "The Chemistry and Psychopharmacology of Nutmeg and of Several Related Phenylisopropylamines" (pdf). Psychopharmacology Bulletin. 4 (3): 13. PMID 5615546.
or cite doi any more. comes back with "the user account at toolserver.org expired" if click on "jump queue" 70.137.134.91 ( talk) 09:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Gives error message
403: User account expired
The page you requested is hosted by the Toolserver user verisimilus, whose account has expired. Toolserver user accounts are automatically expired if the user is inactive for over six months. To prevent stale pages remaining accessible, we automatically block requests to expired content.
If you think you are receiving this page in error, or you have a question, please contact the owner of this document: verisimilus [at] toolserver [dot] org. (Please do not contact Toolserver administrators about this problem, as we cannot fix it—only the Toolserver account owner may renew their account.)
HTTP server at toolserver.org - ts-admins [at] toolserver [dot] org 70.137.134.91 ( talk) 10:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Here. Search for "last2" to find the duplications. I thought the ampersand in the "author=" list tricked the bot; thus replaced ampersands and re-run, with the same result. The bot seems to misunderstand the "author=" field. Materialscientist ( talk) 13:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Oh, of COURSE its starts working as soon as I report the error. -_-'
LikeLakers2 (
talk |
Sign my guestbook!) 20:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Strange: I haven't touched the bot for some time, and it works fine in some cases. Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 17:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
This edit summary from article
Match 2011-11-15: [394]Add: issue, doi, pmid, pmc. Tweak: pages, url, title, issue, doi. |
Innotata
Documentation is ALWAYS as important as the bot's functionality. Yeah, ok, I'm done ranting.
-- Trappist the monk ( talk) 16:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Change to documentation noted. Thanks. But...
Link goes to UCB disambiguation page. Is that where you want it to go?
-- Trappist the monk ( talk) 18:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
In trying to pare down the incomplete doi references page, I've run into a few places where the Citation bot has replaced a jstor.org link with an incorrect doi. These are
Any ideas on the fix? Naraht ( talk) 16:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
url2template
function at line 631 of
expandFns.php. The regular expression fails to recognize all types of JSTOR URLs. It could probably be fixed by changing the regex into something like "~jstor\.org/(?!sici).*[/=](\d+)~"
. However, ideally the bot should retrieve data from the SICI; not sure whether it already has code available that does that.
Ucucha (
talk) 19:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Fixed in GitHub Pull 412{{ resolved}}
The bot was confused by
Template:R, which should not be mixed & matched with <ref> tags.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 17:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I saw this revision on my watchlist. It corrected a dash issue in one citation, but deleted another citation. I don't know much about such things, but I'm guessing the bot was confused by an extra newline in the middle of the second one. Ntsimp ( talk) 14:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
}}
which closes the template and the </ref>
which closes the reference. Both of these are legal uses of newlines. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 18:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
{{ resolved}} - duplicate bug report
(Moved to the end, added by User:Smith609) Reference name bug; http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Phosphatic_fossilization&diff=prev&oldid=470456980
It's the same issue as I reported above. Not an isolated incident, at least. U+003F ?
|url=
and |title=
. I haven't been able to find the bot code that performs these changes; Citation bot's code is rather unstructured in my opinion.
Ucucha (
talk) 20:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
An editor -- SandyGeorgia -- complains of the edits made by the DOI bot. She says the bot edits do not follow the standard practice of editors of medical articles: "We don't use capital case in article titles on Wikipedia-- we use sentence case (which means we don't capitalize the words in the article titles). [Confirmed by WP:MOS, yet DOI bot is substituting capital case.] And, most medical articles use the Diberri format, which uses only one author field." Please advise. Fconaway ( talk) 04:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
|author=
versus |last1=
, and existing case in titles, and follow the existing conventions if present. I'm sure this would be helpful to and appreciated by wikiproject medicine and though it's not my code I wouldn't think it would be that difficult to implement.
Rjwilmsi 20:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)| journal = [Mount Hamilton? Calif.
| journal = <nowiki>[Mount Hamilton? Calif., 1941]</nowiki>
The error was AdsAbs', but I've incorporated a fix in r414.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 17:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the Citationbot is handling angles correctly. On Rubidium telluride, the {{cite doi|10.1002/1521-3773(20020802)41:15<2725::AID-ANIE2725>3.0.CO;2-G}} doesn't seem to get handled correctly, and yet, when I enter that doi at dx.doi.org, it doesn't seem to bat an eyelash. I've tried changing the angles to %3C and %3E but that doesn't seem to help. (Similar issues apparently at Jack D. Dunitz Any ideas? Naraht ( talk) 11:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
<
and >
--
Redrose64 (
talk) 12:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I've attempted to change two cite broken doi entries to cite doi and jump the queue. But I get "Edit may have failed. Retrying: xxx Still no good. One last try: Failed. Error code: BADMD5: The supplied MD5 hash was incorrect." after it seems to have gotten to the end. What's going on with that? (See http://toolserver.org/~verisimilus/Bot/DOI_bot/doibot.php?doi=10.1063%2F1.3633090 as an example) Naraht ( talk) 03:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
|last1=
has gone a bit funny...
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 22:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)First and foremost - I have great respect to this bot and its operator.
Block summary: the bot was introducing minor changes, some of which were questionable and too many of which (IMHO) were hardly an improvement. The block is to initiate a dialogue with the person behind those edits. (If he/she does not show up, then I propose the bot operator makes the user identifiable).
Difs. Let us go from last edit back.
|issue=
, to errors in ISSN formatting, to a long-winded comment over a full stop (correct, but can the message be shorter?), to errors in title re-formatting. Which editor initiated the edits hardly seems relevant, these are bot code problems or improvements. I think it would be sensible that the bot temporarily disable all changes to casing/italics of titles, and a later discussion establishes what changes, if any, the bot could accurately make to titles. Can we establish a list of 'blocker' problems that need to be addressed for an unblock:
|id= ISSN xxxxxxxx
|last1=
etc. when the rest of the article uses |author=
(also Wikiproject medicine concern)Per Rjwilmsi I'll sum up what I am not happy about (I am the blocker, but surely my suggestions need consensus and discussion.
|id=
field is not deprecated, but it is preferred not to use this when another param is designed specifically for the task. {{
citation}}
and {{
cite journal}}
both have an |issn=
parameter, as do {{
cite book}}
, {{
cite encyclopedia}}
and others, although it's not documented on all of them. Where such parameter exists, the use of |issn=0123-4567
is preferable to |id={{
ISSN|0123-4567}}
. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 14:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
|id=
parameter. I discovered this morning that id={{OL|123456M}} can be replaced by |ol=123456M
, and there are likely others not documented.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 16:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
|display-authors=3
(or whatever value they like), so the metadata can attribute up to ten authors without the template imposing them all against editors' stylistic choice.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 17:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Re issn, I believe that this information is almost always redundant and useless for publications for which more accurate identifiers (doi etc) are available. Issn only tells you what journal it is, doi tells you the specific article. But probably actual removal of issns is the sort of editorial decision that should be done by humans not bots. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
{{ cite journal | author=Zalivako, Anke | title=A Critique of the Preservation of Moscow's Planetarium | url=http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/future_anterior/v005/5.1.zalivako.pdf | journal=Future Anterior | year=2008 | volume=5 | issue=1 | id=ISSN 1549-7915 (print), ISSN 1934-6026 (online) }}
rendered
Zalivako, Anke (2008).
"A Critique of the Preservation of Moscow's Planetarium" (PDF). Future Anterior. 5 (1). ISSN 1549-7915 (print), ISSN 1934-6026 (online).
{{ cite journal | author=Zalivako, Anke | title=A Critique of the Preservation of Moscow's Planetarium | url=http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/future_anterior/v005/5.1.zalivako.pdf | journal=Future Anterior | year=2008 | volume=5 | issue=1 | issn=1934-6026 }}
rendered
Zalivako, Anke (2008).
"A Critique of the Preservation of Moscow's Planetarium" (PDF). Future Anterior. 5 (1).
ISSN
1934-6026.
|e-issn=
parameter, hence human intervention would clearly have been better)
LeadSongDog
come howl! 14:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)Is there anything outstanding that requires my attention before the bot is resumed? Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 22:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
|asin=159116401X
and |asin=159116415X
, use |isbn=159116401X
and |isbn=159116415X
- by using ISBN, library catalogues may be linked as well as Amazon, rather than directing people to one specific supplier. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 18:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I can't blame the bot for
not fixing that correctly, but I don't think it should be finding an ISBN there. The check on line 1190 of Citation bot's DOItools.php seems to assume that any 10- or 13-digit number is an ISBN, which is risky. However, I think the bug that led to this problem is in the first part of the regex there, which has (?!<
instead of the correct <code(?<! for the lookbehind.
Ucucha (
talk) 23:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Is there a tool or another way to find duplicate uses of the same "cite doi" reference in an article? Preferably a particular "cite doi" template should only be used once in an article and other references to the same source should use "ref name" and link to only one "cite doi" template. Acadēmica Orientālis ( talk) 11:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
The bot is altered to remove ISSN if a solid link (doi/pmid/pmc/jstor) is present and not remove ISSN otherwise. (Correct me if I missed a "solid link" type.)
The bot is altered to leave the author field untouched if it contains "et al". (Just a matter of flexibility - an editor can always remove et al and rerun the bot.)
|last1=
and |first1=
(or equivalent) which it should certainly fill if empty.
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books} 15:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
|author#=
).
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books} 05:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear enough - the bot appears to have made a number of successive edits over the past few months, getting the first and last names of five authors mixed up and at one point splitting up the names into 6 sets of first = and last =. Need to review all the change log for all the edits to really see what's going on. See [70], [71], [72], [73] The original list of five authors, manually entered by G716, was changed by the bot to a list of 6, incorrect, authors Decstop ( talk) 06:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
All the same, this is yet another example of why hiding content in unwatched template subpages is a bad idea. LeadSongDog come howl! 07:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
The bot is altered not to add "|postscript=<!-- Bot inserted parameter. Either remove it; or change its value to "." for the cite to end in a ".", as necessary. -->{{inconsistent citations}}" to citation templates. (Better solution is welcome, but as a separate thread).
I just did my semi-annual round up of crap cite doi templates. Turns out there's a lot, so I made a BOTREQ to clean things up. See Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 46#Citation Bot cleanup.
IMO, Citation Bot really should check for the input matching '10.Foobar' before doing anything else. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey there, I noticed that a number of {{
Cite|PMID}}
templates were not being filled in on some gene pages, such as
this one, which was created in January. I've pushed a few of them manually (through the 'jump the queue' button), but I was wondering if automatic completion would be restored at some point. Thanks for the awesome utility- it's a huge help!
Pleiotrope (
talk) 17:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I posted this over at Wikipedia:Bot requests:
I am told that this is your dept. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 04:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
, which will get pretty much the same result without creating yet another unwatched template subpage. Initially (before bot improvement populates it) that would look like:{{
cite book}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)Hi, i just created the template {{ cite isbn}} for the purpose of synchronization of citations on different pages. I suppose i could add the openlibrary link to the fill-out form. Although not perfect, this would ease the creation of new references. BR84 ( talk) 18:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
|lastn=
as |authorn=
.|lastn=
and |firstn=
.
I've seen this happen millions of time, it always annoyed me. Can't really say why I didn't bother to report it until now.
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books} 20:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
|author1=
instead of |last1=
, but gets all |firstn=
and all other |lastn=
correctly.
[78].
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books} 19:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Had to edit Template:Cite pmid/20301430 by hand to correct publication date. PubMed says "1993-2006 Jul 31 [updated 2010 Nov 02]". -- Richiez ( talk) 22:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, wondering about Special:Contributions/KBrainbridge. Either this are all good faith edits then hopefully the bot could do them or something strange is going on? 21:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd suggest avoiding {{
Cite pmc}}, it's pretty much an unused orphan. If all you have is a pmc, try {{
Cite journal}} with parameter |pmc=
instead. Will propose deleting.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 18:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
How about having the bot automatically blow away all {{ Cite pmc}} references and convert them to {{ Cite pmid}}, {{ Cite doi}}, or {{ Cite journal}}.
There are almost no pages using that template: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Cite_pmc&limit=500
This template has been deleted - Bug closed. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 20:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
-->
-->
Cite pmc emplate deleted. Closing bug. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 20:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
The account must be renewed before the bot will be operable again.
JJJ (
talk) 01:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
It is alive. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 00:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
{{ wontfix}} At http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Cato_Institute&diff=500664442&oldid=500661433 , the bot changed the string "|Retrieved November 12, 2007" into "|year=2007|unused_date=Retrieved November 12". I fixed it to "|accessdate = November 12, 2007", but I don't see how that raw year should be interpreted as "year=", especially on a {{ cite web}}. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
|unused_data=
, not |unused_date=
. None of the citation templates use positional parameters - they all use named parameters exclusively - so when the bot encounters information in a positional parameter it attempts to put it into the best named parameter. Anything that can't be so assigned ends up in |unused_data=
for a manual fix later on. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 19:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
This makes the PMC bug a couple of bugs above not work-around-able.
Template cite pmc is deleted. Bug no longer relevant. Closing. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 20:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
The bot is still making these pages. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template:Cite_pmc/344826&action=history AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 23:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I assume the bot went wrong because the reference's name was either a short or a long version of another reference's name (ARana vs. ARanard and AR), but that wouldn't fully explain its behaviour. For now the bot has stopped removing the reference.
Huon (
talk) 03:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
The offending PMC value PMC2726758 has a corresponding PMID, so if possible, the Bot should do a PMID lookup and generate a cite PMID template. Some older PMC values may only have the PDF, without a matching PMID entry.
RDBrown (
talk) 08:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
This bug is still present. Here is another instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mental_disorder&diff=506845207&oldid=503912969 — Paul A ( talk) 08:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC) And again: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Radiology&diff=507543374&oldid=507137154 — Paul A ( talk) 01:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
{{cite pmc}}
template was deprecated for a long time and is now deleted:
Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_21#Template:Cite_pmc. See also earlier entries on this page. Most PMC articles have a DOI and are also listed on
PubMed, so you are able to use {{cite doi}}
and {{cite pmid}}
templates.
kashmiri 09:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
{{
resolved}}
{{
resolved}}
|jstor=1305363
instead., Attention: This template ({{
cite jstor}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by jstor:1303024, please use {{
cite journal}} with |jstor=1303024
instead.
jstor refs also don't get expanded if the doi is used instead of the jstor parameter. —
Chris Capoccia
T⁄
C 13:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
This seems like the place to bring up this question, but if not I'd appreciate someone directing me to where would be a good spot. A {{ cite isbn}} template was created not that long ago but it seems to lack the automated process that {{ cite doi}} has (I think that is this bot). Is there a way to get this template added to the automated process? I'd be willing to help work on it, but I have no experience with bots so would at the very least greatly appreciate guidance. Zfeinst ( talk) 16:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help), and introduces all the same problems that {{
cite doi}} et al. bring. The subpages, isolated from the articles which transclude them, do not adapt to the citation format in the article.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 16:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite isbn|0836221192}}
, it shows as {{cite isbn|0836221192}} with the edit link because the subtemplate does not exist until you edit it. If you do use an existing subtemplate, then {{
cite isbn|978067144133}}
shows as {{cite isbn|978067144133}} because the template requires a /
, thus {{
cite isbn/978067144133}} shows as {{cite isbn/978067144133}}. But if you use a slash in the non-existing template {{
cite isbn/0836221192}}
, it shows as {{cite isbn/0836221192}}. ---—
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk 17:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
|ys=
to define the "b" etc, since the value will nearly always be a single letter there doesn't seem much point in making the name long.|year={{{year|1996}}}
. (updated
Mirokado (
talk) 09:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC))|ref=
and |year=
needed particularly for articles using Harvard style (supporting year tidily required rather more extensive changes than I had at first expected)|page=
and |pages=
for single citations with a page range.{{
cite journal}}
work quite well (for articles using cs1 style) as they rarely contain dmy/mdy/iso dates which would not suit all articles, a doi or pmid identifies a unique object, and it is at least arguable that a particular name, initials format for journal article authors can coexist with something else for web pages, books etc. The book citations I have seen also overwhelmingly contain just year so date formats should not be an insuperable problem.Issues which need to be sorted out include:
-- Mirokado ( talk) 22:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Just to emphasize the risks noted above, there is no guarantee that numerous ISBN numbers have not been reused for newer books or a specific book have other edition numbers not matching the {cite_isbn|<ISBN>} on file, confusing people who find a different title/number. Meanwhile, we want to leave each Cite_isbn/xx subpage unprotected to allow others to expand detail and fix typos. However, the use of {Cite_isbn} with unprotected subpages would quickly enter the frequently read pop-culture articles, which do cite from books, and famous books would more likely use {Cite_isbn} entries. Note those articles rarely cite from DOI numbers, which are more common in medical or other journal-related articles. Plus, I can confirm the recent horrors of unprotected templates, even outside of pop-culture article vandalism, where some well-meaning admins unprotected many string-handling templates a year ago, and within months, almost all were vandalized/hacked by IP-address users, then re-protected. It took a while to find where the vandalism was hidden, and with {Cite_isbn}, there would be strong temptation to rename any book as "Celebrity Xxx drug abuse with underage students". The reason vandalism remains for weeks or months is because it is 50x times easier to vandalize than to find and correct. I dred the protected subtemplates of Template:Taxobox or others when attempting improvements, but they must be protected due to extreme risk of hacking, and if {Cite_isbn} subpages were to get automatic protection, then that would thwart the promise of "fix one place" for improvement everywhere. Instead, the reality is most likely, "vandalize one place for embarrassing insults" everywhere. Hence, it is better to repeat a {cite_book} in 20 celebrity articles, rather than risk hideous {cite_isbn} vandalism to attack 20 semi-protected pages, where 99.99% of readers, for days/weeks, would search and not know if or where vandalism had occurred, with drugs for "underage students" (re: History of Facebook). Since there is a critical need to protect string-utility templates from registered editors, then imagine the risk to {cite_isbn} entries in pop-culture articles. Hence, for those reasons, I agree with the fears expressed above, and advise the new {cite_isbn} should be kept limited in usage. - Wikid77 ( talk) 15:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
To solve the problem of incompatible citation format, perhaps alongside some hand-coded citations, then the Template:Cite_isbn and bot (if any) should handle new parameters "fmter=cite book" and "sep=," to optionally put commas as the separator between phrases in the citations. With parameter "fmter=cite book" then the actual stored format would be "{{ {{{fmter|cite book}}} |isbn=1112223334}}" where the name of the cite-template (fmter) could be passed as some other template than {cite_book}. The most obvious small format difference is likely to be separator "," rather than dot "." and the short name "sep" avoids the spelling glitch "seperator" with syllable "-er". Although unusual, the unique parameter name "fmter" would also allow wikisearch to track the use within all prior articles as usage expands (I had imagined calling fmter as "citer" but that word is very common from French sources, already matching 95,000 articles). - Wikid77 ( talk) 13:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Such as this one. Urhixidur ( talk) 14:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
It is fixed now.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 18:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Could you spell out the specific references that you hope that the bot will expand? Thanks,
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 07:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
You need to add the journal acronym to the list of capitalization exclusions; see the bot's user page for instructions.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 07:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
The link does not work. What do you mean by not unfolded?
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 18:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Hope the diff is enough.
mabdul 14:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Wow bot, you are saving me heaps of time. Literally. Cheers,
benzband (
talk) 21:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Improvement: The bot would be much better if ... -->
Why not have a bot do this? Has it been attempted before? I'd guess it has... I'm wondering why it isn't happening. --
Elvey (
talk) 01:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
The article, "I-696: Three Pedestrian Plazas Over Freeway" in the MDOT Context Sensitive Solutions Case Study: Metro Region by the Michigan Department of Transportation appears on page B1-17. The study uses chapter-based pagination, so that's the 17th page of chapter B1, or page B1-17. It isn't a page range, but twice now I've reverted the bot. I'm not sure what can be done to avoid false positives like that. One revert is understandable, but twice (yes, I know, user-requested and no one's looking for the reverts in the page history first) means that the bot has now been blocked from editing the page.
Imzadi 1979
→ 08:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
The bot did not add the {{
references|date=November 2012}}
- it was already present in
your first draft, so you must have put it there yourself.
In
the version immediately prior to the bot edit, the {{
references|date=November 2012}}
is clearly present. This version has two instances of the following construct:
<ref name="BCC Musgrave Park">
[http://www.belfastcity.gov.uk/parksandopenspaces/parks/musgravepark.asp Belfast City Council - Musgrave Park]
</ref>
and four instances of
<ref name="Keep Britain Tidy">
[http://greenflag.keepbritaintidy.org/park-summary/?ParkID=1210 Keep Britain Tidy]
</ref>
One of the first group may be simplified to <ref name="BCC Musgrave Park" />
, similarly, three of the second group may be simplified to <ref name="Keep Britain Tidy" />
, and that is
what the bot did. It added no maintenance templates. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 11:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
|author1=
and |first1=
Can you suggest an algorithm by which the bot can tell whether the data specified as an author is a person's name or not? I can't do anything otherwise.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 07:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
|first1=Inc
, it's probably not a person's name.
GoingBatty (
talk) 04:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
The bot runs to completion, but there is nothing in the article that it needs to change. That's not a bug.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 05:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite doi|10.2307/461317}}
on a page. Then click on the "jump the queue" link.
JSTOR DOI's don't work right anymore (note that {{
cite jstor}} is just a wrapper for {{
cite doi}}). There is nothing the bot can do.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 17:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
The code does this:
} else { echo "not found in JSTOR?"; } } else { // Not a JSTOR doi, use CrossRef $crossRef = $crossRef?$crossRef:crossRefData(urlencode(trim($p["doi"][0]))); }
Note that after the not found in JSTOR complaint, the code does not even try CrossRef AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 17:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
This page's citations are indeed an ugly jumble. So perhaps the bot is easily confused. Perhaps this page should be fixed by hand?
Choor monster (
talk) 17:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
| 2:38 pm|
. None of the citation templates recognise positional parameters. The "p. m." visible in the References section is due to the |page=m
- presumably the bot has decided that pm
is short for p.m.
and interpreted it as a page identifier. The nonexistent parameter |unused_data=
is used by Citation bot to hold anything that it can't place in a recognised parameter, hence |unused_data= 2:38
|url=
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0060925000
to the relative |asin=0060925000
which is essentially the same thing, but is future-proof: if Amazon change their URL format, we only need to modify one or two templates, not thousands of pages. The |accessdate=2012-10-31
was removed because access dates are only meaningful when there is a URL.
History of the Western Insurrection, p. 42, at
Google Books
LeadSongDog
come howl! 21:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Access dates are only useful for online sources. This ref has no URL, hence it's not online, therefore an access date is meaningless. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 23:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
|archiveurl=
is not the same as a |url=
. Although not explicitly stated at
Template:Cite web#URL, the indentation there implies that the use of either |accessdate=
or |archiveurl=
also requires a |url=
to be provided. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 10:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
|archiveurl=
is a child of |url=
.--—
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk 11:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Input was a malformed wikitext to begin, with |id=ISSN 0134-3084 rather than |id={{ISSN|0134-3084}} . This is a plausibly common class of error that either this or another bot could address.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 22:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
This is the same problem as #Update_required_to_avoid_deleterious_impact_on_new_Lua-based_citations. Dragons flight ( talk) 23:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Template:Cite doi/ 10.1126.2Fscience.141.3578.357 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Illia Connell ( talk) 03:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC) {{ resolved}}
This seems to be the intended behaviour. {{
resolved}}
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 14:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
|author=
fields, it deleted the one with the name and kept the one with the date|author=
with letter string and not number string
The link in the function summary section that's supposed to show the progress stats of the bot is broken: http://toolserver.org/~verisimilus/Bot/DOI_bot/progress-doibot.php?date=20091017 Wingman4l7 ( talk) 23:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC) Fixed in GitHub Pull 439 {{ resolved}}
|doi=10.1002/1531-8249(199911)46:5<770::AID-ANA13>3.0.CO;2-U
instead.
|doi= 10.1002/1531-8249(199911)46:53.0.CO;2-U
instead.Ok, I think I'm getting somewhere. You're right, it wasn't my firewall, it rather was my local cache that was puking when Wiley forced the redirect. A manual cache purge and reload gets me past that. The cite doi subpage that I (manually) created was at the wrong path, so I've redirected it from
Template:Cite doi/10.1002.2F1531-8249.28199911.2946:53.0.CO.3B2-U
to the correct subpage at
Template:Cite doi/10.1002.2F1531-8249.28199911.2946.3A5.3C770.3A.3AAID-ANA13.3E3.0.CO.3B2-U.
I'm not sure why cite doi names the subpage with anchorencode but generates the url with urlencode, but that's what it seems to do. (While anchorencode uses .3A urlencode uses %3A for the same character.)
There's a similar doi at Template:Cite doi/10.1002.2F1531-8257.28199901.2914:1.3C95::AID-MDS1016.3E3.0.CO.3B2-8 but it seems to have been created just fine without any special handling, even with the double colon in the doi. That was some time ago though, perhaps a more recent change has created a problem, but I still don't see a clear-cut instance. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
{{
resolved}}
It appears that crossref neglected the author's forename. Try
http://www.crossref.org/guestquery/ and plug in the DOI 10.1097/00005176-198911000-00026 to see.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 21:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
'Junior' is a title and should not be incorporated into the name.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 13:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
{{
resolved}}
-->
There seems to be some problem with Springer's data validation before export to crossref. If you go to that abstract on Springer's site, then click on "export citation" and choose plain text, you get:
Reference Type: Journal Article
Author: Haubrich, C. Haubrich
Author: Krings, T. Krings
Author: Senderek, J. Senderek
Author: Züchner, S. Züchner
Author: Schröder, J. Schröder
Author: Noth, J. Noth
Author: Töpper, R. Töpper
Primary Title: Hypertrophic nerve roots in a case of Roussy-Lévy syndrome
Journal Name: Neuroradiology
Cover Date: 2002-11-01
Publisher: Springer Berlin / Heidelberg
Issn: 0028-3940
Subject: Medicine
Start Page: 933
End Page: 937
Volume: 44
Issue: 11
Url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00234-002-0847-2
Doi: 10.1007/s00234-002-0847-2
Clearly the author names have been mangled, unless one expects "Bond, J. Bond" as the normal form. Still, the handling was incorrect. It is not clear if the cause was the umlauts in the names, or something else, . (As an aside, please note that this paper is a primary source, and so not a wp:MEDRS.) It might be helpful to state the dois for whichever other articles show similar problems. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
|doi=10.1007/s00234-002-0860-5
instead. and another with, e.g. Attention: This template ({{
cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1007/s00234-002-0829-4, please use {{
cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{
cite report}} with |doi=10.1007/s00234-002-0829-4
instead. to see what happens.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 20:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
|doi=10.1007/s00234-002-0860-5
instead.This may be a knockon effect of Springer's recent platform changes. In the mean time, I'd suggest you just don't use cite doi for Springer. LeadSongDog come howl! 23:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
{{
resolved}}
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Bensci54 (
talk •
contribs) 02:32, 5 January 2013
I am trying to see what effect the bot has in improving citation for "bare-urls" at Camp Dubois. They seem like bare urls to me but no change is made by the bot. So, I guess I don't understand what a bare-url is, or I don't understand the bot, probably both. Any help in understanding - to make me a better more efficient editor appreciated. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 14:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
url=
is munging the link recognition. If CBot does not work, then
User:Dispenser/Reflinks should after you remove those snippets. --—
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk 15:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
|last10=
--
Redrose64 (
talk) 10:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
A second example of this unexpected behaviour:
[85]
Illia Connell (
talk) 03:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Is it possible to mechanically convert a BibTeX citation (as generated by Mathematical Reviews), such as
@article {MR0102537,
AUTHOR = {Grothendieck, Alexander}, TITLE = {Sur quelques points d'alg\`ebre homologique}, JOURNAL = {T\^ohoku Math. J. (2)}, FJOURNAL = {The Tohoku Mathematical Journal. Second Series}, VOLUME = {9}, YEAR = {1957}, PAGES = {119--221}, ISSN = {0040-8735}, MRCLASS = {18.00}, MRNUMBER = {MR0102537 (21 \#1328)},
MRREVIEWER = {D. Buchsbaum}, }
into a format which can be pasted into a Wikipedia article?
ranicki ( talk) 06:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
|mr=0102537
, then let the bot expand it. Or doesn't that work?
LeadSongDog
come howl! 16:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)I have software that is capable of doing this. For your example, it produces
{{citation | last = Grothendieck | first = Alexander | journal = The Tohoku Mathematical Journal | mr = 0102537 | pages = 119–221 | series = Second Series | title = Sur quelques points d'algèbre homologique | volume = 9 | year = 1957}}
which renders as
It can also go the other way, from Wikipedia citation or cite templates to BibTeX. However, it currently only runs on OS X. If you're interested in trying it out, drop me an email. — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC) {{ resolved}}
{{ resolved}}
{{
resolved}}
The detection of invalid parameters and the move to 'unused_data' is now obsolete for the Lua versions of the citation templates. These templates now detect invalid parameter names and fields without parameters and immediately show an error and add a category. -- Gadget850 talk 12:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Fixed in GitHub Pull 437 {{ resolved}}
What error? Both |displayauthors=
and |display-authors=
should be supported as synonyms of each other. There is no reason for the bot to be converting one into the other, but it doesn't seem harmful or generate an error as far as I can see.
Dragons flight (
talk) 23:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to suggest a sanity check in PHP; I'd be happy to add this to the source code.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 14:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
{{
cite web}}
i.e. |url=http://benoitpoirierdambreville.com/about/
|accessed 30 April 2013
was altered to %7C
which made it and the following word become part of the preceding URL, i.e.
http://benoitpoirierdambreville.com/about/%7Caccessed|accessed 30 April 2013
:
|accessdate=30 April 2013
|accessed=30 April 2013
which would have thrown the error Unknown parameter |accessed=
ignored (|accessdate=
suggested) (
help) which would have placed the page into
Category:Pages with citations using unsupported parameters, and so can be fixed up by other processes later
In most cases that match this syntax, the pipe is part of the URL. I can't see a way for the bot to always get this right; if you can think of an algorithm to improve its guessing, feel free to suggest a change to the code.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 14:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
|accessed=
-error, but untouched by the bot:{{cite web|url=http://benoitpoirierdambreville.com/about/|accessed 30 April 2013|title=Some title}}
→
{{
cite web}}
: Text "accessed 30 April 2013" ignored (
help)|
correct:{{cite web|url=http://benoitpoirierdambreville.com/about/|accessdate=30 April 2013|title=Some title}}
→
%7C
. There are no templates - not even {{
cite web}}
- where the literal pipe character is anything other than a separator between parameters. Therefore, the pipe character cannot form part of a URL when that URL is a parameter's value. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 23:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
[[foo|bar]]
(including
image syntax), a pair of triple braces (as used in template coding as e.g. {{{url|}}}
), etc.%7C
will do it; elsewhere (such as in a webpage title) the syntax |
works.|url=
--
Redrose64 (
talk) 22:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
|page=693
was marked as |pages=693
. Fixed. Bot added |pages=693–697; discussion 697–700
. Rm'd single |page=693
. Bot readded |page=693
, causing error, x3. Stopped after 4th removal of old |page=
.
{{ resolved}}
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kakkonto may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page
|
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 15:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 11:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
There is no response from bot maintenance to prevent these errors. See
Module talk:Citation/CS1. -
DePiep (
talk) 21:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
|displayauthors=
(though not exactly the same):
[89]. -
DePiep (
talk) 14:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
throws |displayauthors=
suggested when there are exactly nine authors, and |displayauthors=
has not been set. It's a hint that you may either add further authors beyond nine, since we now support many more, or to add an explicit |displayauthors=9
if the paper credits exactly nine authors. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 16:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
, it is basically
Module:Citation/CS1 (see it's
talk). I say: Citation bot should not introduce (or: re-introduce) this error.
(same link again) shows it did (currect ref #7). -
DePiep (
talk) 19:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
as an example, that being the layer used directly in
Samarium.
[91]: a valid |accessdate=
removed by the bot. -
DePiep (
talk) 18:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
|url=
. The bot concluded one, while it would require user-intervention to get the right conclusion & solution. -
DePiep (
talk) 19:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
cite doi page created with error. Bot should know that when there are 9 authors, set |displayauthors=9
. See
Help:CS1_errors#displayauthors. -
DePiep (
talk) 19:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
|displayauthors=3
(4 - 1 = 3) which produces "et al." correctly. This same is valid for situation: "9 listed, unknown number --> |displayauthor=8
". -
DePiep (
talk) 09:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)|displayauthors=1
, then let editors change it if they prefer something else.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 21:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
|displayauthors=
setting in order to force truncation. If 33 authors are entered then 33 are shown. One can think of this as a default setting of infinite for displayauthors, though that is still restrained by the willingness of editors to actually type in a long author list. As far as I know there is no requirement anywhere that an editor has to enter every author. I also don't know of any broad policy that specifies any particular level of truncation as required or preferred. Which suggests that the only controlling issue is
WP:CITEVAR, i.e. that citations should generally be consistent within individual articles.|displayauthors=8
were set because that matches the historical behavior of the templates prior to Lua, i.e. entering exactly nine authors resulted in eight authors being display followed by an "et al.".
Dragons flight (
talk) 05:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
|displayauthors=
- that's from {{
cite journal}}
but it's the same for {{
citation}}
and all the others based upon
Module:citation/CS1. Pre-Lua, if |displayauthors=
were not set explicitly, these templates would behave as if |displayauthors=8
had been set. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 10:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
|displayauthosrs=8
(produces et al., correct).|displayauthors=9
. (No et al. will be added, correct).
So it is [96]. - DePiep ( talk) 23:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
About Darmstadtium.
Bot edit: [97]
Before bot action: [98]: no error (check ref #15)
After bot action: [99]: error (at ref #15)
Citation bot introduced an error. - DePiep ( talk) 22:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
|last2=
. Garbage in, garbage out. If you look at the recommended citation on the e-journal it reads |last2=
or its synonyms like |author2=
, there would have been an error message. The before-input had no errors and was in line with the documentation. -
DePiep (
talk) 09:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC){{cite journal|doi=10.1103/PhysRevC.67.064609|title=Confirmation of production of element 110 by the <sup>208</sup>Pb(<sup>64</sup>Ni,n) reaction|year=2003|author=Ginter, T. N.|journal=Physical Review C|volume=67|page=064609 |last2=Gregorich|first2=K.|last3=Loveland|first3=W.|last4=Lee|first4=D.|last5=Kirbach|first5=U.|last6=Sudowe|first6=R.|last7=Folden|first7=C.|last8=Patin|first8=J.|last9=Seward|first9=N.|first10=P. |last10=Wilk|first11=P. |last11=Zielinski|first12=K. |last12=Aleklett|first13=R. |last13=Eichler|first14=H. |last14=Nitsche|first15=D. |last15=Hoffman |bibcode = 2003PhRvC..67f4609G|issue=6 }}
→which renders as {{quote|Ghiorso, A.; Somerville, L.; Loveland, W.; Nitschke, J.; Ghiorso, W.; Seaborg, G.; Wilmarth, P.; Leres, R.; Wydler, A.; Nurmia, M.; Gregorich, K.; Czerwinski, K.; Gaylord, R.; Hamilton, T.; Hannink, N. J.; Hoffman, D. C.; Jarzynski, C.; Kacher, C. (1995). "Evidence for the possible synthesis of element 110 produced by the 59Co+209Bi reaction". Physical Review C. 51: R2293. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.51.R2293.{{cite journal|doi=10.1103/PhysRevC.51.R2293|title=Evidence for the possible synthesis of element 110 produced by the <sup>59</sup>Co+<sup>209</sup>Bi reaction|year=1995|author=Ghiorso, A.|journal=Physical Review C|volume=51|pages=R2293|last2=Lee|first2=D.|last3=Somerville|first3=L.|last4=Loveland|first4=W.|last5=Nitschke|first5=J.|last6=Ghiorso|first6=W.|last7=Seaborg|first7=G.|last8=Wilmarth|first8=P.|last9=Leres|first9=R.|first10=A. |last10=Wydler|first11=M. |last11=Nurmia|first12=K. |last12=Gregorich|first13=K. |last13=Czerwinski|first14=R. |last14=Gaylord|first15=T. |last15=Hamilton|first16=N. J. |last16=Hannink|first17=D. C. |last17=Hoffman|first18=C. |last18=Jarzynski|first19=C. |last19=Kacher|first20=B. |last2=Kadkhodayan|first21=S. |last2=Kreek|first22=M. |last2=Lane|first23=A. |last2=Lyon|first24=M. A. |last2=McMahan|first25=M. |last2=Neu|first26=T. |last2=Sikkeland|first27=W. J. |last2=Swiatecki|first28=A. |last2=Türler|first29=J. T. |last2=Walton|first30=S. |last2=Yashita|bibcode = 1995PhRvC..51.2293G|issue=5 }}
{{
cite journal}}
: |first20=
missing |last20=
(
help); |first21=
missing |last21=
(
help); |first22=
missing |last22=
(
help); |first23=
missing |last23=
(
help); |first24=
missing |last24=
(
help); |first25=
missing |last25=
(
help); |first26=
missing |last26=
(
help); |first27=
missing |last27=
(
help); |first28=
missing |last28=
(
help); |first29=
missing |last29=
(
help); |first2=
missing |last2=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |action required from maintainer=
(
help)Howdy. I noticed that the bot did this again on June 27 here. I fixed it. Is there any kind of update when this bug might be fixed?-- Rockfang ( talk) 22:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
|journal=
but with |work=Behav Ecol
. What it should have done is change para work to para journal while keeping the value, to have |journal=Behav Ecol
. Instead it simply added |journal=Behav Ecol
. The old template tolerated this redundancy, but the new one (post-Lua) does not, creating a problem.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 18:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC){{ resolved}}
It seems to be impossible to guard against this type of problem, because the root cause is that the citation template parameters were not filled in properly. But this shouldn't be dismissed; if citations were always filled out perfectly then this bot would never be needed! I'm not sure if this was an automated change since the end of the edit summary seems to be cut off. If it was manually triggered by an editor than obviously that's that editor's fault for not checking the preview properly. In that case please let us know how to find out who the user is so that they can be informed. If it was an automatic change then I think the bot should be disabled for all such changes, especially if the maintainer is no longer active.
Quietbritishjim (
talk) 20:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I've now
blanked the parameters and hope this will stop a further automated edit. I wasn't expecting the citation bot to revisit the page, perhaps the bot should not re-edit pages it has already touched once?
Gareth Jones (
talk) 15:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
|last2=<!-- leave blank to exclude bad data -->
I'm not sure about leaving the parameter undefined.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 21:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
A correction request has been submitted to the ADS, we'll see if they correct their record. Meanwhile, something's odd about what happened with this, but it should work with this. I'll see if I can determine why they're treated differently. LeadSongDog come howl! 06:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC) {{ resolved}}
Can't replicate. Looks like a one-off data glitch.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 16:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC){{
Resolved}}
Content:text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
TY - JOUR AU - Milius, Susan TI - Botany under the mistletoe: Twisters, spitters, and other flowery thoughts for romantic moments JO - Science News JA - Sci News VL - 158 IS - 26-27 PB - Society for Science & the Public SN - 1943-0930 UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/4018592 DO - 10.2307/4018592 SP - 411 EP - 413 PY - 2000 ER -
This is a database error. JSTOR - to where this DOI links - sometimes provides duplicate dois. Try using the DOi from Wiley & Son.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 16:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Look, I'm sure I'll get an earful about why the hell I even bothered to add {{thinsp}} ( thinsp is a "thin space"). But whether or not that was a good idea, the bot certainly shouldn't do what it did -- no doubt this wanders into an unanticipated corner case in some regex.
<ArticleTitle>"No longer Gage": frontal lobe dysfunction and emotional changes.</ArticleTitle>
|title="No longer Gage": frontal lobe dysfunction and emotional changes.
as the value to be automagically inserted by the bot. Your version substituted &squot; for the leading ", presumably to improve legibility, but breaking the automatic check against published metadata. I note that of the published works citing that paper, many mangle the quotation marks in even stranger ways. This may be a special-enough case to be worth avoiding cite journal entirely, manually writing the cite doi subpage instead. The problem only arises when the title properly begins with a double quotation mark, invoking the substitution of the single...
LeadSongDog
come howl! 22:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
FYI: Any HTML entity is currently rendered without parsing in the COinS metadata:
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-000000AC-QINU`"'<cite id="CITEREFStussGowHetherington1992" class="citation journal cs1">Stuss, D. T.; Gow, C. A.; Hetherington, C. R. (1992). " 'No longer gage': Frontal lobe dysfunction and emotional changes". ''Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology''. <b>60</b> (3): 349–359. [[doi (identifier)|doi]]:[https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-006X.60.3.349 10.1037/0022-006X.60.3.349]. [[PMID (identifier)|PMID]] [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1619089 1619089].</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Consulting+and+Clinical+Psychology&rft.atitle=%26thinsp%3B%27No+longer+gage%27%3A+Frontal+lobe+dysfunction+and+emotional+changes&rft.volume=60&rft.issue=3&rft.pages=349-359&rft.date=1992&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1037%2F0022-006X.60.3.349&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F1619089&rft.aulast=Stuss&rft.aufirst=D.%26thinsp%3BT.&rft.au=Gow%2C+C.%26thinsp%3BA.&rft.au=Hetherington%2C+C.%26thinsp%3BR.&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AUser+talk%3ACitation+bot%2FArchive+2" class="Z3988"></span><span class="cs1-maint citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{[[Template:cite journal|cite journal]]}}</code>: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ([[:Category:CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list|link]])</span>
--
Gadget850
talk 15:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It's not easy for a novice to find the relevant documentation. It could be better integrated but I lack the time and skill. As a stopgap I suggest that something like the following be added as hatnotes (or whatever) to Template:Cite doi/subpage
EEng ( talk) 22:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
in Cancer and nausea, citation bot incorrectly added " |last=Schwartz" ( diff). This creates the somewhat confusing error message "More than one of |last1= and |last= specified". — Chris Capoccia T⁄ C 01:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
I've found a couple of pages that have a {{cite doi|10.2307/number}} that the citebot doesn't seem to be able to handle. 10.2307 is JSTOR. OTOH, if I change that to {{cite jstor|number}} it seems to be able to find the appropriate information and create the template. Any ideas? At least as of right now, Vetigastropoda is an example. I could change it to {{cite jstor|1306561}}, but I'm going to leave it there as an example for the moment. Naraht ( talk) 13:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Your bug report didn't say where you saw this problem, making it difficult for others to duplicate and diagnose. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
{{cite doi|10.4035/foo.bar.20130915}}
in an article and then Preview or Save your article, Citation Bot will come along in a short while and fill in that template for you using the citation information that exists at the web page of that doi. Citation Bot can sometimes also expand existing citations in articles using the "Expand Citations" Gadget, which you can add to your left-side Toolbox by enabling it in Preferences. I have not had much luck with expanding citations using this Gadget on articles, but it works very well for me on cite doi templates. Citation Bot does not just swoop in and fill in partial citations in articles after you have edited them.Please send your bot over there. I created a small problem. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 00:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help)
The ADS database record seems rather bizarre at
Bibcode:
2005JChPh.123c4103G, showing "pp. 034103-034103-7" for a 7 page article. Crossref just shows it as page 034103.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 18:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
This is user error. The DOI includes bogus hidden characters right before the / Try this:
Attention: This template ({{
cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1161/CIR.0b013e318214914f, please use {{
cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{
cite report}} with |doi=10.1161/CIR.0b013e318214914f
instead.
Looks like a
race condition (a.k.a.
wp:edit conflict). All four edits were inside a 4 minute window, and that is a large, extensively referenced article which takes quite a while to process. The bot didn't exactly undo your revert, it simply started from the same (vandalized) version as you did, and by the time it committed, you had jumped in with your quick revert. It's rare but it does happen. Unfortunately, it happens disproportionately often on these massive articles.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 13:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Looks like a race condition. nondeleterious. Don't think there's anything to be done.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 18:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I suppose the bug is arguably with the citation template?--
Elvey (
talk) 01:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I have a question about the edit summary of this edit by the bot: [106]. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the edit itself, and I'm not objecting to it in any way. However, the edit summary refers to an editor who is currently blocked, and so I have a question as to what the link to the username indicates. Does this mean that someone who is blocked can, nonetheless, activate the bot to make an edit? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
{{ Resolved}}
Another possible change, if the maintainer is unwilling to add this feature: Add a note like "(username not verified)" when the bot is not run by a logged-in user. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 03:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I think this is what's happening, anyway, based on the Version History of
Template:Cite doi/10.1152.2Fajprenal.00006.2008. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 23:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
|authors=
would be much more suitable in these cases.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 10:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
|author=
is an alias of |authors=
and the underlying template code treats them identically. Like it or not, there are large numbers of citations that contain a single author parameter that were generated for example using
Diberri's template filler tool. Other editors have then imbedded wiki links into the author lists. Not everyone likes to use verbose "first1, last1, ..." parameters. Using a single author parameter to store the author list is much more compact and less cluttered.
Boghog (
talk) 11:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
|last1=Doe
|first1=John
|authorlink1=John Doe (biologist)
|author2=United Nations Secretariat
|author3=Ban Ki-moon
|authorlink3=Ban Ki-moon
. See also
Template talk:Citation#Lastname, Firstname. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 11:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
The bot went wrong by removing the second of two references. The article uses a list of named references in the reference section between reference and /reference. The reference in the text can be referred to by name, but the full reference needs to be in the reference list.
StarryGrandma (
talk) 00:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Two different references with the same name seems to confuse the bot AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 04:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm just reporting a one off diff here, haven't looked into it much, but it wasn't pretty.
bridies (
talk) 13:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
The Citation bot does all sorts of horrible things with {{
cite pmc}}, but we closed those bugs when {{
cite pmc}} was deleted. Some one recreated {{
cite pmc}} for no good reason.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 02:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Example of bot destroying good stuff: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template%3ACite_pmc%2F112890&diff=531588177&oldid=530155864 AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 15:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Just use template bots | deny = citation bot to exclude the bot from a page.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 15:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
|authors=
, |author1=
/|author2=
..., |last1=
/|last2=
, and |coauthors=
. These mixes do not seem to be consistently resolved, either with the bot or manually. There should be a discussion on this question in a broader forum.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 14:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
(
talk page stalker) - It appears that the bot incorrectly deleted two instances of <ref name="foobar" />...</ref>
-
GoingBatty (
talk) 22:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your interest, but grouping the references is a bit premature as the article is only just starting. Please don't group the references in any of the other articles which I am currently in the process of creating because they are only drafts, at this stage. --
Rskp (
talk) 06:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
| status = {{ resolved}}
{{
cite news}}
templates had two of its parameters placed between valid HTML comment markers, i.e. <!--| archiveurl=
http://www.webcitation.org/5nospLAte | archivedate=February 25, 2010-->
the bot has taken the open-comment marker <!--
and decided it was "unused data", moved it after the close-comment marker
Does this systematically occur when going from, say, two digits to three? Or could it be that the data the bot is using is from a pre-publication version that has different pagination?
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 14:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
|pages=
parameter held a meaningful value, even if, as a single page number, it should actually have been in the |page=
parameter; but after the bot edit, it is no longer meaningful, because the number representing the end of the page range is lower than the number representing the start of the range. I have found out that the second example was probably supposed to be |pages=3–11
which suggests that it has been truncated; but using the same method on the first, I came up with |pages=87–96
which cannot become |pages=97–10
by simple truncation. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 22:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi there. This bot is blocked and inactive, as a result its bot flag will soon be removed to try and tidy up our list of accounts with bot flags. If you have any problems get in touch with me on my talk page! ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 10:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
{{ Resolved}}
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Redrose64 (
talk) 23:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Citation bot ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
see below
Accept reason:
Unblocked. Closedmouth ( talk) 14:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
A temporary fix is to add: "{{bots|deny=Citation bot}}" to the article. I strongly agree that full CS1 support needs to be implemented, but at the same time, blocking the bot is causing more problems than it solves. Boghog ( talk) 19:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
{{
bots|deny=citation bot}}
. -
DePiep (
talk) 08:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Quite simply: since the bot relies on {{ citation}} templates (basically, that was {{ citation/core}}, now Module:citation/CS1) it should comply with that one. It should not introduce errors because of this omission. Putting the load and responsibility on the invoking editor for this is incorrect attitude -- that is not why is is a bot. - DePiep ( talk) 08:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Citation bot ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Please also unblock User:Citation bot 1, which was missed when the above unblock request was actioned. This block is stopping me from fixing bugs! Thanks. Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 09:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Accept reason:
this one unblocked as well Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 21:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
-->
|author1=C.A.R.
. Wait for bot to restore it.
It added a large mess of text to the reference here [
[118]].
Bhny (
talk) 15:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
.citation-comment { display: inline !important; color: red; }
I've just noticed that this error happened to a citation, not to a cite book template. Apparently (or so it seems from the documentation) Citation Bot will not make such changes to cite book templates.
However, in the same article Citation Bot changed a bunch of cite book templates to citation templates. This opens the way for a two step corruption process in which on round one a cite book template is changed to a citation template, and in round two the citation template is corrupted by adding a review. SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 17:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC) Looks like a
Look, I'm sure I'll get an earful about why the hell I even bothered to add {{thinsp}} ( thinsp is a "thin space"). But whether or not that was a good idea, the bot certainly shouldn't do what it did -- no doubt this wanders into an unanticipated corner case in some regex.
<ArticleTitle>"No longer Gage": frontal lobe dysfunction and emotional changes.</ArticleTitle>
|title="No longer Gage": frontal lobe dysfunction and emotional changes.
as the value to be automagically inserted by the bot. Your version substituted &squot; for the leading ", presumably to improve legibility, but breaking the automatic check against published metadata. I note that of the published works citing that paper, many mangle the quotation marks in even stranger ways. This may be a special-enough case to be worth avoiding cite journal entirely, manually writing the cite doi subpage instead. The problem only arises when the title properly begins with a double quotation mark, invoking the substitution of the single...
LeadSongDog
come howl! 22:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
FYI: Any HTML entity is currently rendered without parsing in the COinS metadata:
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-000000D8-QINU`"'<cite id="CITEREFStussGowHetherington1992" class="citation journal cs1">Stuss, D. T.; Gow, C. A.; Hetherington, C. R. (1992). " 'No longer gage': Frontal lobe dysfunction and emotional changes". ''Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology''. <b>60</b> (3): 349–359. [[doi (identifier)|doi]]:[https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-006X.60.3.349 10.1037/0022-006X.60.3.349]. [[PMID (identifier)|PMID]] [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1619089 1619089].</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Consulting+and+Clinical+Psychology&rft.atitle=%26thinsp%3B%27No+longer+gage%27%3A+Frontal+lobe+dysfunction+and+emotional+changes&rft.volume=60&rft.issue=3&rft.pages=349-359&rft.date=1992&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1037%2F0022-006X.60.3.349&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F1619089&rft.aulast=Stuss&rft.aufirst=D.%26thinsp%3BT.&rft.au=Gow%2C+C.%26thinsp%3BA.&rft.au=Hetherington%2C+C.%26thinsp%3BR.&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AUser+talk%3ACitation+bot%2FArchive+2" class="Z3988"></span><span class="cs1-maint citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{[[Template:cite journal|cite journal]]}}</code>: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ([[:Category:CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list|link]])</span>
--
Gadget850
talk 15:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
<bump> I would really appreciate an answer per above. What I'm looking for is the precise test by which the bot decides whether or not it should overwrite existing data. Or is the code somewhere I can look at it myself? EEng ( talk) 13:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
-->
Thanks for the report; I'll aim to fix this in the next major release.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 05:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I suspect bad data on the far end. Also see my attempt to
create a cite doi template for the same article. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 03:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
-->
{{
resolved}}
It looks like all comments in references were replaced with the same text. I reverted the whole edit.
{{
Cite journal}}
which has been given several mutually-exclusive parameters: |first1=L.
|last2=Rawat
|author2=Rawat
|first2=M.
|author3=La Clair
|last4=Jothivasan
|last3=La Clair
|last5=Budiarto
|first3=J.
|author4=Jothivasan
|first4=K.
|last7=Claiborne
|author5=Budiarto
|last8=Helmann
|first5=T.
|last1=Newton
|last9=Fahey
|first6=J.
|author7=Claiborne
|last6=Hamilton
|author6=Hamilton
|first7=A.
|author8=Helmann
|first8=D.
|author9=Fahey
|first9=C.
Can you spell out the problem and desired outcome? At a cursory glance the above string doesn't seem to cause an error.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 14:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
{{ cite journal}} now uses the new Module:Citation/CS1 core. The new core has more error checking, such as duplicate parameters. See Help:CS1 errors. The older version of this citation was:
Newton, L.; Rawat, M.; La Clair, J.; Jothivasan, K.; Budiarto, T.; Hamilton, J.; Claiborne, A.; Helmann, D.; Fahey, C. (2009).
"Bacillithiol is an antioxidant thiol produced in Bacilli". Nature chemical biology. 5 (9): 625–627.
doi:
10.1038/nchembio.189.
ISSN
1552-4450.
PMC
3510479.
PMID
19578333. {{
cite journal}}
: More than one of |author2=
and |last2=
specified (
help); More than one of |author3=
and |last3=
specified (
help); More than one of |author4=
and |last4=
specified (
help); More than one of |author5=
and |last5=
specified (
help); More than one of |author6=
and |last6=
specified (
help); More than one of |author7=
and |last7=
specified (
help); More than one of |author8=
and |last8=
specified (
help); More than one of |author9=
and |last9=
specified (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
If you check the history, you will see that the bot added these duplicate parameters. -- Gadget850 talk 15:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
|class=foobar
matches |eprint=foobar/barboo
, then remove |class=foobar
. That would probably cover 99% of cases.
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books} 18:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)@Martin: Your idea is probably correct, but I think checking the existence of a slash is surer. Let me elaborate:
Arxiv.org uses two formats, the old one, and the new (i.e. current). In the old, eprint=<class>/<numbers>, and in the new, eprint=<numbers>, or more precisely, <YYMM.numbers>. Since it's two-digit YY, it'll sometime change, and that's the subtlety I indicated above.
In the old format (which had been used for papers submitted by some 2007), you shouldn't add the "class", or if one is already present, class should be deleted. -- Teika kazura ( talk) 02:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Here's a diff that shows what I mean. The original citation, created by an older version of the bot, limited the authors to nine (I understand why this happened). With the revised bot's wonderful ability to add more authors, using the citation expander tool to add more authors adds "last10" before the doi, then "first10" and the rest of the author params after the doi. It looks strange when you edit the template, though of course it renders just fine. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 01:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I used citation expander on about ten existing cite pmid templates with just nine authors, expecting to gain the remaining authors, and this is the only one that this happened to. The other ones expanded just fine. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 02:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
This seems to happen when there is an "author" parameter. When this happens and I remove the "author" parameter, replacing it with a blank "last1 =" and "first1 =" and run the citation expander again, it usually works fine. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 05:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Here's an example of this or a similar problem still happening. I thought that 449 was in production, but it looks like I'm still using 443. If you look at the subsequent history, you can see the manual changes I made to clean it up so that citation bot could fill it in cleanly. I don't know why this workaround works, but it does. It seems to happen only when something is unusual in the first author's parameter(s), like when "author" exists or "last" and "first" exist instead of "last1" and "first1". – Jonesey95 ( talk) 23:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Here's an example of this happening with a cite pmid template, with citation bot r458. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 23:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
This has been a bug as long as I have been using citation bot (3-4 months). The link at the top of the output page goes to the WP main page instead of to the template, and if there are no changes to the citation, there is no link to the template at the bottom of the page. The output in question appears to be produced in line 25 of expand.php. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 13:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
My question is simple: when was this bot approved for this behavior? Specifically, where was it discussed to have the bot run on new FAC nominations? With the US 23 example linked above, nothing visible was changed, but some extra spaces were removed. Is that not a violation of bot policy to only make changes if they'll be visible?
Imzadi 1979
→ 02:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Example article containing more than 30 authors. Cite doi template for this article is listed above. I have not looked at the XML at the doi's source to see if 30 authors is a limitation imposed by the article's XML itself, but it seems like a citation bot limit, since it happens with journals all over the place.
One note: This situation has the potential to put us in the same situation we ended up in with the "displayauthors" Lua error that appears on 11,000+ articles that have 9 authors listed in the cite journal template, so the enhancement, if implemented, should be done in a way that avoids splashing a bunch of red text all over the place. Ideally. I think. Or maybe that's what we want, once there is a fix, so that we can run the citation expander on those articles again and get the problem fixed. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 12:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I've tried to use the citation expander gadget to add remaining authors to this citation, but the bot appears to stop processing and generate a portion of the normal output without adding the authors. It looks like it is finding a graceful way to exit out of the code for some reason, but I don't think it should. I haven't seen this one before. I did note that there are curly braces in the title parameter. I don't know if that causes any problems. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 23:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Here's the output I get:
Establishing connection to Wikipedia servers ... Using account Citation bot. Fetching parameter list ... done. Welcome to Citation Bot Please wait while the Citation bot processes the page you requested. Activated by Jonesey95 Expanding 'Template:Cite_doi/10.1073.2Fpnas.0401080101'; will commit edits. Revision #443 [00:00:00] Processing page 'Template:Cite_doi/10.1073.2Fpnas.0401080101' — edit—history * Looking for bare references... * Tidying reference tags... - No references found. - No references found. ---- Blank page. Perhaps it's been deleted? ** Blank page retrieved. # # # End of output # # #
– Jonesey95 ( talk) 21:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
These work, however the adabs and doi URLs don't work if they are reframed to https protocol
LeadSongDog come howl! 13:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
|displayauthors=29
to these citations so that they will show all authors and remove the error message. I recommend a value of 29 instead of 9 or some other value because the 9-author articles should show all authors, and the unexpanded templates may eventually be able to expand to more than 9 authors, up to the current apparent limit of 30.Please wait while the Citation bot processes the page you requested. Activated by Headbomb Expanding 'OPERA_experiment'; will commit edits. Revision #442 [00:00:00] Processing page '[/info/en/?search= OPERA_experiment]' — [https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=OPERA_experiment&action=edit edit]—[https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=OPERA_experiment&action=history history]
[00:00:00] Processing page '[/info/en/?search=OPERA_experiment OPERA experiment]' — [https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=OPERA_experiment&action=edit edit] — [https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=OPERA_experiment&action=history history]
Note the first link (and the spacing of the emdashes).
Hasn't this been fixed in the latest version? How are you activating the bot?
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 09:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I mistakenly posted my experience of this bug in another section, but this
diff demonstrates the problem again. I'm not sure what consensus needs to occur for the solution. If "author" is specified, shouldn't the bot just refrain from adding "last" or "first" parameters?
Azaghal of Belegost (
talk) 18:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Can you suggest a protocol by which the bot can determine whether the pipe is genuinely part of the title paramete (so should be escaped as you suggest), or whether a user has mis-typed the following parameter — for example title = All about things | journal - Journal of Science
or title = All about things | <!-- url =
http://not.working.com -->
Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 09:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Please suggest a method by which the bot can distinguish institutional from human authors.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 07:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I think I've thought this one all the way through. There may be some nuance that I'm missing. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 21:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Fatal error: Call to undefined function expand() in /data/project/citations-dev/public_html/doibot.php on line 105
. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 00:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mesoionic may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 12:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Done. While you two bots were flirting, I fixed the bracket problem. Carry on. Don't let me interrupt. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 20:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Fixed in GitHub Pull 528
See
this edit. The bot seems to have forgotten to add |lastn=
parameters to match all of the |firstn=
parameters that it added. The bot added |author1=
and |last=
which are aliases of each other and as such, when present simultaneously in a citation, cause an error. I have reverted.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 03:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
|author
is already present. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 04:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)|pages=
when it should use |page=
and occasionally adds extraneous text: |journal=Astronomical Journal (ISSN 0004-6256)
. The ISSN belongs in |issn=
. The title of the journal is
The Astronomical Journal. And too much white space. I have fixed one of the mangled citations.{{
reflist}}
as part of |refs=
. It gets them out of the article text so makes reading in the edit window easier. I've moved the citation that I fixed as an example.
Are you activating the bot yourself, or is the bot jumping in and editing your article after you save it?
I believe that this is a page caching problem that exists for all quick-succession edits, not just edits by Citation Bot. I have experienced it when doing a manual edit of a cite doi template, followed a few seconds later by running Citation Bot using the "Expand citations" gadget in my Toolbox. The bot edits the previous version, ignoring my manual edits. Let's see if I can find it.... Maybe bugzilla:46014, and it looks like a patch has been developed for the MediaWiki software, presumably to be deployed at some future date. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 04:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
This bug is similar to one
reported above. The citation bot sometimes has trouble with citations when "author" parameters are present. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 15:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
|author4=Van Den Hoek Ostende LW
- but it was already present, in slightly different form, as |last4=Hoek Ostende
|first4=L. W.
|last4=
This is not a new error. To my certain knowledge it has come up many times before. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 18:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Assumed to be fixed in r505.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 16:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
{{{last|Voelker}}}
when according to both pubmed and crossref it should be satisfied with {{{last1|Bachert}}}
and {{{last5|Voelker}}}
. Fortunately in this particular case it doesn't matter, the template is never transcluded.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 20:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
the bot puts it right back!
Sorry. Duplicate of "Author was already present" and "Organochloride bad edit: spurious lastn parameters added" above. I agree: stop the bot now. It is causing a lot of work to be undone.
Quebec99 (
talk) 16:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
1: Tidy citation and try to expand
- Checking CrossRef for more details [DOItools.php/expand_from_crossref]
+ last2: Von Bohlen Und Halbach (ok)
- Searching PubMed... no results. 1 result found; updating citation
+ author2: von Bohlen und Halbach O
2: DOI already present
3: PMID already present
- Checking PMID 12845521 for more details [DOItools.php/get_data_from_pubmed]
+ author2: von Bohlen und Halbach O
4: Expand citation
- Checking CrossRef for more details [DOItools.php/expand_from_crossref]
+ last2: Von Bohlen Und Halbach (ok)
- No changes since last PubMed search.
5: Formatting and other tweaks
First: Cite Doi formatting [expand.php/expand_text]
+ first2: O.
{{ resolved}}
Improvement: The bot would be much better if ... Cosmetic: The bot modifies appearance (e.g. capitalization) but not content Inconvenience: Humans must occasionally make immediate edits to clean up after the bot Deleterious: Human-input data is deleted or articles are otherwise significantly affected. Many bot edits require undoing. Catastrophical: The bot should stop editing immediately -->
<noinclude>{{template doc|Template:cite_pmid/subpage}}</noinclude>
{{Documentation|etc.</noinclude>
Thanks for the detailed report; fixed.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 18:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it's better, just not fixed. See
this recent diff. Under line 64, it fails to recognize display-authors=3, and goes on to add displayauthors=30.
A tip: I could be totally wrong about this, but the r490 fix message log lists it in uppercase ("Displayauthors", not "displayauthors"). Case-sensitivity perhaps? meteor_sandwich_yum ( talk) 22:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
|last=
and |last1=
, which it should not do. It also created a template with exactly four editors without adding |displayeditors=29
, which it should do (see similar bug report above with more details). The bot also did not format the editors' names in the same way that it formats author names. The bot also left HTML markup in |title=
. It also failed to pick up all of the authors' last names.
<ref name="ReferenceA">
to <ref name="RailMagazine2007">
, which caused an error Cite error: The named reference ReferenceA
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page). which was not previously present.
The new version of the bot won't edit reference names. (It's too complicated.)
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 19:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Warning: session_start() [<a href='function.session-start'>function.session-start</a>]: Cannot send session cookie - headers already sent by (output started at /data/project/citations/public_html/text.php:9) in /data/project/citations/public_html/expandFns.php on line 3
Random warning message appears, twice at top of page being edited every time I use the Citation bot. --
Iamozy (
talk) 20:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Citation bot 2 created the following templates. I can't figure out why they were created in the first place, and I can't figure out why they were recreated after I CSD'd them. Time stamps are UTC-8.
Can you explain what happened here and how it might be prevented? – Jonesey95 ( talk) 23:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
|doi_inactivedate=2014-02-03 |doi_brokendate=2014-02-03
to this reference, which causes the error:
More than one of |doi_brokendate= and |doi_inactivedate= specified
Thanks for catching this. Boy, parameters seem to have proliferated whilst I wasn't looking!
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 07:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
It looks like there is no change in the rendered output or even the content of the citation. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 06:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
When running Citation bot on the citation
Pu H, Kobayashi Y, Lü J, Xu L, Wu Y, et al. (2013) An Unusual Basal Therizinosaur Dinosaur with an Ornithischian Dental Arrangement from Northeastern China. PLoS ONE 8(5): e63423. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0063423, the corresponding editor's name (Leon Claessens) gets appended, which contradicts convention and the Citation itself. Editors are standard when citing books and encyclopedia, but not in articles such as this. This vexing problem has arisen on other PLoS articles, please modify the code to not insert editor name.
It's been a while that I couldn't run the bot in the "edit" mode, i.e., after clicking "edit" on an article and a radio button "citations" at the bottom. This mode is most important for the bot, as it allows to preview changes before they are automatically saved (with potential errors, as done when clicking "expand citations"). Please restore this mode, or tell me if I miss something obvious. The error messages when trying to use this mode look like
Warning: session_start() [<a href='function.session-start'>function.session-start</a>]: Cannot send session cache limiter - headers already sent (output started at /data/project/citations/public_html/text.php:9) in /data/project/citations/public_html/expandFns.php on line 3
Materialscientist (
talk) 00:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I get this error message when running the bot from the toolbar on the left-hand-side:
- Internal error
- The URI you have requested,
http://tools.wmflabs.org/citations/doibot.php?edit=toolbar&slow=1&user=Josve05a&page=Quassinoid, appears to be non-functional at this time.
- Perhaps the webserver has temporarily lost its mind, or the link you've followed doesn't actually lead somewhere useful?
If you're pretty sure this shouldn't be an error, you may wish to notify the project administrators about the error and how you ended up here.
( t) Josve05a ( c) 17:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I can't run the bot on
Steve Jobs. Is it due to the fact that the article is semi-protected? (
t)
Josve05a (
c) 10:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Bot inserted "|first14=H.|[E.]|" instead of "|first14=H.|". Something bad happened with the accented character in this author's first name.
Here's the article in question. The 14th author is Hervé Tettelin.
It is possible that this bug has been fixed in a later revision of the bot. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 00:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Please make the Written to Example.
red agin, it is easier to see if the article has been edited that way. (
t)
Josve05a (
c) 10:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
{{cite web|url=http://www.ibo.org/school/search/index.cfm?programmes=&country=®ion=&find_schools=Find|url=http://www.ibo.org/school/search/index.cfm?programmes=&country=US®ion=&find_schools=Find|title=Find an IB World School|accessdate=June 18, 2013}}
to {{cite web|DUPLICATE_url=http://www.ibo.org/school/search/index.cfm?programmes=&country=®ion=&find_schools=Find|url=http://www.ibo.org/school/search/index.cfm?programmes=&country=US®ion=&find_schools=Find|title=Find an IB World School|accessdate=June 18, 2013}}
(chaning url to DUPLICATE_url)
It really can't delete the URL, since they are not the same and the bot has no way of knowing which one is better. Putting the DUPLICATE_url in the wiki makes it clear that there is a problem that requires human intervention.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 21:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I added {{cite doi|10.1086/663750}}
to my Sandbox page, clicked Preview, and then clicked "jump the queue" in the Preview mode. I like to do this so that I can create a cite doi template before saving an article with a new cite doi template. I received the following response from Citation Bot:
Welcome to Citation Bot Please wait while the Citation bot processes the page you requested. Revision #532 Establishing connection to Wikipedia servers ... Using account Citation bot. Fetching parameter list ... done. Expanding 'Template:Cite doi/10.1086.2F663750'; will commit edits. Page 'Template:Cite doi/10.1086.2F663750' not found. End of output # # #
I then created the cite doi template by hand, populated the doi parameter, and Citation Bot filled in the rest with no trouble. Something about the "jump the queue" link didn't work for me. This used to work just fine. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 22:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
if (!($authors = $this->get('author'))) $authors = $this->get('authors');
if (!($authors = $this->get('authors'))) $authors = $this->get('author');
Cheers, LeadSongDog come howl! 23:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
|number=
parameter is now listed as deprecated. Thus the bot's current behaviour – changing |number=
to |issue=
– is correct. Having resolved this issue, I am requesting that
User:Citation bot 1 is unblocked.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 10:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)|number=
get deprecated? As far as
Module:Citation/CS1 is concerned, |number=
is an active and valid alias for |issue=
and will remain so for the foreseeable future.|number=
as an alias of |issue=
in CS1 citations, I have undone the change made by Editor Smith609 to
Help:Citation_Style_1#Edition_identifiers with
this edit.Citation bot ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Please unblock User:Citation bot 1 (which shares this talk page). The bot was blocked because it was changing 'number' to 'issue'. It was unclear whether this was the correct behaviour. It has now been clarified that 'number' is a deprecated parameter and should be replaced with 'issue.
Decline reason:
Procedural decline: I hate to sound bureaucratic, but for unblock request tracking purposes, the unblock request MUST be made on that bot's individual usertalk page (been there, done that myself). Once the unblock is accepted, the redirect can be reinstated D P 14:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
The Original Barnstar | |
Thank you, you have been very helpful to me as a new user and contributor. Tonythetiger89 ( talk) 16:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC) |
At least in Germany, "H.-P." would be the canonical shortening. No whitespace is inserted, as this is a single first name, and there was no whitespace in it originally either.
Worse, the bot even undid my manual fix in this edit, probably triggered by adding the issue, a similar change happened in one where it added the ISBN. -- Chire ( talk) 10:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
The bot should add "displayeditors=29" if there are exactly four editors to avoid the Lua error described for exactly 9 authors above. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 23:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm wondering if this might be related to this edit [139] recently where the bot de-accented the characters from some names (I don't know if this is correct) but also completely lost the vowel in Guzmán, changing it to Guzmn. Metadox ( talk) 04:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Please would you actually fix some of these issues, or must I block the bot again? --
Redrose64 (
talk) 14:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
|year=2009-03-17
. The correct behavior would have been to change it to |date=2009-03-17
. I do not, though, understand why rev 442 is still running after all the subsequent code revisions that @
Smith609: has made.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 15:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
|date=
in |year=
problem. That aside, the citationbot could at least ignore an ISO date for endash conversion.
Rjwilmsi 17:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
|year=2009-03-17
was intended by the human editor as an ISO date, rather than a (malformed) year range, except by comparison with records in citation databases. Such a date range would, of course, call for the endash.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 18:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)|last11=Füssel
became |last11=Fussel
), inserted undesirable spaces (|first11=H.-M.
and |first15=J.-P.
became |first11=H. -M.
and |first15=J. -P.
), and capitalised a word which is not normally capitalised (|last15=van Ypersele
became |last15=Van Ypersele
. There was also no need to remove the linebreaks: that just makes comparison more difficult. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 18:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
|date=March 2009
, which would be consistent with other citations in those articles.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 20:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
|day=
parameter" (it's been deprecated for years). --
Redrose64 (
talk) 21:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
|date=
don't give a full date including the day, just give month & year. Or just give year in |year=
". Reason being that print journal publications came out weekly/monthly or less often, so issue number & month/year mattered, exact day did not. |day=
is long gone so it's not referring to that. However, now we have online-only or online first publishing, I'm particularly thinking of PLoS as a good example, the full date of publication is given on the website and it seems most sensible to give that. So while I agree with where the documentation was coming from, I'm not sure it's fully up to date for online/online first journal publications. Either way a full date or month & year lives in |date=
, not |year=
and the citation bot needs a bit more validation, year ranges could be checked to match nnnn-nnnn format before endashes applied. Now that we have the CS1 date errors category some cleanup will happen over time.
Rjwilmsi 22:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
|date=
value.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 14:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Please note that the ToolServer, on which the bot is hosted, is scheduled to be decommissioned on Jan 6th. I am in the process of transferring the bot to WikiMedia servers at
http://tools.wmflabs.org/citations/. If you can help, please let me know. Otherwise I will endeavour to complete the transition as soon as possible.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 17:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
! Function updateBacklog() in expandFns.php requires mysql support, not yet available on WMFlabs servers.
Backlog not updated.
(
t)
Josve05a (
c) 16:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
@ Jonesey95: not for me. Have you purged/cleared your cache? ( t) Josve05a ( c) 16:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I can't explain what happened here. Valid CS1 cite templates like "cite journal" and "cite press release" (and many others) were turned into "citation" templates. "author3=and others" was added to some citations. Blank |postscript=
was added to many citations.
Just to let you know that the new version of the bot has now gone live at http://tools.wmflabs.org/citations/. Users should not notice any difference, other than the resolution of many long-standing bugs. Please do be extra vigilant when initiating the bot (in case there's anything I've missed) and continue to report bugs here as usual. Cheers, Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 07:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC) |
This version is a substantial rewrite and has bugs that the old version did not have (see below). It's not just a bug fix version. Have you considered whether it might be appropriate to file a new BRFA in order to get a wider set of (willing) QA testers who can put the new code through its paces? I worry that you might be asked to undo large batches of Citation Bot changes that cause errors like the ones filed below, or that the bot might be stopped by a short-fused admin. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 22:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
e.g. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
That book review blog has the byline "staff blogger". I've removed the long list of authors that didn't belong.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 14:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
|trans_quote=
with |trans_chapter=
. |trans_quote=
is not valid, but |trans_chapter=
doesn't make sense as a replacement. |trans_chapter=
without |chapter=
creates a CS1 error, "Pages with citations using translated terms without the original".|trans_quote=
alone.|trans_quote=
alone.
Please add 'trans_quote' to the
list of supported parameters.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 08:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
|trans_quote=
is not a valid parameter. It properly produces an error. Changing it to |trans_chapter=
is not a good fix, since that does not match the original editor's intent. It should be left alone in the "unsupported parameter" category for a human editor to sort out. Thanks. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 02:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
-->
The code for Citation Bot 4 needs to be checked to ensure that, at a minimum, it is replacing only Module/CS1 templates with "citation". Please stop Bot 4 until this is done. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 15:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Related,
this edit. Bot breaks down three "authors" into last4,5,6 etc vice 1,2,3 in error.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 04:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
{{Cite jstor|30246725}}
. Citation Bot 2 appears to have created {{
Cite pmid/30246725}} based on that edit.
Get well soon Citation Bot. The bot also seems unable to process dois.
Blue Rasberry
(talk) 17:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
{{cite pmid|1980765}}
in my Sandbox, hit Preview, clicked "jump the queue", and the bot created the template just fine. I still can't click "jump the queue" to create a {{
cite doi}} template; I reported this error above. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 08:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)I don't know if this is the same bug, but when I click the Expand Citations gadget (or the Click here link in the template doc) in {{ Cite_doi/10.1111.2Fresp.12102}}, for example, the bot gives me minimal feedback and does not expand the template. Here's the output:
Revision #532 Establishing connection to Wikipedia servers ... Using account Citation bot. Fetching parameter list ... done.Activated by Jonesey95 Expanding ''; will commit edits. [21:22:16] Processing page '' — edit—history * 0 {{Citation}} templates and 0 {{Cite XXX}} templates identified. Using dominant template {{Cite XXX}}. # No changes required. # # # -[#TODO unhandled DB request]- End of output # # #
It doesn't do anything. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 02:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
|eprint=
, which does not appear to be valid|url=
with |eprint=
, which created two errors and one undesirable result in one citation. First, |format=
requires |url=
, so when |url=
went away, an error was displayed. Second, |eprint=
results in an "unsupported parameter" error. Third, the title link went away when |url=
was removed.|eprint=
and should not remove |url=
when it is present.|eprint=
and should not remove |url=
when it is present.
|arxiv=
, not |eprint=
, but in this case the arxiv parameter was already set correctly (and the url was completely redundant). The correct thing to do in this case was to convert url to arxiv, notice that arxiv was already present and matching, just delete the url, and also delete the no-longer-relevant |format=
. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 08:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
|url=
is useful because it links |title=
. If url is removed, title won't have a link. It has been stated elsewhere that readers are more likely to understand a linked title than a doi, pmid, pmc, or arxiv link. That seems a reasonable accommodation to me. I would delete the url only if it were likely to lead the reader somewhere unhelpful; that will take human judgment. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 15:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)Users of Citation bot might be interested in this discussion to delete the Cite PMID template family. Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 08:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
-->
Please would you actually fix some of these issues, or must I block the bot again? --
Redrose64 (
talk) 14:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
|year=2009-03-17
. The correct behavior would have been to change it to |date=2009-03-17
. I do not, though, understand why rev 442 is still running after all the subsequent code revisions that @
Smith609: has made.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 15:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
|date=
in |year=
problem. That aside, the citationbot could at least ignore an ISO date for endash conversion.
Rjwilmsi 17:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
|year=2009-03-17
was intended by the human editor as an ISO date, rather than a (malformed) year range, except by comparison with records in citation databases. Such a date range would, of course, call for the endash.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 18:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)|last11=Füssel
became |last11=Fussel
), inserted undesirable spaces (|first11=H.-M.
and |first15=J.-P.
became |first11=H. -M.
and |first15=J. -P.
), and capitalised a word which is not normally capitalised (|last15=van Ypersele
became |last15=Van Ypersele
. There was also no need to remove the linebreaks: that just makes comparison more difficult. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 18:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
|date=March 2009
, which would be consistent with other citations in those articles.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 20:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
|day=
parameter" (it's been deprecated for years). --
Redrose64 (
talk) 21:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
|date=
don't give a full date including the day, just give month & year. Or just give year in |year=
". Reason being that print journal publications came out weekly/monthly or less often, so issue number & month/year mattered, exact day did not. |day=
is long gone so it's not referring to that. However, now we have online-only or online first publishing, I'm particularly thinking of PLoS as a good example, the full date of publication is given on the website and it seems most sensible to give that. So while I agree with where the documentation was coming from, I'm not sure it's fully up to date for online/online first journal publications. Either way a full date or month & year lives in |date=
, not |year=
and the citation bot needs a bit more validation, year ranges could be checked to match nnnn-nnnn format before endashes applied. Now that we have the CS1 date errors category some cleanup will happen over time.
Rjwilmsi 22:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
|date=
value.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 14:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Please note that the ToolServer, on which the bot is hosted, is scheduled to be decommissioned on Jan 6th. I am in the process of transferring the bot to WikiMedia servers at
http://tools.wmflabs.org/citations/. If you can help, please let me know. Otherwise I will endeavour to complete the transition as soon as possible.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 17:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
! Function updateBacklog() in expandFns.php requires mysql support, not yet available on WMFlabs servers.
Backlog not updated.
(
t)
Josve05a (
c) 16:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
@ Jonesey95: not for me. Have you purged/cleared your cache? ( t) Josve05a ( c) 16:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
That book review blog has the byline "staff blogger". I've removed the long list of authors that didn't belong.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 14:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
At least in Germany, "H.-P." would be the canonical shortening. No whitespace is inserted, as this is a single first name, and there was no whitespace in it originally either.
Worse, the bot even undid my manual fix in this edit, probably triggered by adding the issue, a similar change happened in one where it added the ISBN. -- Chire ( talk) 10:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
I can't explain what happened here. Valid CS1 cite templates like "cite journal" and "cite press release" (and many others) were turned into "citation" templates. "author3=and others" was added to some citations. Blank |postscript=
was added to many citations.
-->
The code for Citation Bot 4 needs to be checked to ensure that, at a minimum, it is replacing only Module/CS1 templates with "citation". Please stop Bot 4 until this is done. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 15:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Related,
this edit. Bot breaks down three "authors" into last4,5,6 etc vice 1,2,3 in error.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 04:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Get well soon Citation Bot. The bot also seems unable to process dois.
Blue Rasberry
(talk) 17:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
{{cite pmid|1980765}}
in my Sandbox, hit Preview, clicked "jump the queue", and the bot created the template just fine. I still can't click "jump the queue" to create a {{
cite doi}} template; I reported this error above. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 08:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)I don't know if this is the same bug, but when I click the Expand Citations gadget (or the Click here link in the template doc) in {{ Cite_doi/10.1111.2Fresp.12102}}, for example, the bot gives me minimal feedback and does not expand the template. Here's the output:
Revision #532 Establishing connection to Wikipedia servers ... Using account Citation bot. Fetching parameter list ... done.Activated by Jonesey95 Expanding ''; will commit edits. [21:22:16] Processing page '' — edit—history * 0 {{Citation}} templates and 0 {{Cite XXX}} templates identified. Using dominant template {{Cite XXX}}. # No changes required. # # # -[#TODO unhandled DB request]- End of output # # #
It doesn't do anything. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 02:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
-->
Revision #532 Establishing connection to Wikipedia servers ... Using account Citation bot. Fetching parameter list ... done.Activated by LeadSongDog
Expanding 'Amyotrophic_lateral_sclerosis'; will commit edits. [01:28:06] Processing page 'Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis' — edit—history * 0{{ citation}}
: Empty citation ( help) templates and 0 {{Cite XXX}} templates identified. Using dominant template {{Cite XXX}}. # No changes required. # # # -[#TODO unhandled DB request]- End of output # # #
This despite presence of cite journal templates. LeadSongDog come howl! 01:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
pages
field.
It seems the bot has not processed an existing page since 11 Feb except for a few page-range hyphenation edits. Something went amiss with rev 535?
LeadSongDog
come howl! 08:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
This edit also did not space author initials. It should and always has, per
WP:INITS. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 06:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
|authors=
parameter exists for multiple authors. Placing multiple authors in the |author=
parameter suggests a user input error. The bot preserves output formatting whilst making metadata available to services that use it.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 08:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
|author=
populated with a comma-separated list of author names. This tool has been very widely used.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 22:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC){{cite journal |author = |year= |title= |url= |journal= |publisher= |volume= |issue= |pages= |doi= |pmc= |pmid= }}
{{cite journal |last= |first= |last2= |first2= |year= |title= |url= |journal= |publisher= |volume= |issue= |pages= |doi= |pmc= |pmid= }}
Can't reproduce: can you give an example of where the bot changes the English variety ( WP:RETAIN, quoted in report)? Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 19:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it's better, just not fixed. See
this recent diff. Under line 64, it fails to recognize display-authors=3, and goes on to add displayauthors=30.
A tip: I could be totally wrong about this, but the r490 fix message log lists it in uppercase ("Displayauthors", not "displayauthors"). Case-sensitivity perhaps? meteor_sandwich_yum ( talk) 22:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I am copying this section from the archive, because this bug is back in dev532. Please fix again. Thanks. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 05:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
|url=
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ac200974w?prevSearch=%255Bauthor%253A%2BWorkman%255D%2BNOT%2B%255Batype%253A%2Bad%255D%2BNOT%2B%255Batype%253A%2Bacs-toc%255D&searchHistoryKey=
(which is a correct and accepted url) to |doi=
10.1021/ac200974w?prevSearch=%255Bauthor%253A%2BWorkman%255D%2BNOT%2B%255Batype%253A%2Bad%255D%2BNOT%2B%255Batype%253A%2Bacs-toc%255D
(which is not accepted)|doi=
10.1021/ac200974w
(The DOI might be inactive but it is the "correct" DOI, and not the full string above.
It looks like the code that converts certain URLs to DOIs fails to strip the text after the DOI. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 23:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I got athis message when trying to reach some pages. I will list them as I find them below.
Pages
Message
Proxy Error The proxy server received an invalid response from an upstream server. The proxy server could not handle the request GET /citations/doibot.php. Reason: Error reading from remote server
( t) Josve05a ( c) 19:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
08:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Just to let you know that the new version of the bot has now gone live at http://tools.wmflabs.org/citations/. Users should not notice any difference, other than the resolution of many long-standing bugs. Please do be extra vigilant when initiating the bot (in case there's anything I've missed) and continue to report bugs here as usual. Cheers, Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 07:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC) |
This version is a substantial rewrite and has bugs that the old version did not have (see below). It's not just a bug fix version. Have you considered whether it might be appropriate to file a new BRFA in order to get a wider set of (willing) QA testers who can put the new code through its paces? I worry that you might be asked to undo large batches of Citation Bot changes that cause errors like the ones filed below, or that the bot might be stopped by a short-fused admin. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 22:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Your bot messed up.
[154] The reference was fine, it just adding nonsense.
Dream Focus 11:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Duplicate report: {{ resolved}}
|issue=
when |number=
was already present|issue=
when |number=
was already present
This edit created a "redundant parameter" error. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 17:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
| last=Russell | first=MJ | last2=Hall | first2=AJ | last3=Cairns-Smith
| first3=AG | last4=Braterman | first=PS |
| first4=PS |
, citation bot does this| last=Russell | DUPLICATE_first=MJ | last2=Hall | first2=AJ | last3=Cairns-Smith
| first3=AG | last4=Braterman | first4=P. S. | first=PS |
| last=Russell | first=MJ | last2=Hall | first2=AJ | last3=Cairns-Smith
| first3=AG | last4=Braterman | first4=P. S. | DUPLICATE_first=PS |
The value that the template sees is the last value listed. Your solution would thus change the appearance of the citation, which should be avoided unless necessary.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 13:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Template:Cite doi/10.5665.2Fsleep.1378 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ricky81682 ( talk) 08:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC) {{ resolved}}
This one could get you blocked, which would be unfortunate. Please desist ASAP. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 04:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
|accessdate=
at the various template/module/CS1 talk pages. At least:
|accessdate=
is not required for unchanging source material. B. Having an |accessdate=
on a citation to an "unchanging" source is not an actual error (i.e. it is not something that negatively affects the ability of the citation to perform its primary function of providing information pointing to the reference which supports the article text). C. There is certainly no consensus that removing an |accessdate=
with a valid date is appropriate at any time.|accessdate=
should be removed, it is not something a bot should be doing.
Bots are supposed to only do things for which there is a clear consensus. There is not such a consensus for removing |accessdate=
. Only performing actions for which there is consensus is one of the prime requirements for a bot.|accessdate=
is helpful in some circumstances even when it is in a citation to an unchanging source. —
Makyen (
talk) 18:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
|accessdate=
without a valid |url=
is not necessarily a clear error. Editors do crazy stuff, like putting URLs in |title=
or putting
url: instead of url=, or
adding an archiveurl without a url, or
adding a URL but forgetting the "url=". If a bot had removed |accessdate=
from any of those citations, it would have done so in error. You can quibble with my examples, but those are just edits I have performed in the last 24 hours. There are plenty more like them.
Among other reasons, the edits above show why there is no consensus for a bot to remove |accessdate=
from citations. I am not against a bot doing so after a consensus is reached, followed by a well-thought-out BRFA. None of that has happened yet, so the bot should not perform such edits. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 21:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
|website=
, an alias for |work=
, was used instead of |url=
, a mistake by an editor that needs human correction. I have made that correction.|accessdate=
from citations that had URLs without "|url=
", removing useful information.|nurl=
was populated with a valid URL. Again, a mistake by an editor that needs human correction.
|author=
and |coauthor=
in CS1 templates. Cleaned up now. I hope there are not many more like that?
LeadSongDog
come howl! 19:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)this edit was completely malformed- lots of "# # # Citation Bot : Template Placeholder 19 # # #". -- Pres N 20:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
|issue=
when |number=
was already present|issue=
when |number=
was already present
This edit created a "redundant parameter" error. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 17:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
| last=Russell | first=MJ | last2=Hall | first2=AJ | last3=Cairns-Smith
| first3=AG | last4=Braterman | first=PS |
| first4=PS |
, citation bot does this| last=Russell | DUPLICATE_first=MJ | last2=Hall | first2=AJ | last3=Cairns-Smith
| first3=AG | last4=Braterman | first4=P. S. | first=PS |
| last=Russell | first=MJ | last2=Hall | first2=AJ | last3=Cairns-Smith
| first3=AG | last4=Braterman | first4=P. S. | DUPLICATE_first=PS |
The value that the template sees is the last value listed. Your solution would thus change the appearance of the citation, which should be avoided unless necessary.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 13:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
|coauthors=
replaced with |authors=
incorrectly|coauthors=
with |authors=
in four places. In all cases, since there was already data in either |author=
or |first=
and |last=
, this created a duplicate parameter error. In the third edit, the bot properly parsed all the additional author names into |first#=
and |last#=
, but left them in |authors=
as well. I'm mystified as to why it only parsed the names in this one correction instead of in all of them.|coauthors=
with |authors=
, but instead deleting |coauthors=
and what it contains, since its contents will have been properly parsed.
This edit shows the same error. |coauthors=
should be replaced with |authors=
only if there are no authors already listed. There are currently no articles in that error category. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 23:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
|coauthors=
that you change the bot's |authors=
to |author2=
? That way the page gets fixed and doesn't have to be revisited. Just a thought.—
D'Ranged 1
VTalk 06:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)|author=
. Due to the difficulty of reliably parsing such data it would be better to leave it in a form that essentially flags it as having a problem. Searching for "author" or even "author2" could (and presumably does) include many valid instances, whereas "coauthors" effectively says "here be a problem!" As the bot can't fix these kinds of errors, I think it should not change the parameter, but leave it as a flag for a human editor. ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 22:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)Please fix this bug. Here is the bot wreaking havoc on a pile of citations that were minding their own business. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 20:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Smith609, I just fixed 19 of these errors that were created in the last 24 hours. I have posted here. I have notified the bot's owner on the owner's Talk page. I have e-mailed the bot's owner. I don't know what else to do to get this bug fixed. I don't want to stop this bot, because it is extremely useful, but this is getting old, and it should be easy to comment out this code.
The only reason I am seeing this bug is that the articles are being placed into
Category:Pages with citations having redundant parameters when there is already a |last=
and |authors=
is added. If |authors=
is already present and |coauthors=
is replaced with |authors=
, information (the first author/authors in the citation) will be silently removed from the rendered article. I have no way of finding that kind of damage. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 14:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
|coauthors=
renaming feature? The main code is
here. Thanks. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 04:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
|coauthors=
was removed from the bot's list of valid parameters. It will now be replaced with a supported synonym, |author2=
.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 15:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
|coauthors=
, I suggest leaving |coauthors=
alone. Will Citation Bot change |coauthors=
to |author2=
if |last2=
is already present? It should not, because it will create redundant parameter errors. Will Citation Bot ignore |coauthors=
within {{
citation}}
or when ref = harv
is present? It should, because it will break links from {{
sfn}}
references. This is why BRFA and test edits are a good thing. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 15:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)Template:Cite doi/10.5665.2Fsleep.1378 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ricky81682 ( talk) 08:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC) {{ resolved}}
This one could get you blocked, which would be unfortunate. Please desist ASAP. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 04:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
|accessdate=
at the various template/module/CS1 talk pages. At least:
|accessdate=
is not required for unchanging source material. B. Having an |accessdate=
on a citation to an "unchanging" source is not an actual error (i.e. it is not something that negatively affects the ability of the citation to perform its primary function of providing information pointing to the reference which supports the article text). C. There is certainly no consensus that removing an |accessdate=
with a valid date is appropriate at any time.|accessdate=
should be removed, it is not something a bot should be doing.
Bots are supposed to only do things for which there is a clear consensus. There is not such a consensus for removing |accessdate=
. Only performing actions for which there is consensus is one of the prime requirements for a bot.|accessdate=
is helpful in some circumstances even when it is in a citation to an unchanging source. —
Makyen (
talk) 18:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
|accessdate=
without a valid |url=
is not necessarily a clear error. Editors do crazy stuff, like putting URLs in |title=
or putting
url: instead of url=, or
adding an archiveurl without a url, or
adding a URL but forgetting the "url=". If a bot had removed |accessdate=
from any of those citations, it would have done so in error. You can quibble with my examples, but those are just edits I have performed in the last 24 hours. There are plenty more like them.
Among other reasons, the edits above show why there is no consensus for a bot to remove |accessdate=
from citations. I am not against a bot doing so after a consensus is reached, followed by a well-thought-out BRFA. None of that has happened yet, so the bot should not perform such edits. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 21:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
|website=
, an alias for |work=
, was used instead of |url=
, a mistake by an editor that needs human correction. I have made that correction.|accessdate=
from citations that had URLs without "|url=
", removing useful information.|nurl=
was populated with a valid URL. Again, a mistake by an editor that needs human correction.
|author=
and |coauthor=
in CS1 templates. Cleaned up now. I hope there are not many more like that?
LeadSongDog
come howl! 19:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)this edit was completely malformed- lots of "# # # Citation Bot : Template Placeholder 19 # # #". -- Pres N 20:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
I'm wondering if this might be related to this edit [157] recently where the bot de-accented the characters from some names (I don't know if this is correct) but also completely lost the vowel in Guzmán, changing it to Guzmn. Metadox ( talk) 04:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
last17=Schr|[Ouml]|Der
.
|trans_quote=
with |trans_chapter=
. |trans_quote=
is not valid, but |trans_chapter=
doesn't make sense as a replacement. |trans_chapter=
without |chapter=
creates a CS1 error, "Pages with citations using translated terms without the original".|trans_quote=
alone.|trans_quote=
alone.
Please add 'trans_quote' to the
list of supported parameters.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 08:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
|trans_quote=
is not a valid parameter. It properly produces an error. Changing it to |trans_chapter=
is not a good fix, since that does not match the original editor's intent. It should be left alone in the "unsupported parameter" category for a human editor to sort out. Thanks. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 02:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
|eprint=
, which does not appear to be valid|url=
with |eprint=
, which created two errors and one undesirable result in one citation. First, |format=
requires |url=
, so when |url=
went away, an error was displayed. Second, |eprint=
results in an "unsupported parameter" error. Third, the title link went away when |url=
was removed.|eprint=
and should not remove |url=
when it is present.|eprint=
and should not remove |url=
when it is present.
|arxiv=
, not |eprint=
, but in this case the arxiv parameter was already set correctly (and the url was completely redundant). The correct thing to do in this case was to convert url to arxiv, notice that arxiv was already present and matching, just delete the url, and also delete the no-longer-relevant |format=
. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 08:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
|url=
is useful because it links |title=
. If url is removed, title won't have a link. It has been stated elsewhere that readers are more likely to understand a linked title than a doi, pmid, pmc, or arxiv link. That seems a reasonable accommodation to me. I would delete the url only if it were likely to lead the reader somewhere unhelpful; that will take human judgment. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 15:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
|url=
is also useful when the DOI, PMC, PMID, or other identifier is incorrect. I have recently fixed dozens of citations with incorrect DOI, PMID, and PMC values. Removing the URL removes a reader's second chance to find the correct cited source. Please do not remove the URL. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 02:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Users of Citation bot might be interested in this discussion to delete the Cite PMID template family. Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 08:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC) {{ resolved}}
It was suggested (but not agreed to) in a
previous bug report, that if multiple authors are placed in a single field, the parameter name should be "authors" instead of "author". The above
diff demonstrates the following errors occur when the bot processes a citation where the full list of authors is stored in a single "authors" parameter:
| authorformat = vanc | author-separator = , | author-name-separator =  
". A much better solution is not to add the "first1, last1, ..." parameters in the first place (see below).|last=
|first=
are for a person and |author=
is for a committee, department or organisation. I have therefore avoided using |authors=
, |coauthor=
and |coauthors=
. --
79.67.241.76 (
talk) 00:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
|authorlink=
parameters are available for that. |authorlink=John Doe
|last=Doe
|first=J.
or |authorlink=John Doe
|author=Doe, J.
will both yield output that is visually identical to |author=
[[John Doe|Doe, J.]]
but emit clean metadata. It's all covered at
Template:Cite journal#csdoc_author. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 10:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
|last=International Council of Medical Journal Editors
Please point me to the page that documents the correct use of the 'authors' parameter so that I can update the bot's behaviour accordingly. – Template:Cite_journal#Usage (See Vancouver system citation of a scientific journal - Year ). The bot should not touch the 'author(s)' parameter or add additional "author1, author2, ..." or "first1, last1, first2, last2, ..." parameters if not asked to. Boghog ( talk) 14:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
<ref name="iauc5731">
{{cite journal | author=J. Ripero, F. Garcia, D. Rodriguez, P. Pujol, A. V. Filippenko, R. R. Treffers, Y. Paik, M. Davis, D. Schlegel, F. D. A. Hartwick, D. D. Balam, D. Zurek, R. M. Robb, P. Garnavich, B. A. Hong | year=1993 | title=Supernova 1993J in NGC 3031 | journal=[[IAU Circular]] | volume=5731 | pages=1 | bibcode=1993IAUC.5731....1R }}</ref>
into this<ref name="iauc5731">{{cite journal | author=J. Ripero, F. Garcia, D. Rodriguez, P. Pujol, A. V. Filippenko, R. R. Treffers, Y. Paik, M. Davis, D. Schlegel, F. D. A. Hartwick, D. D. Balam, D. Zurek, R. M. Robb, P. Garnavich, B. A. Hong | year=1993 | title=Supernova 1993J in NGC 3031 | journal=[[IAU Circular]] | volume=5731 | pages=1 | bibcode=1993IAUC.5731....1R | last2=Garcia | last3=Rodriguez | last4=Pujol | last5=Filippenko | last6=Treffers | last7=Paik | last8=Davis | last9=Schlegel }}</ref>
and I dread to think how many thousands of articles now have corrupted author lists. --
79.67.241.229 (
talk) 23:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)|last2=
|first2=
, etc, but one of those numbered entries contains a duplicate of the author name already previously specified in the |author=
parameter. --
79.67.241.229 (
talk) 01:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
When Citation Bot comes across something like this:
| last=Doe | first=John | author2=et al. |
it usually changes it to something like this:
| last=Doe | first=John | author2=et al. | last3=Smith | first=Dave |
It may be more useful if Citation Bot could detect the presence of [^a-z]et\ al[^a-z]
and produce
| last=Doe | first=John | REPLACED_author2=et al. | last2=Richards | first2=Mike | last3=Smith | first=Dave |
Likewise this:
| author=Doe, John; Richards, Mike; et al. |
is currently changed to this:
| author=Doe, John; Richards, Mike; et al. | last2=Richards | first2=Mike | last3=Smith | first3=Dave |
It may be more useful to see something like this:
| REPLACED_author=Doe, John; Richards, Mike; et al. | last=Doe | first=John | last2=Richards | first2=Mike | last3=Smith | first3=Dave |
In both cases the amended references would be complete. The now redundant original parameter could be manually removed later. -- 79.67.241.229 ( talk) 13:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
|coauthor=
and |coauthors=
deprecated. Looking forward to seeing |authors=
and |editors=
deprecated, and |author=
clearly defined as being intended for a single entry, not for lists of names. --
79.67.241.229 (
talk) 14:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)there have been multiple discussions on whether [CITEVAR] applies to these trivial aspects of internal formatting, and the discussions always end with a rough consensus that it does apply to basically anything and everything.
— User:WhatamIdoing
— diff
|author=
clearly defined as being intended for a single entry, not for lists of names – false. That change in the documentation was made fairly recently without wide consensus. Furthermore the current cite journal documentation (see
Template:Cite_journal#Usage, see Vancouver system citation of a scientific journal - Year ) clearly documents placing a list of names in a single author parameter. There is no reason to deprecate the author parameter.
Boghog (
talk) 15:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC){{ resolved}}
{{
and }}
.{{inconsistent citations}}
|isbn2=
to |issn=
|isbn2=
with |issn=
, creating an ISSN error.|isbn2=
, which already causes an "unsupported parameter" error and will be dealt with by a human editor. Changing |isbn2=
to |issn=
just confuses things.|isbn2=
to |issn=
.
When accessing https://tools.wmflabs.org/citations-dev/doibot.php?edit=toolbar&slow=1&user=Josve05a&page=Allies_of_World_War_I I get this message:
No webservice The URI you have requested, http://tools.wmflabs.org/?503, is not currently serviced. If you have reached this page from somewhere else... This URI is not currently part of any tool. If you're pretty sure this shouldn't be an error, you may wish to notify the project administrators about the error and how you ended up here.
What is worng? ( t) Josve05a ( c) 16:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
No webservice The URI you have requested, http://tools.wmflabs.org/citations-dev/doibot.php?edit=toolbar&slow=1&user=Josve05a&page=H_II_region, is not currently serviced. If you have reached this page from somewhere else... This URI is part of the citations-dev tool, maintained by Smith609. That tool might not have a web interface, or it may currently be disabled. If you're pretty sure this shouldn't be an error, you may wish to notify the tool's maintainers (above) about the error and how you ended up here. If you maintain this tool You have not enabled a web service for your tool, or it has stopped working because of a fatal error. You may wish to check your logs or common causes for errors in the help documentation.
( t) Josve05a ( c) 10:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if this is a bug in the bot or something on the far end. Clicking on the DOI in this template results in an article, but running the bot on it using the "Expand citations" gadget results in this:
Revision #543 Establishing connection to Wikipedia servers ... Using account Citation bot. Fetching parameter list ... done.Activated by Jonesey95 Expanding 'Template:Cite_doi/10.3233.2FSW-2012-0088'; will commit edits. [04:28:31] Processing page 'Template:Cite doi/10.3233.2FSW-2012-0088' — edit—history * 0 {{Citation}} templates and 1 {{Cite XXX}} templates identified. Using dominant template {{Cite XXX}}. * Expand citation: [..> process> rifydoi] . Checking that DOI 10.3233/SW-2012-0088 is operational... ! Broken doi: 10.3233/SW-2012-0088 - Checking AdsAbs database [..> process> yadsabs]: no record retrieved. [..> process> indpmid] - Searching PubMed... no results. nothing found. # No changes required. # # # -[#TODO unhandled DB request]- End of output # # #
|year=2010-11-2
to |year=2010–11–2
|year=
value
The bot inserted two endashes into |year=
, replacing hyphens. I presume that the bot has code looking for "YYYY-YY" in the year field and changes it to "YYYY–YY". That makes sense, but if the bot finds two dashes in the same field, it should either ignore the whole thing or (possibly) change "year" to "date", since the value was intended as YYYY-MM-DD, which needs to go in |date=
. The latter "solution" could end up with some buggy changes as well. It's probably better to just ignore this garbage, since it's already flagged with a CS1 date error. A human will get to it eventually. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 21:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
{{cite journal|pmid=12578157}}
is not processed even though {{cite pmid|12578157}}
is.
Thanks for the report. status =
Fixed in
GitHub Pull 567
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 11:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Physics articles are well known for having many co-authors, sometimes upto 100. Its standard practices just to list the first with et. al. It really does not help to list all authors as in the above diff.--
Salix alba (
talk): 18:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
|displayauthors=1
to the citation, which will display it as you desire. Unless it has a bug, Citation bot will respect that parameter. Adding authors to citations is a feature of Citation bot. If you want to keep the bot out of the article entirely, you can do so. Instructions are at
User:Citation_bot#Stopping_the_bot_from_editing. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 00:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |displayauthors=
ignored (|display-authors=
suggested) (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |displayauthors=
ignored (|display-authors=
suggested) (
help)In the first I've left it in, in the second I've removed it. Neither look ideal as the et al. should be before the name of the collaboration. Related to this is it seems have duplicated the second author, perhaps because it could not understand the first author.-- Salix alba ( talk): 13:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
* Expand citation: Towards sustainable solutions for fly ash through mechanical Activation [..> process> rifydoi] . Checking that DOI 10.1016/j.resconrec.2007.06.007 is operational... DOI ok. - Checking AdsAbs database [..> process> yadsabs] Match for pagination but database journal "Physics in Medicine and Biology" didn't match "journal = Resources Conservation and Recycling". [..> process> indpmid] - Searching PubMed... no results. nothing found.
Basically it appears that the bot is looking at the pmid and consulting a database to determine the journal title. Then does nothing.
{{ resolved}}
Please check line 897 of DOItools.php and line 690 of expandFns.php for apparent typos. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC) {{ resolved}} good catch, thanks Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 11:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
The bot did this edit in order to remove a red CS1 citation error that displays when there are exactly nine authors and no display-authors parameter. I do not know how the bot determined that "9" was the correct value; sometimes it inserts a value of "8" instead. I have added the parameter with a value of "8" in order to mimic the previous display without the error message. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 01:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
|encyclopedia=
on {{
cite encyclopedia}}
and adds a superfluous, duplicate |title=
.{{cite encyclopedia}}
cite.
Which is preferred? the |title=
or |encyclopedia=
? The {{cite encyclopedia}}
template documentation implies they are the same, and yet they display differently. Obviously the bot is getting the title from the ur.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 14:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
|article=
, |encyclopedia=
, and |title=
(and their aliases) (essentially a copy of the comments in the CS1 code):
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
:
|encyclopedia=
and |title=
then map |title=
to |article=
and |encyclopedia=
to |title=
|encyclopedia=
and |article=
then map |encyclopedia=
to |title=
|encyclopedia=
then map |encyclopedia=
to |title=
|trans_title=
maps to |trans_chapter=
when |title=
is re-mapped|encyclopedia=
, |title=
, and |article=
are not modified.{{cite enyclopedia}}
without |title=
but with |article=
and |encyclopedia=
.
The bot is still making this error. It leaves an auto-generated "too many author paramaters" warning in red in the references, ( example). I consider this a disruption to articles, an error is generated where there was none before, consequently I am blocking this bot. No idea how many of these errors the bot has generated, the bot's operator needs to sift through the bot's history and fix them all. Spinning Spark 18:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
|coauthors=
. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 05:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
{{Cite jstor|30246725}}
. Citation Bot 2 appears to have created {{Cite pmid/30246725}}
based on that edit.
Processing page 'Football records in Spain' — edit—history * 0{{Citation}}
templates and 82{{Cite XXX}}
templates identified. Using dominant template{{Cite XXX}}
. # No changes required. # # # -[#TODO unhandled DB request]- End of output # # #
This has been the case for several weeks but I thought that it would be reported by someone else and fixed by now.
I noticed this too. It was one of the best things about this tool.-- Auric talk 23:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I tried changing the Persondata template to be uppercase parameters as is normal for this template and Citation bot has left the article alone this time. However, it did previously change the uppercase version
[158]. No idea why Citationbot is changing the Persondata template anyway?
Periglio (
talk) 12:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Fixed error for
New France article. Bots are great until they mess up the article!
{{ Resolved}} Getting "user blocked error" when trying to run doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/48144 using template:cite doi (did it manually)
As an aside - when getting from Oxford Dictionary of National Biography the returned data lacks most fields and has to be manually entered. I assume this is the fault of the meta data being supplied from ODNB.
Prof.Haddock ( talk) 21:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
|title=
to |DUPLICATE_title=
in the absence of a second title parameter|title=
to |DUPLICATE_title=
in the absence of a second title parameter. That's how it looks to me, anyway.
This may have happened because |title=
existed in {{
cite web}} in the absence of |url=
. This citation is already flagged with a red error message, "|archiveurl= requires |url=", so Citation Bot does not need to take any action unless it can find a working URL for the article and insert it into the citation. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 00:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Also https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Pluto&diff=600741903&oldid=600677187
The bot converted |title=
to |DUPLICATE_title=
, then |url=
to |eprint=
. Neither 'DUPLICATE_title' nor 'eprint' are supported by the CS1 templates; unknown parameters have generated an error for quite some time. If the bot can't properly repair a citation, perhaps it should just tag it for manual processing. --
Gadget850
talk 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
|archivedate=
to |DUPLICATE_archivedate=
in the absence of a duplicate archivedate, causing an error message, in
this edit. Please fix. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 06:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
|title=
was converted to |DUPLICATE_title=
in the absence of a second |title=
. The word "title" did appear in a comment in the citation, FWIW. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 05:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC){{ resolved}} I've been working on getting the Citation parameters cleaned up for AWB and someone pointed me to your bot as well. I made an initial edit removing all invalid parameters that were on the list. Then I took the Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist and created a fresh list of parameters, with 99 authors and 45 editors, with all their attendant numbered options. I lowered the number of "given" and "surname" to 20; as I doubt they would ever be used 99 times in one citation; however, I've arranged the parameters in a way which I hope makes it easy to see what's there and what can be added. I started with the parameters that are all capital letters, followed by parameters using mixed case, followed by numbered parameters using mixed case, followed by lower-case parameters, and ending with numbered lower-case parameters. I hope you find this helpful!— D'Ranged 1 VTalk 04:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Citation bot ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have now updated the bot so that it runs the latest version of the software, which fixed the outstanding bugs. Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 10:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Accept reason:
|coauthors=
-related edits that I had previously undone, and the bot replaced |coauthors=
with |author2=
correctly in each case. I did notice that sometimes the "last edit" link in the Citation Bot output page linked to the edit before Citation Bot's edit instead of linking to Citation Bot's edit. A minor bug that happened about three out of six times. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 14:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Please note that month, coauthor and coauthors are deprecated. -- 79.67.241.255 ( talk) 23:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
This is a general summary of my observations from fixing these. |coauthor=
and |coauthors=
are hard to replace, due to the various list formats used. If the bot could detect which one, it could fix it. Otherwise, a human should do it. Common formats are these:
The last two are hard for a bot to fix, as the name may be an organization or have a different order for family names or titles, so they should probably be replaced with |author=
series rather than |first=
and |last=
series. There are also other hybrid formats, some using slashes or other symbols to separate authors, and organizations that don't have a "first" name so care is needed. Some citations only use |coauthors=
without listing any authors separately in other parameters, and others already have |author=
or |first=
and |last=
or even |author2=
or |first2=
and |last2=
or more, so the next author number would need detecting.
—PC
-XT
+ 05:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC) 05:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
|lastn=
|firstn=
should be used for persons and |authorn=
for committees, departments and organisations.|first=
or |first1=
contains the whole name, there is no |last=
or alias of, and the rest of the names are jammed into |coauthors=
in a long list.|first=John Doe
and tries to fix it, the end result is two parameters, but with the surname in both: |first=John Doe
and |last1=Doe
. Note they are widely separated in the template as can be seen in this
recent example. Separately look for each of these four parameters: | last1 = Parro | last1 = Keating | last1 = McKay | last1 = Schuerger |
. These particular examples have since been manually fixed, but there are many others out there. --
79.67.241.76 (
talk) 00:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
|first=
without |last=
followed by |coauthors=
is indeed somewhat common. Apparently, some editors think "first" means the same as |author1=
, perhaps due to the 1. Also, I have seen the surname repeated in both |first=
, after the given name, and |last=
, and doubted a human would do that so often, but didn't know which tool did it. It may be better for documents with doi or other identifiers to retrieve the author list and redo it from scratch. I often do that, myself, then compare changes before saving. Sometimes later authors are listed in a different order, but I don't think it would really matter to change to the doi order.
—PC
-XT
+ 05:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)|month=
can simply be deleted if it is empty or already in |date=
. If it is not in |date=
, it could be added, using |year=
if |date=
is empty. It sometimes is a number, 1 to 12, which should be converted to the month name for comparison or adding to |date=
. |day=
, which is also deprecated, can often be added to |date=
in a similar manner, if it is a number from 1 to 31.
—PC
-XT
+ 05:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC) 05:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
|month=
parameter within. --
79.67.241.76 (
talk) 00:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Sounds good to me! Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 05:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC) {{ resolved}}
Just a wild guess: Citation bot didn't like the comment it found in |doi=
. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 02:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
-->
The code for Citation Bot 4 needs to be checked to ensure that, at a minimum, it is replacing only Module/CS1 templates with "citation". Please stop Bot 4 until this is done. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 15:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
{{cite doi|10.1021/ja00521a034}}
displays:|doi=10.1021/ja00521a034
instead.{{cite doi|doi=10.1021/ja00521a034}}
displays:{{
citation}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
It may be that these templates can't be filled when there is more than one author in the cited journal article. There may also be something else going on here. This did not happen with the previous version (r543?) –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 06:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Citation bot made a bit of a mess in the Graphene article.
Starting with this reference, with all eight names stuffed in the "author" parameter
Revision 600716072 contained
<ref name=0909.1193>{{cite journal |author = Samuel Lara-Avila, Alexei Kalaboukhov, Sara Paolillo, Mikael Syväjärvi, Rositza Yakimova, Vladimir Fal'ko, Alexander Tzalenchuk, Sergey Kubatkin |year = 2009 |title = SiC Graphene Suitable For Quantum Hall Resistance Metrology |doi = 10.1038/nnano.2009.474 |journal = Nature Nanotechnology |volume = 5 |issue = 3 |pages = 186–9 |pmid = 20081845 |arxiv=0909.1193|bibcode = 2010NatNa...5..186T }}</ref>
[example1 1]{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Citation bot made
these changes and
Revision 601061881 contained
<ref name=0909.1193>{{cite journal |author = Samuel Lara-Avila, Alexei Kalaboukhov, Sara Paolillo, Mikael Syväjärvi, Rositza Yakimova, Vladimir Fal'ko, Alexander Tzalenchuk, Sergey Kubatkin |year = 2009 |title = SiC Graphene Suitable For Quantum Hall Resistance Metrology |doi = 10.1038/nnano.2009.474 |journal = Nature Nanotechnology |volume = 5 |issue = 3 |pages = 186–9 |pmid = 20081845 |arxiv=0909.1193|bibcode = 2010NatNa...5..186T |last2 = Lara-Avila |last3 = Kalaboukhov |last4 = Paolillo |last5 = Syväjärvi |last6 = Yakimova |last7 = Kazakova |last8 = Janssen |last9 = Fal'Ko |last10 = Kubatkin }}</ref>
[example2 1]{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Notice the number of last names has increased to ten, there are no first names, and the original eight authors continue to be listed in the "author" parameter.
I have
manually fixed the reference, amending back to 8 authors, using "last" and " first" for each and
Revision 601513133 contains
<ref name=0909.1193>{{cite journal |first=Samuel |last=Lara-Avila |first2=Alexei |last2=Kalaboukhov |first3=Sara |last3=Paolillo |first4=Mikael |last4=Syväjärvi |first5=Rositza |last5=Yakimova |first6=Vladimir |last6=Fal'ko |first7=Alexander |last7=Tzalenchuk |first8=Sergey |last8=Kubatkin |year=2009 |title=SiC Graphene Suitable For Quantum Hall Resistance Metrology |doi=10.1038/nnano.2009.474 |journal=Nature Nanotechnology |volume=5 |issue=3 |pages=186–9 |pmid=20081845 |arxiv=0909.1193 |bibcode=2010NatNa...5..186T }}<!-- sources differ --></ref>
[example3 1]The primary reason for the number of authors changing from 8 to 10 is that the orginal author list and article title in the citation were derived from the arXiv data but citation bot has subsequently used the author data from either the Bibcode, doi or PMID data when "correcting" the citation. A problem arises because the latter three identifiers point to a different article!
I have subsequently split the reference into two separate items and
Revision 605142634 contains
<ref name="0909.1193">{{cite journal |first=Samuel |last=Lara-Avila |first2=Alexei |last2=Kalaboukhov |first3=Sara |last3=Paolillo |first4=Mikael |last4=Syväjärvi |first5=Rositza |last5=Yakimova |first6=Vladimir |last6=Fal'ko |first7=Alexander |last7=Tzalenchuk |first8=Sergey |last8=Kubatkin |year=2009 |title=SiC Graphene Suitable For Quantum Hall Resistance Metrology |journal=Science Brevia |date=Submitted 7 July 2009 |arxiv=0909.1193 |doi=<!-- none --> |bibcode=<!-- none -->|PMID=<!-- none --> }}</ref>
[example4 1]<ref name="0909.1220">{{cite journal |last=Tzalenchuk |first=Alexander |last2=Lara-Avila |first2=Samuel |last3=Kalaboukhov |first3=Alexei |last4=Paolillo |first4=Sara |last5=Syväjärvi |first5=Mikael |last6=Yakimova |first6=Rositza |last7=Kazakova |first7=Olga |last8=Janssen |first8=T. J. B. M. |last9=Fal'Ko |first9=Vladimir |last10=Kubatkin |first10=Sergey |year=2010 |title=Towards a quantum resistance standard based on epitaxial graphene |journal=Nature Nanotechnology |volume=5 |issue=3 |pages=186–9 |arxiv=0909.1220 |doi=10.1038/nnano.2009.474 |bibcode=2010NatNa...5..186T |pmid=20081845 }}</ref>
[example4 2]{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
I am wary that citation bot may come back and attempt to add incorrect doi, Bibcode and PMID data to the first of these two references. Will using a commented <!-- none -->
for the value prevent that?
Does citation bot ever check that arXiv, doi, Bibcode, PMID and other identifiers actually all point to the same article? I am sure this isn't an isolated case. -- 79.67.241.210 ( talk) 12:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
|author-link4=
is a legitimate variant and works just fine. There was nothing incorrect about it.{{
citation}}
all evolved out of the muck in different ways, created by different groups of editors. It is therefore not surprising that there are differences. As all of these citations have further evolved they are becoming more and more alike but now we have an overabundance of parameters that are aliases of each other. All of these are fully synonymous: |authorn-link=
, |author-linkn=
, |authornlink=
, |authorlinkn=
, |subjectlinkn=
. Do we really need so many? When the list of pages with deprecated parameters is down to a more manageable level, then perhaps we can consider paring the list down to one or two aliases. My vote would be for |authorlinkn=
and it's hyphenated pal |author-linkn=
.|authorn-link=
and |authornlink=
seem the most logical. These parameters point to the single link for authorn. --
91.84.87.119 (
talk) 15:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)It's been disabled for over a week now. JMP EAX ( talk) 13:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
It seems that eventually it got to some of my work, but there are problems with titles and everything; the templates are created blank basically, with just the doi in them. See Interval (graph theory) for example. JMP EAX ( talk) 03:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
This is a bad way to source the fact that a book was published on a particular date, so it doesn't trouble me much that the bot makes it worse. Can't you find the same information somewhere more reliable and more suited to the purpose, such as worldcat? —
David Eppstein (
talk) 03:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Quite aside from the questionability of blindly converting "Citation" templates to "Cite", the conversion is f****** things up (I'm just a little pissed about this) and introducing garbage. Stop it! ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 21:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
|postscript=
is intended to ensure that no visible change is made to the citation postscript ("." or " " as the case may be). This could have the unwanted effect of an edit with no visible effect. The hidden wikitext added to draw human editor attention to the postscript was recently changed to
UTF-8 encoding, but I'm not sure why it was rendered visible. Clearly a bug, but the human editor invoking the bot should catch it easily if they're paying attention.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 15:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I think a better fix for this problem would be to simply not attempt to convert templates. To do so is a huge assumption, and a bot should not be trying to count the "dominant" form and then force everything to conformity. E.g., there is a place where I deliberately used a {cite} template where otherwise I was using predominately {citation} (at this point I don't recall why, but I felt it was justified). It is not for a stupid bot to do a mindless conversion based on mere arithmetic. If mixed citation/cite is really a problem then the most that the bot should do is collect a list for real editors to examine. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 20:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
It looks like maybe the bot is failing to check CrossRef for citation parameters. Just a guess. This is a new problem with dev575. The previous released version was working, except for the multiple authors bug. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 04:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
|doi=10.1109.2F32.126773
instead.|doi=10.1145.2F800152.804919
instead.|doi=10.1016.2Fj.scico.2009.10.007
instead.|doi=10.1145.2F2366145.2366191
instead.I blocked this bot as it was creating empty pages like here and here. Ruslik_ Zero 18:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Citation bot ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The bug that caused a user to block the bot has been fixed (revision 577). Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 09:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Accept reason:
I've unblocked the bot. Otherwise, for what's it worth, I consider blocking the bot to be a legitimate response to the malfunction. PhilKnight ( talk) 10:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Since the bot was moved from the Toolserver, I've managed to expand citations only a few times. In 99% of other cases I get a white screen (immediately), or some timeout screen (after some time). After the migration I've never managed to run the bot on a large article; the bot expanded a few cite doi templates for me, but even this function halts these days. Am I doing something wrong? I have the bot activated in gadgets, and in User:Materialscientist/monobook.js + User:Materialscientist/vector.js. Thanks. Materialscientist ( talk) 06:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
{{ Resolved}}
|work=
in the following diff, but it was marked as a duplicate.
Anyone know why this happened? Am I missing something? I reverted the edit, and it seemed to work fine in preview. I then also converted the template to {{
cite news}} before saving, in case that matters.
—PC
-XT
+ 04:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
How frustrating. Until I get the chance to look into this, you can replace 'citations/' with 'citations-dev/' in the URL to access a working version of this tool.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 07:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
This is a feature, not a bug. There were two |date=
parameters in the same citation. Citation bot renamed one of the parameters, which puts the article in
Category:Pages with citations using unsupported parameters for a human to fix. Citation bot should not simply delete one of the two parameters, because people sometimes put the access date in a duplicate date field. They sometimes do even stranger things. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 22:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
This is a feature, not a bug. There were two |publisher=
parameters in the same citation. Citation bot renamed one of the parameters, which puts the article in
Category:Pages with citations using unsupported parameters for a human to fix. Citation bot should not simply delete one of the two parameters, because people sometimes put something useful in a duplicate parameter. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 15:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Not a bug. That paper has two authors but whomever added the citation neglected to correctly identify them both. Citation bot has made that edit twice. Correctly. Perhaps you should look more carefully at what it is telling you.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 22:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
|last=
parameters in the same citation. Citation bot renamed one of the parameters, which puts the article in
Category:Pages with citations using unsupported parameters for a human to fix. Citation bot should not simply delete one of the two parameters, because people sometimes put something useful in a duplicate parameter. In this case, I changed the second |last=
to the proper |last2=
to fix the underlying problem. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 00:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
How frustrating. Until I get the chance to look into this, you can replace 'citations/' with 'citations-dev/' in the URL to access a working version of this tool.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 07:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
This is a feature, not a bug. There were two |date=
parameters in the same citation. Citation bot renamed one of the parameters, which puts the article in
Category:Pages with citations using unsupported parameters for a human to fix. Citation bot should not simply delete one of the two parameters, because people sometimes put the access date in a duplicate date field. They sometimes do even stranger things. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 22:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
This is a feature, not a bug. There were two |publisher=
parameters in the same citation. Citation bot renamed one of the parameters, which puts the article in
Category:Pages with citations using unsupported parameters for a human to fix. Citation bot should not simply delete one of the two parameters, because people sometimes put something useful in a duplicate parameter. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 15:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Not a bug. That paper has two authors but whomever added the citation neglected to correctly identify them both. Citation bot has made that edit twice. Correctly. Perhaps you should look more carefully at what it is telling you.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 22:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
|last=
parameters in the same citation. Citation bot renamed one of the parameters, which puts the article in
Category:Pages with citations using unsupported parameters for a human to fix. Citation bot should not simply delete one of the two parameters, because people sometimes put something useful in a duplicate parameter. In this case, I changed the second |last=
to the proper |last2=
to fix the underlying problem. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 00:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)|isbn=
with |DUPLICATE_isbn=
in {{
cite book}}, but |DUPLICATE_isbn=
does not appear to be a valid parameter, and an "unknown parameter" warning is shown (in the ref list).
This is a feature, not a bug. There were two |isbn=
parameters in the same citation. Citation bot renamed one of the parameters, which puts the article in
Category:Pages with citations using unsupported parameters for a human to fix. Citation bot should not simply delete one of the two parameters, because people sometimes put something useful in a duplicate parameter. In this case, the proper fix is to remove the redundant 10-digit ISBN in favor of the 13-digit ISBN. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 04:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
|isbn=
with |DUPLICATE_isbn=
in {{
cite book}}, but |DUPLICATE_isbn=
does not appear to be a valid parameter, and an "unknown parameter" warning is shown (in the ref list).
This is a feature, not a bug. There were two |isbn=
parameters in the same citation. Citation bot renamed one of the parameters, which puts the article in
Category:Pages with citations using unsupported parameters for a human to fix. Citation bot should not simply delete one of the two parameters, because people sometimes put something useful in a duplicate parameter. In this case, the proper fix is to remove the redundant 10-digit ISBN in favor of the 13-digit ISBN. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 04:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
|last12=Jäger |first12=Jäger
These edits will be a pain to identify and fix. Note that the problem is intermittent: the edit on Hassium includes both adding parameters (apparently) properly and adding parameters badly (i.e. this bug). {{ Nihiltres| talk| edits}} 20:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I was wondering if this bot adds the DOI if another id (e.g. JSTOR) and the standard information already exist. For example, several of the cites at Bargaining problem have JSTOR (and other info) but not DOI. If not, I would encourage the addition of this feature as the DOI is probably a safer long-term ID than JSTOR. Often times JSTOR doesn't list the DOI through its API for older articles, but crossref/guestquery has it. Thanks for the great bot! -- Bequw ( talk) 22:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
{{ notabug}}
Why has the bot recreated Template:Cite doi/n and Template:Cite pmid/n? Both pages were previously requested for speedy deletion as errors. Spinning Spark 07:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
{{ notabug}}
|year=YYYY
is used instead of |date=YYYY
(
example 1 (line 190),
example 2 (line 41)).|date=YYYY
should be used per
Template:Citation Style documentation#date.|date=YYYY
should be used per
Template:Citation Style documentation#date.
[ec] What is the bug here? That editors use "year=" rather "date="? That citation bot chokes on usage that we used to allow? I have never understood why "year=" was deprecated, in that there are dates that are validly only the year. As "date=" (presumably) can handle can such cases, why isn't "year=" just aliased to "date="? ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 21:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
|year=
has not been deprecated. Furthermore, the
Template:Citation Style documentation#date clearly documents cases where |year=
is required. Even in cases where it is not required, why fix something that isn't broke?
Boghog (
talk) 21:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)|year=
per the documentation? If not, then I don't see a reason to keep using |year=
. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
contribs ⋅
dgaf) 21:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)|year=
in which case it would be easier for editors to integrate the citation bot edited citation. Where was the consensus to change the documentation? Furthermore, what harm is caused by using |year=
? If the parameter value is a year, it is reasonable to use the more specific |year=
parameter. The bug is in the documentation, not the bot.
Boghog (
talk) 22:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)|year=
were to be deprecated and there were an active effort to convert |year=
to |date=
(via some other bot, presumably), it would be reasonable to ask this bot to stop adding |year=
to articles. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 01:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
This bug was fixed long ago. The edit history shows that these poorly-encoded author names were added in 2010. I blanked the authors and ran the bot again, which filled in the author names. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 16:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Category:Pages_using_citations_with_accessdate_and_no_URL looks ripe for the bot to fix things.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 00:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
|url=
or remove |access-date=
. Editors should try to determine why the citation has |access-date=
without |url=
. For example, the citation may never have had a |url=
, or |url=
may have been removed because it links to a site that violates the creator's copyright (see
WP:COPYLINK), or because |url=
was deemed to be dead and (mistakenly) removed. If the citation never had |url=
or it was removed for copyright violations, remove |access-date=
. When a dead |url=
has been removed, restore the |url=
and if possible repair it (see
WP:LINKROT).
Admittedly I don't know whether the error springs from the bot or from
Rjwilmsi whose username appears in the edit summary. Feel free to nuke this bug report if I've logged it in error.
--
Mathieu ottawa (
talk) 04:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
|source=
to |laysource=
(which is another matter, and not a problem, since there are only ever one or two citations on en.WP with |source=
erroneously entered by a human), but it did not replicate this old bug. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 14:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)|archiveurl=
and |archivedate=
This edit. ( t) Josve05a ( c) 09:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
This is not a citation bot bug. You are seeing an inadequacy in how diff works. Citation bot correctly populated the Cite arxiv template, as you can see in the "link showing what happens" that you provided. The Cite arxiv template does appear to have a small bug in it, however, in that it showed the "jump the queue" prompt even after the citation had been populated. I worked around that problem in the article by deleting some of the empty parameters. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 04:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
This really isn't a bot problem that if you include an invisible character AFTER the number that is not handled by {{
cite pmid}} or {{
cite jstor}}.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 03:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite doi}}
template is documented at
Template:Cite_doi#Formatting. The bot should fill in the {{
cite doi}}
template in accordance with the documentation. This bug report does not address the formatting of {{
cite journal}}
or other similar templates that the bot might work on within articles. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 17:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
{{ notabug}} https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template%3ACite_pmid%2F14623081&diff=622774160&oldid=622720893 (Full details to follow) Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 11:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
{{ wontfix}} Seems the bot doesn't recognise Umlaut (linguistics), or was I just unlucky? [168] FunkMonk ( talk) 10:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Just another note, while I appreciate the work done by the operator of this bot, maybe in the future if changes are made to an article on the main page (such as the
WP:TFA in this case), it may be best to have any bot edits checked manually. Especially as any errors will be so visible. --
Shudde
talk 02:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Diffs on my corrections on what the bot just did. When adding a second name, adding "Author2" instead of "last 2" and "first2" threw the Harv Ref into error mode. Also, on the Time Inc. article, there was no author, as writers don't always get a byline. The bot decided the publisher was also the author. — Maile ( talk) 18:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
|author=Staff writer
instead of |author=Staff
|first=writer
so that the citation renders without an extraneous comma between
Staff and writer. Alternately, it is common to do this: |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.-->
{{
wontfix}}
Hi. I just filed a bug here and the
pre-filled form is really rough. We should either dramatically improve the wiki bug reporting or we should switch to somewhere else (such as
Phabricator). Pre-filling the editing text area with {{
bot bug}}
and then mixing obscure template markup with HTML comments in a single blob really isn't acceptable. --
MZMcBride (
talk) 04:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is a bug or just me misunderstanding something, but pretty much every time I use the cite DOI template, the full page ranges are not given, only the first number, and I have to change it manually, as in here: [170] FunkMonk ( talk) 13:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Seems to depend upon the quality of the metadata. Many have full range. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 20:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC) {{ notabug}}
In
this edit the bot has removed accessdate=
from a number of citations with the edit note "[579]Removed accessdate with no specified URL". Whilst the citations altered do not have url=
parameters, they do have external links formed using doi=
. Should the bot, therefore, be removing access dates in these situations?--
DavidCane (
talk) 11:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
|access-date=
applies to ephemeral urls and only when those urls are identified in |url=
or |chapter-url=
and its aliases. External links created by identifiers like |doi=
, |pmc=
, |pmid=
, etc. are considered permanent so |access-date=
is not needed. And, when there is more than one of these permanent identifiers in a cs1|2 template, as is often the case, to which identifier would |access-date=
apply if it did apply to these identifier parameters?{{ notabug}}
I've added a section header.
Editor Ricky81682 wrote: However, if the update to
Module:Citation/CS1 has happened, there is no bug at all.
This is false. {{
dead link}}
should not be placed in |format=
. That is not a function of
Module:Citation/CS1 but is or was a function of Citation bot. An update to the module will have no effect on the bot.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 20:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Can you provide an example of an edit?
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 22:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
99.9% of the time what the bot is doing is correct. People almost never are linking to amazon content, they are linking to the book. I suggest you use [http:|text] instead and include a comment that this is a link to Amazon and not the book. Or, just block the bot on those pages.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 20:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
|publisher=Amazon
, it is sometimes legitimate, so the bot should not remove it wholesale. A human editor can do an search for insource:/\|\s*publisher\s*=\s*Amazon/
and fix the ones that are wrong; I get over 3,000 hits on that search string, so it could keep someone busy for quite a while. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 14:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the bot locates and tags the duplicate citation parameters, causing the citations in question to emit red error messages. Until the duplicate template parameter errors emit their own error messages (which is in the works, apparently), the bot's tagging makes it a lot easier to locate these otherwise hidden errors. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 01:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
{{
PDFlink}}
from CS1 citations. Most times {{PDFlink}}
is used as the value in |title=
but occasionally, editors have used it in |url=
so when the external link portion of {{PDFlink}}
is disassembled into |url=
and |title=
, there are now two titles. Initially, I simply commented out the title portion of the {{PDFlink}}
parameter but that draws no attention. So, on consideration I have adopted Citation bot's |DUPLICATE_title=
so that the change can be noticed and fixed.
{{ resolved}} I have just blocked the bot for misbehaving. Block can be lifted when cause is determined and bot is fixed. -- NeilN talk to me 03:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
{{ resolved}} This block has been lifted as of my time stamp. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 00:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
|eprint=
, which was supposedly fixed in r572|eprint=
, which is not a valid parameter in {{
cite journal}}
|eprint=
It looks like the bug that was fixed in r572 was the removal of a valid URL for citations sourced in the arXiv database. The bot is still adding |eprint=
, however, which I believe is valid in {{
cite arxiv}}
but not in {{
cite journal}}
. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 06:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
In this edit the bot deleted the entire article text. Zero talk 03:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
This seems like a feature request. I would not expect an accessdate unless url and only url were used, since a "chapterurl" is not necessary (even in an ebook) for identifying the work. Even for a "bookurl" I'd be awfully skeptical. This one requires further discussion regardless IMO. --
Izno (
talk) 00:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I can confirm, encountered this today.--
RoadTrain (
talk) 10:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Back in March 2014 this bot change {{ cite DNB}} to {{ Citation}} this was a mistake see diff], and if this Bot is to resume this bug needs fixing. -- PBS ( talk) 18:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
{{ fixed}}
I just ran my sidebar Citation Bot link (called "Expand citations") to try to expand {{ Cite doi/10.1063.2F1.455515}}. It ran, but the Results page has lots of links to test.wikipedia.org instead of to en.wikipedia.org. This is the link in my sidebar when I am on that template's page. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 00:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
In the square brackets at the start of the bot's edit summary, it says "[Revision]". It should have a revision number here, I believe. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 02:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
References to SVN have now been cleared out of the code, and the fix has been merged into the running bot: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Lise+Meitner&diff=prev&oldid=683372161. -- Fhocutt (WMF) ( talk) 21:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
No longer does it
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 13:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
This bug has already been reported in
#Butchered author names,
#duplicated last name,
#Creating spurious fields for last name of editors, yet it is still happening.
[177]
[178] Please disable the bot until it is fixed. It should be easy to check for commas or semicolons in the author
parameter.
KateWishing (
talk) 13:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
|vauthors=
parameter will soon be added to {{
cite journal}} (see
discussion). If an author list contains only commas as punctuation, it is likely to be formatted in the
Vancouver system. In these cases, it would be appropriate for the bot to rename |author=
to |vauthors=
instead of adding redundant author parameters. One of the arguments for not supporting multiple authors in a single author parameter in {{
cite journal}} was that it was not documented. |vauthors=
will soon be documented hence there are no more excuses for not fixing this bug. The problem of course is that this bot is no longer supported.
Boghog (
talk) 03:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Re: this edit to Supernova. Thanks! ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ contribs ⋅ dgaf) 12:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Is there any other bot that can be used for inserting citations, even temporarily, as long as the Citation Bot is down? Especially PMIDs and DOIs? Thanks! Peteruetz ( talk) 15:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
|firstn=
, |lastn=
parameters. This can be written and displayed more compactly using the new |vauthors=
parameter:|vauthors=
as an answer for "HNoA" problems is you then run afoul of CITEVAR. While I favor giving coauthors some visibility, where there are more than about a dozen there is much to said for an "et al.". Or even "Abramowski and 226 others". ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 21:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC){{ resolved}}
@ Smith609: The WMF Community Tech team is interested in trying to help fix Citation bot (as requested at the All Our Ideas survey). Two questions: Would you actually like us to help fix it? Do you have any suggestions for where to start? Ryan Kaldari (WMF) ( talk) 00:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
I believe that I have made the changes requested before bot re-activation. Please go ahead and test it.
What are the next steps to getting Citation bot unblocked? -- Fhocutt (WMF) ( talk) 21:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
On Monday:
^ @ Materialscientist and Xaosflux:
Good to see the bot back and alive and getting it up is now {{ resolved}} cool! AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 15:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, when I try to use the cite PMID shortcut, I receive the following message (though the citation does not expand)
Improvement: The bot would be much better if ... cite PMID functions were appropriate -->
Please advise, thank you. Plumpy Humperdinkle ( talk) 08:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
There is no way to know until you try. Some work, some don't. Either the data is in crossref or not. Remember that {{ cite jstor}} was just a wrapper for {{ cite doi}} AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 01:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
There are ongoing discussions (mostly parallel but since each one is argued as separate consensus, separate) regarding the use of (A) Template:Cite wdl (which creates subpages for a wrapper of cite web) here; (B) Template:Cite pmid (which is a wrapper for cite journal either in-article or via pages at Category:Cite pmid templates) here; and (C) another RFC at Template:Cite doi (a cite journal wrapper with almost 60k pages at Category:Cite doi templates) here. There are unique wrinkles to each one but basically all three discussions concern whether to deprecate these templates or not. Please comment there if everyone could. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 06:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I was in List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 1869 and clicked "jump the queue" on reference #5, an incomplete DOI citation. Instead creating {{ cite doi/10.1093/ref:odnb/36519}}, Citation Bot ran on the whole article. It is supposed to run only on the Cite DOI template. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 00:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
|work=
and "Henry Thuillier" into |title=
. I don't know if that is possible given the metadata that is available. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 02:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
If this is still an issue, please discuss:
Thank you. -- Fhocutt (WMF) ( talk) 23:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
The new bot puts parameter values on the line following the parameter when the parameters are laid out vertically. It should put the values on the same line as the parameter, leaving the existing line breaks in place. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 02:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
If this is a bug then it is a bug in the citation JavaScript that puts the button there and not the bot. The back button in JavaScript and editing windows is pure evil and I have seen this with other tools.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 23:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I believe this is intentional. Read the full discussion above.
Lithopsian (
talk) 14:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Re-running does not repair the broken_doi errors (with me). Blocked to avoid potential damage, hoping this will be fixed/resolved soon. Materialscientist ( talk) 00:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Suggestion: before marking a doi as inactive, the bot could verify it at dx.doi.org/[doi number] rather than the crossref database. Materialscientist ( talk) 07:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
This is still happening. Here Ealdgyth - Talk 12:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)