Operator: Martin ( Smith609 – Talk)
Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic
Programming Language(s): PHP
Function Overview: Where pages use a mixture of 'citation' and 'cite journal' templates (which produce different output styles), use the dominant template in all cases
Edit period(s): Continuous
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Y
Function Details: Despite the two templates calling on a common Citation/core, there are still some very minor formatting differences between the output produced by Template:Citation and Template:Cite journal. (When I say 'cite journal', I refer to all the 'cite xxx' series of templates which call on Template:Citation/core.)
I think the only difference is the use of a comma rather than a period to separate fields - insignificant, but enough to irk some editors.
No one reference format is encouraged above others, but each article should be internally consistent.
I envision the bot looking through articles which mostly use {cite journal} and spotting instances where a {citation} has been used by mistake. The bot would count the numbers of each template, work out which was prevalent, and change the others to that format.
I am unaware of any scenarios where it would be beneficial to use both templates in the same page, and encourage any suggestions to where this may occur. I can suggest solutions to this if necessary.
Is this really worth doing? According to your description, it's roughly the equivalent of adding a comma to a great many articles. Does doing so have a significant benefit to the project? -- Carnildo ( talk) 08:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC) reply
importScript("User:Smith609/toolbox.js");
, see my userpage for info) - when I code this change the bot will do that on-demand.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 17:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replyWill this be converting all Citations to Cite journals, or will it simply set the sep= parameter of the Citation template? How will it count citation templates which have the sep= parameter set? Also, if this bot is correcting mistakes only, it should not be changing formats unless one has a clear majority, perhaps >80%. Wronkiew ( talk) 21:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC) reply
IMO, {{ Citation}} setting separator/seperator=. and either using quote, setting postscript=., or manually placing a . after the template should be counted as "cite" style; and similarly for {{cite xxx}} setting separator/seperator=, and either using quote or setting postscript empty. You'll also need to maintain mappings between the two formats' templates if there are parameter incompatibilities. Manually-formatted refs, unrecognized citation templates, and refs with separator/seperator or postscript not matching the above rules would probably have to preclude any bot action beyond listing for human attention.
Given that the comma-vs-period issue is something people get up in arms about, I suggest this BRFA be advertised at the appropriate talk pages (that would include the major citation template talk pages, WT:Citation templates, and probably WP:VPR). In particular, ask people to come here and comment on whether the "50% rule" is acceptable or if a higher bar should be used with articles under the bar being posted somewhere for human attention (e.g. post on the article's talk page and categorize it in a hidden category " Category:Articles with inconsistent reference formats"). Anomie ⚔ 19:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Done - advertised at citation, cite book, cite journal, WT:CT, WP:VPR.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 20:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
Many instances of {{ citation}} should not be {{ cite journal}} but rather {{ cite conference}}, {{ cite book}}, {{ cite news}}, etc. If you convert the cite XXX templates to citation consistently, this would not be an issue, but how do you propose to determine the correct kind of cite XXX template to convert a citation template into? — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply
As WP:CITE notes, citation formats & templates are both contentious. I don't think having a bot sort out the mess is the right solution for most articles. 50% is not the right metric; it is not great enough to show a consensus that the contributors to an article agree on a method. From discussions I've read, it seems that longevity of the different cite methods is at least as important as the actual number of times different methods are used in an article. I also think that the most divisive articles will probably be those that are least established, with only a handful of references. I can easily see either the same number of references for different template systems or a similar enough number that there would not be consensus on the talk page for a manual change, let alone one made by a bot. That all being said, this would be useful for correcting recently-added citations to well-established pages. Actual thresholds are a bit fuzzy & up for debate. I'd err on the side of conservatism; say ~75% & also that the references being changed were added recently. -- Karnesky ( talk) 21:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply
I also think it's a mistake to run a bot which changes the style of an article's citations based on a simple majority of existing cites. I think, in this context, that the existence of multiple citation styles in an article is likely to indicate that a "disagreement" exists about which style should be used, in which case WP:CITE defaults to "the style used by the first editor". The Manual of Style's General principles re-iterates: "editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style ... where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor."
There may be instances where a substantial reason exists to override the original editor's style choice, but that's the kind of case-by-case decision making which is poorly suited to bot edits. Most cases where subsequent editors fail to follow the original editor's style represent erroneous editing, not a deliberate consensus that there's reason to change. A bot certainly can't determine consensus from silence, or from the state of the page at the time it edits, because it can't read the talk page or page history.
More broadly, I don't think this bot proposal does enough good to justify the friction it's likely to cause. If it's only really worth doing for good and featured article candidates, then it doesn't make sense to run the bot across the whole of en:wiki in order to edit a tiny minority of articles which are already being worked over in detail by contributors who already have other automated tools available. Baileypalblue ( talk) 06:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC) reply
It looks like there are four ways to proceed here.
Is this a fair summary? – Quadell ( talk) 16:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC) reply
There are reasonable situations to use both templates, in the same page, without being "inconsistent." For example, users may prefer cite book overall, but:
and therefore opt to use citation in these cases. Kellen T 10:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply
I'm going to wait a few more days for comment, but it looks like we have a good plan for a trial here. – Quadell ( talk) 12:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Approved for trial (100 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. This is for the 2-stage method, trying to choose ones that have been recently edited (where possible). It's a rather large trial, but, as I understand it, we need a large trial to determine whether the 2-stage method is necessary. –
Quadell (
talk) 12:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
Gentle nudge. – Quadell ( talk) 14:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Trial complete. - 250 edits made.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 15:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
Approved. Looks good. –
Quadell (
talk) 18:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
Operator: Martin ( Smith609 – Talk)
Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic
Programming Language(s): PHP
Function Overview: Where pages use a mixture of 'citation' and 'cite journal' templates (which produce different output styles), use the dominant template in all cases
Edit period(s): Continuous
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Y
Function Details: Despite the two templates calling on a common Citation/core, there are still some very minor formatting differences between the output produced by Template:Citation and Template:Cite journal. (When I say 'cite journal', I refer to all the 'cite xxx' series of templates which call on Template:Citation/core.)
I think the only difference is the use of a comma rather than a period to separate fields - insignificant, but enough to irk some editors.
No one reference format is encouraged above others, but each article should be internally consistent.
I envision the bot looking through articles which mostly use {cite journal} and spotting instances where a {citation} has been used by mistake. The bot would count the numbers of each template, work out which was prevalent, and change the others to that format.
I am unaware of any scenarios where it would be beneficial to use both templates in the same page, and encourage any suggestions to where this may occur. I can suggest solutions to this if necessary.
Is this really worth doing? According to your description, it's roughly the equivalent of adding a comma to a great many articles. Does doing so have a significant benefit to the project? -- Carnildo ( talk) 08:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC) reply
importScript("User:Smith609/toolbox.js");
, see my userpage for info) - when I code this change the bot will do that on-demand.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 17:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replyWill this be converting all Citations to Cite journals, or will it simply set the sep= parameter of the Citation template? How will it count citation templates which have the sep= parameter set? Also, if this bot is correcting mistakes only, it should not be changing formats unless one has a clear majority, perhaps >80%. Wronkiew ( talk) 21:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC) reply
IMO, {{ Citation}} setting separator/seperator=. and either using quote, setting postscript=., or manually placing a . after the template should be counted as "cite" style; and similarly for {{cite xxx}} setting separator/seperator=, and either using quote or setting postscript empty. You'll also need to maintain mappings between the two formats' templates if there are parameter incompatibilities. Manually-formatted refs, unrecognized citation templates, and refs with separator/seperator or postscript not matching the above rules would probably have to preclude any bot action beyond listing for human attention.
Given that the comma-vs-period issue is something people get up in arms about, I suggest this BRFA be advertised at the appropriate talk pages (that would include the major citation template talk pages, WT:Citation templates, and probably WP:VPR). In particular, ask people to come here and comment on whether the "50% rule" is acceptable or if a higher bar should be used with articles under the bar being posted somewhere for human attention (e.g. post on the article's talk page and categorize it in a hidden category " Category:Articles with inconsistent reference formats"). Anomie ⚔ 19:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Done - advertised at citation, cite book, cite journal, WT:CT, WP:VPR.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 20:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
Many instances of {{ citation}} should not be {{ cite journal}} but rather {{ cite conference}}, {{ cite book}}, {{ cite news}}, etc. If you convert the cite XXX templates to citation consistently, this would not be an issue, but how do you propose to determine the correct kind of cite XXX template to convert a citation template into? — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply
As WP:CITE notes, citation formats & templates are both contentious. I don't think having a bot sort out the mess is the right solution for most articles. 50% is not the right metric; it is not great enough to show a consensus that the contributors to an article agree on a method. From discussions I've read, it seems that longevity of the different cite methods is at least as important as the actual number of times different methods are used in an article. I also think that the most divisive articles will probably be those that are least established, with only a handful of references. I can easily see either the same number of references for different template systems or a similar enough number that there would not be consensus on the talk page for a manual change, let alone one made by a bot. That all being said, this would be useful for correcting recently-added citations to well-established pages. Actual thresholds are a bit fuzzy & up for debate. I'd err on the side of conservatism; say ~75% & also that the references being changed were added recently. -- Karnesky ( talk) 21:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply
I also think it's a mistake to run a bot which changes the style of an article's citations based on a simple majority of existing cites. I think, in this context, that the existence of multiple citation styles in an article is likely to indicate that a "disagreement" exists about which style should be used, in which case WP:CITE defaults to "the style used by the first editor". The Manual of Style's General principles re-iterates: "editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style ... where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor."
There may be instances where a substantial reason exists to override the original editor's style choice, but that's the kind of case-by-case decision making which is poorly suited to bot edits. Most cases where subsequent editors fail to follow the original editor's style represent erroneous editing, not a deliberate consensus that there's reason to change. A bot certainly can't determine consensus from silence, or from the state of the page at the time it edits, because it can't read the talk page or page history.
More broadly, I don't think this bot proposal does enough good to justify the friction it's likely to cause. If it's only really worth doing for good and featured article candidates, then it doesn't make sense to run the bot across the whole of en:wiki in order to edit a tiny minority of articles which are already being worked over in detail by contributors who already have other automated tools available. Baileypalblue ( talk) 06:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC) reply
It looks like there are four ways to proceed here.
Is this a fair summary? – Quadell ( talk) 16:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC) reply
There are reasonable situations to use both templates, in the same page, without being "inconsistent." For example, users may prefer cite book overall, but:
and therefore opt to use citation in these cases. Kellen T 10:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply
I'm going to wait a few more days for comment, but it looks like we have a good plan for a trial here. – Quadell ( talk) 12:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Approved for trial (100 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. This is for the 2-stage method, trying to choose ones that have been recently edited (where possible). It's a rather large trial, but, as I understand it, we need a large trial to determine whether the 2-stage method is necessary. –
Quadell (
talk) 12:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
Gentle nudge. – Quadell ( talk) 14:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Trial complete. - 250 edits made.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 15:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
Approved. Looks good. –
Quadell (
talk) 18:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
reply