User talk:Citation bot/Archive 39

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 35 ← Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39

archive-link should be replaced with archive-url, not archive-date

Status
{{fixed}}
Reported by
:Jay8g [V•T•E] 04:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
What happens
[1]
What should happen
[2]
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


Treat deadlink= the same as deadurl= (to convert to url-status=)

Status
{{fixed}}
Reported by
:Jay8g [V•T•E] 04:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
What should happen
[3]
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


audible.com

Status
{{fixed}}
Reported by
Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
What happens
So citation bot is changing audible listings to cite book.
What should happen
Cite web should be used.
Relevant diffs/links
[4]
Replication instructions
Add a source to audible.
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


Replace Cite Web with Cite Journal

Status
{{fixed}} several different ways to catch this and others
Reported by
—Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
What happens
changed Cite Web to Cite Journal
What should happen
should have left as web or possibly changed to Cite Archive
Relevant diffs/links
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stained_glass_windows_by_Harry_Clarke&diff=1223741434&oldid=1223665575
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


Not sure if Citation bot assumed that a the presence of a doi meant it was a journal, but the ref was pointing to a piece in the Trinity College Library archives collection. Attributed authors were picked up and added in ways that created CS1 errors. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Don't add title=MSN

Status
{{fixed}}
Reported by
:Jay8g [V•T•E] 00:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
What happens
[5]
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


It appears that Citation Bot has a blacklist for generic titles. "MSN" is a common generic title that I see Citation Bot add, so it should be added to that blacklist. (I know the diff I linked is old, but I've seen this happen recently.):Jay8g [V•T•E] 00:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

AS Racine FC

Hi bot.can you help correct a typo on the AS racine fc page you just edited?

The page title "AS Racine FC" is wrong. The correct title is "AS Racines F.C".

Please correct it. RoaringEdits (talk) 14:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with Citation Bot. Try Help:Desk. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Unlinking journal parameter

Hello,

According to the documentation at Template:Cite journal:

work (required by {{cite journal}} and {{cite magazine}}): Name of the work containing the source; may be wikilinked if relevant.

However, it seems citation bot unlinks the journal= parameter (by default?). Is this intentional? Should the documentation be updated if wikilinking journals is discouraged? Or should citation bot be updated to honor an existing wikilink, if any? (Example diff. There's some other questionable changes in there but that's probably from bad input data and harder to deal with.). SnowFire (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Caused by the (JTS) being present for no reason. The bot expects |journal=[[Foo|Everything]], not |journal=[[Foo|Something]], something else. 21:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
If this is intentional, then I feel like the documentation should be updated that this field needs to have only a single link. I don't really see the problem with the other approach, but I respect that maybe it's needed for bots / microformats rather than humans. (I saw quite a number of short references to "JTS" hence putting the acronym gloss in there, so it's not like a totally irrelevant piece of information to have somewhere.) SnowFire (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

date/year are the same

Status
{{fixed}}
Reported by
Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
What should happen
[6]
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


Won't run on categories with only one item

Status
{{fixed}}
Reported by
:Jay8g [V•T•E] 02:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
What happens
Webpage reports !Category appears to be empty
Replication instructions
Run the bot on any category with only one item. This happens both with the direct link on CS1 error/maint categories and with the category input on the Toolforge page.
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


Category-link formatting in bot's edit summaries is broken

Status
{{fixed}}
Reported by
Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 15:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
What happens
When the bot makes an edit from a category run, the category link in the edit summary is missing one of the two closing brackets necessary to actually activate the link: [[Category:NAME].
What should happen
The category link should be properly formatted as a link, with two opening and two closing brackets: [[Category:NAME]].
Relevant diffs/links
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Planking_(fad)&diff=prev&oldid=1224637690
Replication instructions
Run the bot on a category; any edits made during that run will show this bug.
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


TNT Title if "Request Rejected"

Status
{{fixed}}
Reported by
Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
What should happen
[7]
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


Introduces ref error when citing Penguin publisher website

Status
{{fixed}} - will not change if |website= is set.
Reported by
czar 07:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
What happens
Introduces ref error by turning {{cite web}} to {{cite book}} ostensibly when url=https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/295/295446/bullshit-jobs/9780141983479.html.
What should happen
Citation bot should take no action. Instead of interpreting that link as referencing a book, citation bot should not assume. In this case, the publisher's webpage itself is being cited as a primary source, so a book it not being cited.
Relevant diffs/links
[8]
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


This is the solution. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Pretty grateful we get to go through every citation to a publisher's blurb or library catalogue record and add a hidden html comment so Citation bot can continue assuming we're all ding-dongs who don't know the difference between a book and a website.
Having said sassed that, I'm not sure what percentage of us are ding-dongs who don't know the difference between a book and a website, and I'm of the opinion that the true solution is probably neither manually adding tens of thousands of hidden html comments nor endlessly tweaking exceptions into Citation bot's code, but mapping |website= to |via= instead of |periodical= in the context of {{Cite book}}, or rolling back the deprecation of the |periodical= aliases from {{Cite book}}, or having Citation bot output {{Cite conference}} or {{Citation}} to support more parameters. Folly Mox (talk) 09:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
The vast, vast, vast majority are ding dongs, where a link to the publisher website is meant to be a link to the book (much like links to Amazon are meant to simply reference the book, not the Amazon listing). There are exceptions of course, but those are the minority, and citing a publisher's website directly is often a failure of WP:IRS (for example here, you really should be citing Financial Times, New Statesman, and City AM directly, rather than the publisher of the book). Adding a comment is a very simple way to prevents bots from fucking up on the minority of cases where such a citation is intentional. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
I believe you, and I think I argued a similar point to your position when someone brought the same concern to this talkpage last year. I think I might just be grumpy this morning. Folly Mox (talk) 09:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
@Headbomb, does the bot match this exact text or can I add to it? I would prefer the comment to mention that this comment is specifically for Citation bot, as otherwise I see hidden comments often removed from wikitext in mainspace. czar 14:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
It only cares that there's a comment. See User:Citation_bot/use#..._the_bot_made_a_mistake?, specific parameter vs entire citation. Headbomb (alt) (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Past and Present volume and issue numbers

Status
{{not a bug}}
Reported by
Ifly6 (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
What happens
For journal Past and Present, in {{cite journal}} given |volume=26 and |issue=26, bot omits |volume= and keeps |issue=
What should happen
It should keep |volume= preferentially to |issue= when the two are identical
Relevant diffs/links
* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pliny_the_Younger&diff=prev&oldid=1223755369
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


Past and Present only has issue numbers. There is no volume number. That's erroneous metadata. See [9]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

They call them "volumes" and yet have "number" on the front of the magazines themselves. Oh yeah, and each one is "issue 1". AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Volumes and Issue 1 is the bad metadata. The front cover is what's reliable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Don't convert URLs to all lowercase

Status
{{fixed}}
Reported by
:Jay8g [V•T•E] 08:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
What happens
[10]
Replication instructions
This doesn't happen often and I'm not sure what causes it, but in this case it broke the link.
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


URLs are case insensitive (URL : "Although schemes are case-insensitive, the canonical form is lowercase and documents that specify schemes must do so with lowercase letters."), if something broke, it's not because of the casing. Headbomb (alt) (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit, I tried manually setting the casing and... well that website is some kind of special nutjob case because it IS case sensitive. I've never seen that before, ever. Headbomb (alt) (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
@Headbomb (alt): You're misreading your source for that, I'm afraid. URLs are case sensitive.
'scheme' refers to the protocol element before the :// , e.g. http, https, ftps. That is case insensitive; hostnames generally are too (because DNS is); other parts of the URL are not.
Check these out: https://yorril.uk/test https://yorril.uk/Test https://yorril.uk/TEST. This is perfectly normal web server behaviour (out-of-the-box Apache 2). Conventionally, these days, most people make their URLs fully lower case, but they don't have to. TSP (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
The problem is that the parameter https://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/legacy-of-jews-in-MENA/Iraq’s-First-Minister-of-Finance#:~:text is set to the value Iraq's%20First%20Minister%20of%20Finance%20%2D%20World%20Jewish%20Congress&text=Sassoon%20Heskel%20(1860–1932)%20was%20born%20into%20an%20established,the%20Middle%20East%2C%20and%20Asia. Which leads to some odd GIGO problems. If the the data was set to be a URL instead of done wrong, this would not occur. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes it has a URL but missing the |url= key name. These errors are not very common, but I've seen enough of them, they exist. Not sure how to check. Probably slicing the citation string along "|" and making sure each segment contains at least one "=". It's imperfect since URLs (like this one) often contain a "=". If it detects a URL "https?://" then temporarily mask it out before doing the "=" test. -- GreenC 21:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Caps: ChemInform

Status
{{fixed}}
Reported by
Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
What should happen
[11]
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


Change |date-accessed to |access-date (not |osti-access)

Status
{{fixed}}
Reported by
:Jay8g [V•T•E] 17:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
What happens
[12]
What should happen
[13]
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


Journal = Progress of Optics

Status
{{fixed}}
Reported by
Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
What happens
[14]
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


This is a series, and should not be added to the journal parameter of a cite book.

True, but also the bot should not misspell it "Progess". —David Eppstein (talk) 05:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Caps: Farmakologiia i Toksikologiia

Status
{{fixed}}
Reported by
Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
What should happen
[15]
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


Like all other lone I in the middle of a journal name (save for Part I / Section I), should be lowercase. Reporting every single one individually is annoying. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Favor

Dear citation bot: I need a favor; please cite the sources of this articles: Diamonds Are Forever (film); Carlos Alberto Rentería Mantilla; Epiphone Casino and 1988 Writers Guild of America strike. Best wishes. 2800:484:D473:700:C502:BC5C:682A:6B88 (talk) 21:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Misidentifications as journals of not-journals

Status
{{fixed}} a couple of things
Reported by
Folly Mox (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
What happens
Citation bot incorrectly changes template type to {{cite journal}}
Relevant diffs/links
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


Past and Present issue=1

Status
{{fixed}}
Reported by
Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
What should happen
[16]
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


See also [17] Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Huh I had a very different impression. Special:Diff/1223749410 popped up on my watchlist, and I looked into the change. According to doi.org/10.1093/pastj/gty034 we've got volume rather than issue for Past & Present. Folly Mox (talk) 10:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
That's because the OUP metadata is wrong here. It's the 13th supplement, which happened to be in the same year as the 238th issue. See [18]. It should be cited as Past & Present (Suppl. 13). Nowhere in the actual issue is the 238th issue mentioned (or 238th volume). Headbomb (alt) (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Fixed. Thanks, Headbomb. Folly Mox (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Better handling of page/pages with leading p.

Status
{{fixed}}
Reported by
Headbomb (alt) (talk) 17:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
What should happen
[19] [20] [21]
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


Adding current date to old citations

Status
{{fixed}} - will no longer add dates that are within two weeks of today. Also add corydondemocrat.com to the list of websites with bad dates.
Reported by
:Jay8g [V•T•E] 00:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
What happens
[22]
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


I've seen Citation Bot periodically adding the current date to citations where it clearly does not belong. I'm guessing this is some issue with the metadata on the pages in question, but I wonder if there's some way to avoid it - one thing I can think of would be to prevent it from adding the current date (citations where that is actually valid could have the date added by a future bot run when it is no longer the current date), but maybe there's a better option.:Jay8g [V•T•E] 00:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Bot unitalicizes titles of works (e.g. films) in |trans-title= parameter

Status
{{fixed}} - trans-title now treated like title and not 'fixed'
Reported by
Centcom08 (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
What happens
Citation bot unitalicizes words that needs italicizing (e.g. films) in |trans-title= parameter of a {{Cite}} template, despite MOS:CONFORMTITLE.
Relevant diffs/links
sample 1, sample 2
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


Past and Present when linked

Status
{{fixed}} -- found four places that the pipe was not taken into account.
Reported by
Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
What should happen
[23]
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


Bot removes specific details from |orig-date parameter in the cite book template

Status
{{fixed}} orig-date will no longer be cleaned
Reported by
Gricharduk (talk) 02:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
What happens
The bot is removing specific details from the |orig-date parameter in the cite book template e.g. |orig-date=First published 1859 is replaced with |orig-date=1859.
What should happen
As per Wikipedia:Undated, the orig-date parameter requires specific details as well as a date/year e.g. |orig-date=First published 1859 rather than |orig-date=1859.
Relevant diffs/links
Example diff from the Audrey Stuckes article (see the Fendrich 1994 reference)
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


Bot making up dates

Status
{{fixed}} - dates that are really new will now be rejected.
Reported by
DuncanHill (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
What happens
Bot is obsessed with saying everything was published on the 4 June 2024
What should happen
bot stops making shit up. It's bad enough that it goes around breaking sfn/harv refs, but that ity should add entirely false information as well is unforgiveable.
Relevant diffs/links
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gupta%E2%80%93Hunnic_Wars&diff=prev&oldid=1227166526
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


Switch the damn thing off. Or fix the errors it introduced. Don't leave it to other poor saps to clean up its mess. DuncanHill (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

This is reported somewhere else above, and is probably the result of sites with overeager structure putting the current date in the meta elements of the html header. I think the solution to this one is to code Citation bot to check the date it scrapes against the current date, and if it's within 24 hours, don't add it. This will stop it from adding dates to breaking news sources about new developments, which is a fine tradeoff.
Another potential solution would be to disable for most users the ability to run Citation bot against an entire category in a way that they aren't forced to review each resulting change manually. Most editors who use this functionality never double check to see if their script run has introduced any errors.
Citation bot does a lot of really good work, but it does a lot of work: last I estimated, an average of around two hundred edits an hour, way too fast to clean up after without the help of the people who run it all the time. Folly Mox (talk) 10:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Specifically, these dates: [24] Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Another one added to a Good Article after this report was placed: Special:Diff/1227284405, adding today's date to a book published in 2006 (not formatted as a web link), and incidentally masking a bad anonymous IP edit with a bot edit on top of it. It is definitely not what was suggested above, the result of sites with overeager structure putting the current date in the meta elements of the html header, because there is no url and no html header that the bot could have taken this date from. I tend to agree with the original poster: if this is not going to be fixed quickly then the bot needs to be shut down. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Also pinging User:Jay8g. Jay8g: please make sure that your bot runs aren't garbaging existing good citations. Ultimately when they do it becomes your responsibility. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
That's the exact same solution I suggested in #Adding current date to old citations above, which has been completely ignored. :Jay8g [V•T•E] 02:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Caps: JSAE Review

Status
{{fixed}}
Reported by
Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
What happens
|journal=Jsae Review
What should happen
|journal=JSAE Review
Relevant diffs/links
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronically_controlled_brake&diff=prev&oldid=1227419996
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


MovieCrow

Status
{{fixed}}
Reported by
Kailash29792 (talk) 06:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
What happens
website=www.moviecrow.com
What should happen
website=MovieCrow
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


I would not call this a bug, but the site's name is MovieCrow (find this capitalisation over here and their official Twitter X handle), yet adding the ref via WP:VE or WP:ProveIt renders www.moviecrow.com in the website field rather than MovieCrow, and no date. Could this be fixed when the citation bot is used, please? --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Don't add |title= when there's already |script-title= and |trans-title=

Status
{{fixed}}
Reported by
:Jay8g [V•T•E] 02:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
What happens
[25]
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


I'm not sure if it ever makes sense to add |title= when |script-title= is already there, but it definitely doesn't seem to make sense when there's both |script-title= and |trans-title=.:Jay8g [V•T•E] 02:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Noting in this case, the superfluous algorithmically added |title= isn't even correct: what Citation bot got its hands on there is |website=. Folly Mox (talk) 22:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Editing bot-built pages

Headbomb, it's pointless getting Citation bot to make edits like this and this because the next time that Legobot runs (one minute past the hour), it will ignore what Citation bot did and overwrite it with text copied from the page where the RfC is taking place. If the citation really needs to be amended, this should be done at the source - Talk:Colombia#rfc_CF0B8D1 and Talk:Emir Abdelkader#rfc_54680D6. Legobot will then copy the amended version to the RfC listings. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe both talk pages got their edits. I just triggered CB on those subpages so it would clear the DOI categories. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Those files are no blocked from editing by the bot. It will just skip them. {{fixed}} AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Caps: CEA Critic

Status
{{fixed}}
Reported by
Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
What should happen
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_James&diff=prev&oldid=1228166270
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


Add ISSN?

I was recently asked to add ISSNs to all journals at a FAC, and wondered why it isn't automatically added when hitting "expand citations" or when automatically filling up citations in the journal citation toolbar? FunkMonk (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Please see semi-relate discussion about ISSNs in journals on Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Placement_of_ISSN_in_Citation_Style_1. Not exactly relevant, but the discussion may end up where we remove ISSNs instead... Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't know who asked you this, but I'd asked exactly the opposite. ISSNs are near-irrelevant, and pure clutter. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes. I would strongly object to automatically adding issns, and if I nominated an article for GA or FA I would strongly object to being told to add issns. If you have an identifier for the individual article, an identifier for the whole journal it appears in is useless clutter. These numbers may occasionally be useful for disambiguating similarly-named journals but they are usually not useful. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Agree with the above: I've used ISSN in limited cases (foreign language periodicals where we don't have an article about them and their published articles don't have DOIs), but adding them en masse is wasteful and bloaty. Folly Mox (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
ISSN can be an amazing add for super obscure things, but almost always pointless clutter. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
{{wontfix}} - flag to archive. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Bot converts new Google Books URLs to the old format

Status
{{wontfix}} right now, because new format is much less standard. Added to "to do" list above
Reported by
Paul_012 (talk) 09:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
What happens
As raised by Salpynx above under #New Google books URLs, the bot converts Google Books URLs under the new format (e.g. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Encyclopedia_of_Music_in_the_20th_Centur/m8W2AgAAQBAJ?gbpv=1&pg=PA379) to the old format, which is now called "classic Google Books" (https://books.google.com/books?id=m8W2AgAAQBAJ&pg=PA379).
What should happen
Since it appears that the old format may be in the process of being phased out, the bot should probably not make such conversions, and just tidy up the URLs under the new format instead.
Relevant diffs/links
Special:Diff/1210636446, Special:Diff/1213075921
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


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)

A better new url would be https://www.google.com/books/edition/_/m8W2AgAAQBAJ?gbpv=1&pg=PA379 since that chunk of text has no effect. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:11, 28 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)

journal = Meth. Enzymol. + series = Methods in Enzymology

Status
{{fixed}}
Reported by
Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
What should happen
[26]
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


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)

Here Methods in Enzymology is a book series, not a journal, so that's the fix that should be done here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Same for Advances in Genetics, also a book series, not a journal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error when Citation bot changes publisher parameter to work for cite book template

Status
{{fixed}}
Reported by
Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 22:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
What happens
publisher parameter to cite book template is replaced by Citation bot with work, which displays as a CS1 error
What should happen
Citation bot should leave it alone (I think)
Relevant diffs/links
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harold_Stassen&diff=prev&oldid=1215401261
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


adding journal to cite book

Status
{{wontfix}} since it is a single reference
Reported by
Spinixster (trout me!) 02:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
What happens
this
What should happen
not that, since it generates an error. I've undone the edit.
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


I think a template change to Template:Cite journal would be better. Spinixster (trout me!) 02:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

The fix [27]. This is a book series, but individual books are untitled. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Ugh, the series and the "title" are the same. Will look into. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 13:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Adds volume=year to conference proceedings incorrectly formatted as journal

Status
{{fixed}} - rejects volumes that are same as year
Reported by
—David Eppstein (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
What happens
Special:Diff/1224203420
What should happen
not that
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


Better handling of SPIE proceedings

Status
{{fixed}} - now recognizes "international symposium" as magic phrase
Reported by
Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
What should happen
[28]
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


Still needs lots of cleanup after, e.g [29] + cleanup, [30] + cleanup. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

And if there are magic words "Proceedings of SPIE" "Proceedings of the SPIE" "Proc SPIE" "Proc. SPIE" "SPIE Proceedings" "SPIE Proc." "SPIE Proc" and "Proceedings of the Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers" should all be added. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Those also. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Zenodo

Hi, The citation bot is putting in links to Zenodo. It is consider problematic and best avoided. scope_creepTalk 10:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Example please. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 02:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
{{fixed}} AManWithNoPlan (talk) 12:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

The Athletic

Status
{{fixed}}
Reported by
SounderBruce 06:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
What happens
Website/work is changed from The Athletic to The New York Times
What should happen
Website/work should remain The Athletic when theathletic.com or nytimes.com/athletic/ is used.
Relevant diffs/links
Example at Seattle Reign FC
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


Washington Post (again)

Status
 Fixed - will now be considered a minor edit and will not be done unless something substantial is also done.
Reported by
SounderBruce 01:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
What happens
The bot changes |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.
Relevant diffs/links
Example diff
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


CS1 errors from partial journal-to-book conversion

Status
 Fixed for the most part
Reported by
—David Eppstein (talk) 23:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
What happens
When citation bot finds a cite journal template pointing to a book in the Lecture Notes in Computer Science series, with |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.
What should happen
The bot should never change working-but-erroneous citations into not-even-working citations; that is going the wrong direction. If it cannot do this conversion properly it should not be doing it at all.
Relevant diffs/links
Special:Diff/1211730231
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


This bug is still ongoing and still leading to new CS1 errors in articles. Example: Special:Diff/1213121977, creating a {{cite book}} with a |journal= parameter and triggering a CS1 error. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
STILL ONGOING. Special:Diff/1220922831. THE BOT SHOULD NOT CHANGE ARTICLES WITHOUT CS1 ERRORS INTO ARTICLES WITH CS1 ERRORS. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Yet another: Special:Diff/1221441974. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Link in title

Status
 Fixed
Reported by
Spinixster (trout me!) 02:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
What happens
When there is a wikilink in the title in italics, Citation bot fixes it like this.
What should happen
This is redundant. The bot can put the wikilink in title-link instead like so.


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)

cite book in place of correct cite web, and insert wrong date

Status
 Fixed
Reported by
A ntv (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
What happens
a) BOT modified a correct cite web in a wrong cite web, b) BOT added a completely wrong date (1677)
Relevant diffs/links
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gazette_de_Berne&diff=1222065203&oldid=1211083557#


On Gazette de Berne, this edit [31] 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)

The date is correct, that's from May 1677. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
The date 1677 is not correct. This was a reference to webpage with information about an old newspaper published from 1677 to 1692 (Bern, 1677 - 1692nachgewiesen). This webpage displays an issue in 1667 just as example. More correctly, the date should be Date of referenced source, i.e. the date of that webpage. In case the intention of the (human) editor was to refer to a single issue of that newspaper, the template would be cite periodical, but this was not the case. Probably this BOT should look also in the article to understand what the reference is about: otherwise it is better that the BOT doesn't change the type of template chosen the editor. A ntv (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

New CS1 error from partial cite web to cite book conversion

Status
 Fixed with code that will remove a select list of items from website parameter if template is cite book and it has a doi
Reported by
—David Eppstein (talk) 06:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
What happens
Special:Diff/1220938519
What should happen
Again, we should not see any instances of the bot changing citations without CS1 errors to citations with CS1 errors. Convert correctly or don't convert. How about: put in a sanity check and if the new version would create new errors, don't do anything.
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


These errors are improvements, because they flag existing problems that were not reported. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Then flag the problems to the person who invoked the bot, and refuse to save the other bot edits until they fix it. By making citations produce a trail of errors across the encyclopedia you are passing off your work to others and making the citations worse until someone else takes the effort to fix them. Does the fact that some other people organize trash cleanup days at parks make it ok to dump your litter in the park? Do it yourself. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Causing template errors

Status
 Fixed a bunch more.
Reported by
MisterTech (talk) 11:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
What happens
Citation bot is changing journal templates to book templates, leaving the journal parameter intact which results in a template error.
What should happen
Citation bot should also change the journal parameter to a title parameter
Relevant diffs/links
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3AData_spaces&diff=1182601603&oldid=1181737145
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


I don't know that that's the solution ({{cite journal}} almost always already contains |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 (24,590), 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)
In both cases, it is a bit of problem with the wrong template and information being entered by a human being. I will see what more can be done. The bot did shrink Category:CS1 errors: periodical ignored (24,590) by tens of thousands a while back, but it seems to have hit a steady-state with the bot both fixing and adding members to this category. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:49, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Special:Diff/1186701879 is another example, a few minutes ago, of Citation bot creating template errors by changing citation wrapper template without appropriate reparameterisation of values already present. For clarity, the existing citation ({{cite web}} to a publisher landing page for a book) wasn't great, but this behaviour is not desirable: altering the template called without checking whether it contains unsupported parameters.
For changing {{cite web}} to {{cite book}} where |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)
I've begun reverting Citation bot whenever it produces this error, which seems to account for between 1% and 2% of its recent edits. I know I take a critical tone here frequently (still traumatised by ReferenceExpander), but Citation bot does a lot of really good work. I do appreciate it and the maintainers.
Also I'm aware that the whole reason this type of edit causes a template error in the first place is the underdiscussed and unnecessary removal of support for the |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)
Books series occupy a space somewhere between books and journals. Similar to journals, books series are published on a regular (or at least semi-regular) basis with volume numbers. To at least some editors, book series look like journals, so I think it should not be suprising that they sometimes use the {{cite journal}} template for book series. And it is not just editors. Automated tools like WP:RefToolbar will generate at least a partial citation to the chapter selecting "cite journal" and specifying a DOI. In contrast RefToolbar "cite book" option does not even support chapters. Citeoid in VisualEditor will also generate a "cite journal" template including the chapter as the title if the DOI is entered. Wikipedia template filling tool will also generate cite journal templates for chapters in book series. I would argue that using {{cite journal}} for chapters in book series, is not wrong. Furthermore this usage does not throw any error messages. Converting journals to books without reparameterization is throwing errors. IMHO, Citation Bot should not convert these templates unless it also adjusts the parameters. I think the principle of first, do no harm applies here. Boghog (talk) 12:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
I've run across a number of cases that fall into this genre, most recently this one. Here, the book series is Journal of Neural Transmission. Supplementum at Springer; others I can remember off the top of my head are Methods in Enzymology and Progress in Drug Research, both at Elsevier.
It seems to me that if Citation bot is both 1. altering the template type to {{cite book}} while 2. getting valid data for a parameter named 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 class of new(?) errors

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)

It is often GIGO. The bot adds corrected parameters and leave some bad stuff behind. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
I will look into trying to reduce this. I know that the bot fixed many more of these than it creates. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your work on this. It's probably difficult when almost all the engagement on this talkpage is complaints. I believe you when you say Citation bot has fixed this class of error more often than it has introduced it, and I appreciate that. Folly Mox (talk) 12:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
This has already improved a lot over where it was last week! Folly Mox (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
This bug seems eradicated for many of the more common cases, but I did find another example today, at Special:Diff/1189067865. My fix looked like this. Folly Mox (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Ran into a few more GIGO style manifestations of this bug today, but also a bunch of conference proceedings hosted by Springer, all of which caused this same error: Special:Diff/1189110528, Special:Diff/1189117384, and Special:Diff/1189119689 (the last of which alone caused five errors). Folly Mox (talk) 03:37, 10 December 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)

I see this error is still going on after all these months, like this edit from today. Any chance of implementing Protalina's simple suggested fix just above? That won't fix every kind of issue arising from changing templates that support an alias of |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 (24,590); 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)
Lots of these are now  Fixed. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 13:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

More Reuters

Status
 Fixed
Reported by
Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 18:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
What should happen
Change from {{cite web}} to {{cite news}} and remove {{!}} Reuters from the |title=
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2015&diff=prev&oldid=1230111908


10.12942 is open access

Status
 Fixed
Reported by
Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
What should happen
[32]


Advances in Genetics is a book series

Status
 Fixed
Reported by
Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
What should happen
[33]


See also [34]. Should cover the undotted version 'Adv Genet' too. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Reuters non-usa

Status
 Fixed
Reported by
Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
What happens
CHanged |work=Reuters to |agency=Reuters
What should happen
Should not change when the URL is http://today.reuters.co.uk (i.e. *.reuters.*)
Relevant diffs/links
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2005_in_the_Palestinian_territories&diff=prev&oldid=1230470081


poor meta-data

Status
 Fixed
Reported by
Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
What happens
|newspaper=Radiofreeeurope/Radioliberty
What should happen
|newspaper=Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
Relevant diffs/links
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Druzhba_pipeline&diff=prev&oldid=1230457479


Newstream is a bad title

Status
 Fixed
Reported by
Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
What happens
|title=Newstream
Relevant diffs/links
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Korean_defectors&diff=prev&oldid=1230458212


Resolve reut.rs

Status
Red X Won't fix - not enough
Reported by
Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
What should happen
Expand reut.rs links to reuters.com links
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Pisky&diff=prev&oldid=1230450957
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


Example https://reut.rs/3NMDRBT should be expanded to https://www.reuters.com/video/watch/deadly-artillery-attack-hits-donetsk-mar-idOV454213062022RP1/ - we should not have shortned URL links. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

TNT {title} in title

Status
 Fixed
Reported by
Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
What should happen
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nuclear_program_of_Saudi_Arabia&diff=prev&oldid=1230451906


More Reuters in title

Status
 Fixed
Reported by
Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
What should happen
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Josve05a/sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=1230426470
and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Josve05a/sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=1230426950
and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Josve05a/sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=1230431044


Citation Bot edit-warring with OABot

Status
{{not a bug}}
Reported by
:Jay8g [V•T•E] 07:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
What happens
[35], [36], [37], [38]
What should happen
I'm not sure which bot is right, but they shouldn't reverse each other's edits.
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


OA-bot is wrong. Scholarpedia is clearly open access. Same for Medknow, ASBMB journals. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Citation_bot/Archive_39"