|
||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90000 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Note that the bot's
maintainer and assistants (
Thing 1 and
Thing 2), can go weeks without logging in to Wikipedia. The
code is open source and interested parties are invited to assist with the operation and extension of the bot.
Before reporting a bug, please note: Addition of DUPLICATE_xxx=
to citation templates by this bot is a feature. When there are two identical parameters in a citation template, the bot renames one to DUPLICATE_xxx=
. The bot is pointing out the problem with the template. The solution is to choose one of the two parameters and remove the other one, or to convert it to an appropriate parameter. A 503 error means that the bot is overloaded and you should try again later – wait at least 15 minutes and then complain here.
Please click here to report an error.
Or, for a faster response from the maintainers, submit a pull request with appropriate code fix on GitHub, if you can write the needed code.
{{
Who's Who}}
I have remained silent on this issue even though it has irritated me for a while now. And now that there is discussion above about the widespread useless cosmetic edits this bot continues to waste everyone's time with, I'll raise it: Why must every citation of a publisher's webpage be changed to to Cite book? I can only speak for myself, but every time I cite such book webpages I am not citing the book itself. I am specifically referencing the information published on the webpage. So of course I do not want the citation to be changed to Cite book with a bunch of parameters of the book itself (ISBN, date, etc) added. So I inevitably stop the bot or replace the reference with a third-party source. I realise the defense will be "It doesn't hurt" or that some users are actually citing the book. And I realise this is not the most pressing issue, but why must the bot come to its own conclusion of the editor's intent? I see another user complained of this issue last year. Οἶδα ( talk) 22:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
|type=publisher's blurb
for clarity. In the specific case you've linked just above, another option would be not to cite the publisher's landing page at all, and add the book to a "Selected works" subsection or something. Indeed, the altered citation is sequential to another one, and so seems a bit superfluous. Or, alternatively, use "Citation bot bypass" somewhere in your citation as suggested by
jacobolus above.Given the overall lazy referencing culture of less experienced editors, it's likely that in the majority of cases, people who drop a link to a publisher landing page are probably trying to cite the book itself, so this behaviour of assuming that's the case is net beneficial.
Folly Mox (
talk) 22:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
<!-- Citation bot bypass-->
mechanism documented at
User:Citation_bot#Stopping_the_bot_from_editing -
R. S. Shaw (
talk) 04:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
|title=
), but despite being a sometimes commenter on this talk page, I actually came here now to report the same error at
Special:Diff/1183763093. Maybe Citation bot should check for |periodical=
and its aliases before changing the type of citation template wrapper. I've been working on
Category:CS1 errors: periodical ignored (25,107), and I'm never going to be able to keep up with Citation bot creating this error.
Folly Mox (
talk) 13:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
|website=
is present, I can't think of a case where it would be an error to reparameterise |website=
to |via=
, unless |via=
is already present.
Folly Mox (
talk) 00:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
|work=
parameter from {{
cite book}} without adequate preparation time.I do plan to start contacting editors who frequently run Citation bot, introduce this error, and then never check the output or help fix it, as required by the guidance at the top of Citation bot's userpage. I know the responsibility does not fall solely on the maintainers.
Folly Mox (
talk) 18:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
journal
(as can be seen in the linked diff: it expands the abbreviated form), then the bot should be reparameterising |journal=
to |series=
if |series=
is not set.I've stated before that Citation bot needs to have more awareness of what parameters are present in the citation it's editing when it changes the template type, but it also occurs to me that it's way too aggressive at changing templates to {{
cite book}} whenever it finds an isbn. A lot of the errors stem from editors citing webpages with bibliographic information (like library records, publisher landing pages, or book retailers) in order to establish the existence of a book, which is not great practice and has been discussed on this talkpage before. But many other errors come from the fact that conference proceedings and journal issues can also have isbns, and those require different parameters and are created using different templates by other citation tools.In my journey through
Special:RandomInCategory/CS1 errors: periodical ignored, my rough estimate is that 50% of these errors (±10%) are introduced by Citation bot.
Folly Mox (
talk) 11:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)A user brought to my attention a possibly new type of error by the bot which causes "}}: |website= ignored" and "|journal= ignored" messages. I'm not clear on what's going on, so here are the diffs they found: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Abductive ( reasoning) 22:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Suggestion: IF [changed "cite web" to "cite book"] AND ["|website=" exists] THEN [change "website=" to "via="] - - this would preserve useful info. Cheers
Protalina (
talk) 15:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
|periodical=
to {{
cite book}} (even the example I just gave is a different kind of problem), but it will at least: not populate
Category:CS1 errors: periodical ignored (25,107); and display in |via=
whatever value was held in |website=
instead of hiding it behind a template error.
Folly Mox (
talk) 16:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)|work=The Washington Post
to |newspaper=The Washington Post
, but only for this newspaper in particular. It's pointless and clogs watchlists. A fix for this was requested before but never seems to have been implemented.
On Charles Clinton, Citation bot removes "?seq=9" from this URL. That bit of code give the Page # within the larger cite, so why does Citation bot remove it? It makes sense to me to leave that bit of code in there but the bot doesn't seem to think so. It's removed it twice, once here and once here, so maybe I'm wrong... Would appreciate some clarification. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 03:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
|journal=
giving the book title and |series=
pointing to LNCS, it converts it into cite book (correct!) but fails to change |title=
to |contribution=
and |journal=
to |title=
, leaving the reference in a broken state.
|journal=
parameter and triggering a CS1 error. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 20:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Previous note:
This is more of a FYI / request for clarification than a bug report, although there might be a problem with these edits. Bot edit:
Special:Diff/1210636446 changed a number of URLs I added manually using the recent new Google books URLs back to the "Classic" Google books version. Working with the new URL format was a bit of pain, especially getting a page number link to function, and I'm not even sure it is an improvement, but it looks like Google is trying to move to the new format? On all the old style links page I see a link to "try the new Google books". The new style URL looks like this:
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Encyclopedia_of_Music_in_the_20th_Centur/m8W2AgAAQBAJ?gbpv=1&pg=PA379 , the Classic style the bot is converting to is:
https://books.google.com/books?id=m8W2AgAAQBAJ&pg=PA379 Is this still correct behavior? My feeling is that this wasn't a helpful edit, but I'm worried that neither URL format is necessarily stable now if Google are in the process of changing or deprecating their Books URLs. What format should Wikipedia use? Is there a better place to ask this question?
Salpynx (
talk) 19:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
I will work on reworking the code to make "new" URLs. I will have to do it as a pull request to work out the kinks, and it will take time. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 15:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Another example:
diff which throws a Cite journal requires |journal= error. If a {{
cite journal}} has both |journal=
and |series=
with identical or similar values, then |series=
should be dropped, not |journal=
.
Boghog (
talk) 11:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
I asked this in the discussion of an earlier bug but it was archived without providing an answer. Can you please explain
— David Eppstein ( talk) 20:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I think a template change to
Template:Cite journal would be better.
Spinixster
(trout me!) 02:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
It's not really a bug, but I think it's a worthy addition to the bot.
Spinixster
(trout me!) 02:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
These errors are improvements, because they flag existing problems that were not reported.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 04:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
On
Gazette de Berne, this edit
[3] of this BOT is wrong for two reasons: a) BOT modified a correct cite web in a wrong cite web, b) BOT added a completely wrong date (1677).
A ntv (
talk) 18:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
>Checking AdsAbs database >AdsAbs search 25000/25000 !Need to retry after 15039s (04:10:39). Rate limit resets on 2024-05-07 08:26:22 UTC. !Giving up on AdsAbs for a while. Too many requests.
|page=182501
or |page=035005
for electronic journals (such as
Physical Review Letters and
Metrologia) which do not use page numbers. Or, to be more precise, each article has its pages numbered from 1. Those are |article-number=
values, which are formatted differently. It is, indeed, sometimes useful to refer to page p of a long article number a.
Hi, The citation bot is putting in links to Zenodo. It is consider problematic and best avoided. scope_creep Talk 10:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
|
||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90000 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Note that the bot's
maintainer and assistants (
Thing 1 and
Thing 2), can go weeks without logging in to Wikipedia. The
code is open source and interested parties are invited to assist with the operation and extension of the bot.
Before reporting a bug, please note: Addition of DUPLICATE_xxx=
to citation templates by this bot is a feature. When there are two identical parameters in a citation template, the bot renames one to DUPLICATE_xxx=
. The bot is pointing out the problem with the template. The solution is to choose one of the two parameters and remove the other one, or to convert it to an appropriate parameter. A 503 error means that the bot is overloaded and you should try again later – wait at least 15 minutes and then complain here.
Please click here to report an error.
Or, for a faster response from the maintainers, submit a pull request with appropriate code fix on GitHub, if you can write the needed code.
{{
Who's Who}}
I have remained silent on this issue even though it has irritated me for a while now. And now that there is discussion above about the widespread useless cosmetic edits this bot continues to waste everyone's time with, I'll raise it: Why must every citation of a publisher's webpage be changed to to Cite book? I can only speak for myself, but every time I cite such book webpages I am not citing the book itself. I am specifically referencing the information published on the webpage. So of course I do not want the citation to be changed to Cite book with a bunch of parameters of the book itself (ISBN, date, etc) added. So I inevitably stop the bot or replace the reference with a third-party source. I realise the defense will be "It doesn't hurt" or that some users are actually citing the book. And I realise this is not the most pressing issue, but why must the bot come to its own conclusion of the editor's intent? I see another user complained of this issue last year. Οἶδα ( talk) 22:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
|type=publisher's blurb
for clarity. In the specific case you've linked just above, another option would be not to cite the publisher's landing page at all, and add the book to a "Selected works" subsection or something. Indeed, the altered citation is sequential to another one, and so seems a bit superfluous. Or, alternatively, use "Citation bot bypass" somewhere in your citation as suggested by
jacobolus above.Given the overall lazy referencing culture of less experienced editors, it's likely that in the majority of cases, people who drop a link to a publisher landing page are probably trying to cite the book itself, so this behaviour of assuming that's the case is net beneficial.
Folly Mox (
talk) 22:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
<!-- Citation bot bypass-->
mechanism documented at
User:Citation_bot#Stopping_the_bot_from_editing -
R. S. Shaw (
talk) 04:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
|title=
), but despite being a sometimes commenter on this talk page, I actually came here now to report the same error at
Special:Diff/1183763093. Maybe Citation bot should check for |periodical=
and its aliases before changing the type of citation template wrapper. I've been working on
Category:CS1 errors: periodical ignored (25,107), and I'm never going to be able to keep up with Citation bot creating this error.
Folly Mox (
talk) 13:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
|website=
is present, I can't think of a case where it would be an error to reparameterise |website=
to |via=
, unless |via=
is already present.
Folly Mox (
talk) 00:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
|work=
parameter from {{
cite book}} without adequate preparation time.I do plan to start contacting editors who frequently run Citation bot, introduce this error, and then never check the output or help fix it, as required by the guidance at the top of Citation bot's userpage. I know the responsibility does not fall solely on the maintainers.
Folly Mox (
talk) 18:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
journal
(as can be seen in the linked diff: it expands the abbreviated form), then the bot should be reparameterising |journal=
to |series=
if |series=
is not set.I've stated before that Citation bot needs to have more awareness of what parameters are present in the citation it's editing when it changes the template type, but it also occurs to me that it's way too aggressive at changing templates to {{
cite book}} whenever it finds an isbn. A lot of the errors stem from editors citing webpages with bibliographic information (like library records, publisher landing pages, or book retailers) in order to establish the existence of a book, which is not great practice and has been discussed on this talkpage before. But many other errors come from the fact that conference proceedings and journal issues can also have isbns, and those require different parameters and are created using different templates by other citation tools.In my journey through
Special:RandomInCategory/CS1 errors: periodical ignored, my rough estimate is that 50% of these errors (±10%) are introduced by Citation bot.
Folly Mox (
talk) 11:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)A user brought to my attention a possibly new type of error by the bot which causes "}}: |website= ignored" and "|journal= ignored" messages. I'm not clear on what's going on, so here are the diffs they found: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Abductive ( reasoning) 22:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Suggestion: IF [changed "cite web" to "cite book"] AND ["|website=" exists] THEN [change "website=" to "via="] - - this would preserve useful info. Cheers
Protalina (
talk) 15:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
|periodical=
to {{
cite book}} (even the example I just gave is a different kind of problem), but it will at least: not populate
Category:CS1 errors: periodical ignored (25,107); and display in |via=
whatever value was held in |website=
instead of hiding it behind a template error.
Folly Mox (
talk) 16:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)|work=The Washington Post
to |newspaper=The Washington Post
, but only for this newspaper in particular. It's pointless and clogs watchlists. A fix for this was requested before but never seems to have been implemented.
On Charles Clinton, Citation bot removes "?seq=9" from this URL. That bit of code give the Page # within the larger cite, so why does Citation bot remove it? It makes sense to me to leave that bit of code in there but the bot doesn't seem to think so. It's removed it twice, once here and once here, so maybe I'm wrong... Would appreciate some clarification. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 03:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
|journal=
giving the book title and |series=
pointing to LNCS, it converts it into cite book (correct!) but fails to change |title=
to |contribution=
and |journal=
to |title=
, leaving the reference in a broken state.
|journal=
parameter and triggering a CS1 error. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 20:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Previous note:
This is more of a FYI / request for clarification than a bug report, although there might be a problem with these edits. Bot edit:
Special:Diff/1210636446 changed a number of URLs I added manually using the recent new Google books URLs back to the "Classic" Google books version. Working with the new URL format was a bit of pain, especially getting a page number link to function, and I'm not even sure it is an improvement, but it looks like Google is trying to move to the new format? On all the old style links page I see a link to "try the new Google books". The new style URL looks like this:
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Encyclopedia_of_Music_in_the_20th_Centur/m8W2AgAAQBAJ?gbpv=1&pg=PA379 , the Classic style the bot is converting to is:
https://books.google.com/books?id=m8W2AgAAQBAJ&pg=PA379 Is this still correct behavior? My feeling is that this wasn't a helpful edit, but I'm worried that neither URL format is necessarily stable now if Google are in the process of changing or deprecating their Books URLs. What format should Wikipedia use? Is there a better place to ask this question?
Salpynx (
talk) 19:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
I will work on reworking the code to make "new" URLs. I will have to do it as a pull request to work out the kinks, and it will take time. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 15:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Another example:
diff which throws a Cite journal requires |journal= error. If a {{
cite journal}} has both |journal=
and |series=
with identical or similar values, then |series=
should be dropped, not |journal=
.
Boghog (
talk) 11:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
I asked this in the discussion of an earlier bug but it was archived without providing an answer. Can you please explain
— David Eppstein ( talk) 20:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I think a template change to
Template:Cite journal would be better.
Spinixster
(trout me!) 02:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
It's not really a bug, but I think it's a worthy addition to the bot.
Spinixster
(trout me!) 02:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
These errors are improvements, because they flag existing problems that were not reported.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 04:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
On
Gazette de Berne, this edit
[3] of this BOT is wrong for two reasons: a) BOT modified a correct cite web in a wrong cite web, b) BOT added a completely wrong date (1677).
A ntv (
talk) 18:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
>Checking AdsAbs database >AdsAbs search 25000/25000 !Need to retry after 15039s (04:10:39). Rate limit resets on 2024-05-07 08:26:22 UTC. !Giving up on AdsAbs for a while. Too many requests.
|page=182501
or |page=035005
for electronic journals (such as
Physical Review Letters and
Metrologia) which do not use page numbers. Or, to be more precise, each article has its pages numbered from 1. Those are |article-number=
values, which are formatted differently. It is, indeed, sometimes useful to refer to page p of a long article number a.
Hi, The citation bot is putting in links to Zenodo. It is consider problematic and best avoided. scope_creep Talk 10:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)