User talk:Citation bot/Archive 40

Archive 35

←

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Caps: Feminismo/S → Feminismo/s

Status

{{fixed}}

Reported by

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

What happens

[1]

What should happen

[2]

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

De-Allcapsify Cyrillic characters

Status

{{wontfix}}

Reported by

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

What should happen

[3]

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

Why the won't fix? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:41, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Untitled_new_bug

Status

{{notabug}}

Reported by

Will;Draku (talk) 19:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

IWSEC

Status

{{fixed}}

Reported by

—David Eppstein (talk) 17:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

What happens

This may be a case of GIGO, but the bot changed the case of journal=IWSEC to journal=Iwsec in a cite journal. IWSEC is an initialism and it is not a journal.

What should happen

Special:Diff/1251341586

Relevant diffs/links

Special:Diff/1251292967

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

10.18637 is free access

Status

{{fixed}}

Reported by

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

What should happen

[4]

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

bad volume meta-data

Status

{{fixed}} - now reject just a dash

Reported by

—Kusma (talk) 20:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

What happens

Bot adds "-" as volume name, which is either bad OCR from the metadata or means no volume name

What should happen

If the volume name looks crazy, do nothing

Relevant diffs/links

[5]

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

Bot does nothing

Status

{{not a bug}}

Reported by

C⚛smLearner ^💬🔬 13:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

What happens

I enter the title name - German American and click on proceed. After waiting sometimes, it shows "Done with page." But it doesn't make any edit to the article.

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

That means the bot has nothing to do on that page. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

period/comma at the end of a numbered volume

Status

{{fixed}}

Reported by

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

What should happen

[6]

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

Must run twice to add class to cite arxiv

Status

{{notabug}} - no idea why this happened and now does not happen

Reported by

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

What happens

[7] + [8]

What should happen

One edit

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

Titles that aren't

Some of the titles this bot adds are not titles. They belong in other fields like "work" or "newspaper". Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 04:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Examples would help otherwise {{wontfix}} . AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Caps: eHealth, eWelfare

Status

{{fixed}}

Reported by

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

What should happen

[9]

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

PMC url cleanup

Status

{{fixed}}, now supports new URL format

Reported by

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

What should happen

[10]

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

Generic name added to citation

Status

{{fixed}} - added "news desk" to list of bad authors

Reported by

Achmad Rachmani (talk) 03:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

What happens

[11]

What should happen

[12]

Relevant diffs/links

McDonald's

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

Tumblr isn't a newspaper

Status

{{fixed}}

Reported by

:Jay8g [V•T•E] 20:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

What happens

[13]

What should happen

Don't change to cite news

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

Even worse, sometimes it removes specific information to replace it with website=Tumblr. Please don't ignore these issues.:Jay8g [V•T•E] 06:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Replaced unformatted "multiple sources" with a template for only one of those sources

Status

{{fixed}} with this: https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/commit/2e6ed34687b05ce9a8ca210f4bf960baba93f92d

Reported by

:Jay8g [V•T•E] 00:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

What happens

[14]

What should happen

no edit

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

This is exactly the same kind of shit we disabled ReferenceExpander over. I mention that Citation bot does a lot of good work every time I complain about it, but I'm aware Citation bot has no BRFA to add templates to manually formatted citations. If it's deleting sequential citations in the process of formatting one, that subroutine should be disabled until the regexes are fixed. A newline with initial asterisk would probably go a long way towards successfully identifying cases like this. Folly Mox (talk) 01:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Adding incorrect PMIDs

Status

{{fixed}}

Reported by

Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

What happens

|pmid=0586

What should happen

|pmid=15830586

Relevant diffs/links

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AJosve05a%2Fsandbox&diff=prev&oldid=1254215182

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

Expand from PMC

Status

{{fixed}}

Reported by

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

What should happen

[15] also [16]

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

Removes PMC url, but does not put PMC identifier

Status

{{fixed}} - new URL type. Also added code to detect an empty PMC and log that and not drop URL

Reported by

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

What should happen

[17]

Relevant diffs/links

[18]

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

See also [19] + [20] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Headbomb (talk • contribs) 17:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for checking the result each time you invoke this bot on an article, and for reporting when it RUNS AMOK. -A876 (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Fails to add PMID from PMC

Status

{{fixed}} - new URL type. Also added code to detect an empty PMC and log that and not drop URL

Reported by

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

What should happen

[21]

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

Duplicate

Status

{{fixed}} - new URL type. Also added code to detect an empty PMC and log that and not drop URL

Reported by

-- -- -- 19:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

In this edit, the bot removed a valid url [22] for no good reason. -- -- -- 19:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Duplicate of #Removes PMC url, but does not put PMC identifier above. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Duplicate, 2

Status

{{fixed}} - new URL type. Also added code to detect an empty PMC and log that and not drop URL

Reported by

A876 (talk) 20:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

What happens

removed |url=https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC#######/ but did not add |pmc=####### ?!

Relevant diffs/links

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Type_1_diabetes&diff=prev&oldid=1254804837

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

The edit comment for the above edit: (Added doi-broken-date. Removed URL that duplicated identifier. | ... | Suggested by Headbomb | Linked from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Journals_cited_by_Wikipedia/Sandbox | #UCB_webform_linked 101/122)

Problem: The 6 URLs that it removed DID NOT duplicate any identifier! (Also added a space.) (I fixed it in the next edit.)

I think that not many citations contain |url=https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC#######/ without also containing |pmc=#######, but that seems to derail Citation bot whenever someone invokes it on such a page. I'm not the first to notice. I would love to slap your EMERGENCY STOP button!

You removed "|url=..." without adding "|pmc=..." ?!

You must check for a matching identifier (in correct form) before removing the URL! Otherwise you must convert the URL (and its accessories) into an identifier. (post-edited -A876 (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC))

Duplicate of #Removes PMC url, but does not put PMC identifier above. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, I described it longer, and signed. (I hope it gets fixed.) -A876 (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I have rebooted the bot to make sure that all jobs get the fixed code. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 22:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Favor

Hello my friend BOT; please cite the sources which I put in this newly created article Alias El Mexicano. Is important. Thanks. JeanMercier90 (talk) 00:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

{{fixed}} AManWithNoPlan (talk) 11:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

www.pro-football-reference.com getting hammered by toolforge tool

Status

{{fixed}}

Reported by

Mvolz (WMF) (talk) 13:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

What happens

Hammering a particular website

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

We've recently been auditing citoid traffic to see which websites are giving us the most errors. The site with the most errors happens to be www.pro-football-reference.com with over a quarter of million errors, and all in just the last month. The website is giving us 429 "too many requests" errors. We've traced a little over half of this activity back to the toolforge tool.

Total errors. Includes activity from reFill as well.

Errors with Citation_bot user-agent only

I was wondering if you had any thoughts on how we should deal with this. I thought perhaps it was someone using the citationbot on en wiki, but when I looked for a sample of URLs, none of them I tried were found on en wiki at least so no luck there. I found one of the urls on https://arz.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%83%D8%A7%D9%8A%D9%84_%D9%88%D9%8A%D8%AA%D9%86%D8%AC%D9%87%D8%A7%D9%85 so maybe it's ARZ wiki, though perhaps it's a coincidence? If it's a single user or perhaps a different bot using the toolforge tool, maybe we could ask them to stop. Any idea how to find them?

Alternatively (or additionally) is there a precedent of blacklisting or rate limiting certain urls? Mvolz (WMF) (talk) 13:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The bot only runs on English and Simple. Unless people are using it in "gadget" mode, which would be stupid on most wiki's since the bot assume english style templates. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I have added pro-football-reference.com to the list of websites that do not have dates, volumes, issues, etc, so that the bot will rarely try to get data for them. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 13:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi

Hello friend BOT. Since you cited my sources in an article I'm about to finish, please cite those of this one Let It Be (1970 film). Greetings. JeanMercier90 (talk) 14:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Please enable the bot in your preferences and run them yourself AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

{{wontfix}}

Hi again

Hi dude. Please cite the references which I put in the finished article Pablo Escobar. Thanks. JeanMercier90 (talk) 15:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Run it yourself. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

{{wontfix}}

Bot is slow

The bot's been extremely slow these past 2-3 days? Is it being chocked by insanely large jobs? Or needs a reset somehow? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

{{fixed}} - rebooted. Only two large jobs running. Not sure what was up with that. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete stray <formula>...<formula/> and <roman>...<roman/>

Status

{{fixed}}

Reported by

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

What should happen

[23]

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

How common is this, and do you have a search to find them? AManWithNoPlan (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

No idea how common it is. The bot added them here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I will look into cleaning them from incoming data. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

MathML

Status

{{wontfix}}, since it would require a large lift. I have looked at this multiple times and been "how hard could it be" and then ran away

Reported by

Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

What happens

Weird math, mrow and nowiki tags in title

Relevant diffs/links

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AJosve05a%2Fsandbox&diff=prev&oldid=1255192629

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

That math/mrow syntax is MathML, which Wikimedia does not support directly. You can format it using Wikimedia math syntax as "$S\to F$ and $S\to J$" (<math>S\to F</math> and <math>S\to J</math>) but in this case I would prefer template syntax, "S → F and S → J" ({{math|''S'' → ''F''}} and {{math|''S'' → ''J''}}) because Wikimedia math does not work well within linked text. I'm not convinced that the bot understands these issues well enough to translate the mathml into Wikimedia syntax. Probably the easiest is just to drop the tags and keep the text within them, giving "S→F and S→J". —David Eppstein (talk) 18:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The bot explicity wraps incoming titles with certain math items in nowiki tags so that they are human readable for the most part and also obviously needing fixed. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 12:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

That seems like an entirely reasonable way to handle this sort of markup, to me, maybe enough to label this as wontfix. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Can't we just strip the math tags all together? And simply output S→J in this example? now the bot adds both nowiki tags and broken math tags inside these nowiki-tags, making the math tags become visible.. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 04:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Keeping the math/mrow/etc tags is important for anyone trying to figure out what the formula was actually supposed to be. In this case they didn't help much, and in this case the preprint version also uses S→J rather than anything more nicely formatted, but in other cases dropping tags like this could lose some important information. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Mathematical Reviews is not a book

Status

{{fixed}} for the most part

Reported by

—David Eppstein (talk) 06:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

What happens

Converts correct cite journal, describing a book review published in the journal Mathematical Reviews (which more or less coincides with the modern MathSciNet online database, but genuinely used to be a journal) into cite book, replacing the given title for the review with the title of the book, after a previous pass of a bot (probably the same bot) helpfully and incorrectly added the book doi to the review references. In the process a CS1 error is generated because the citations to the wrong reference of the wrong type still have a leftover journal parameter.

As I keep saying, this is the type of damage that can be predicted to happen when bots run over the same reference over and over and over and over, probably making improvements on the first pass or two but also introducing minor mistakes that they then amplify into major mistakes until eventually the reference is totally garbled. The whole process of repeatedly polishing citations so many times needs to be rethought. Get it right the first time and then stop.

What should happen

Not that.

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

This is likely about [24] where a reference to MR is confused to a reference to the work reviewed by MR. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

The majority of that reference is to the book itself (DOI, ISBN, volume, etc) and not the MR. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

You are completely missing the point.

After multiple passes of citation-cleaning bots including Citation bot and OAbot, what was originally a reference purely to a review in Mathematical Reviews gradually became more and more borked, in the process resembling a reference to the reviewed work. The most recent pass of Citation bot took a reference that, by then, resembled a citation to a book and made it look more like a citation to the book. But that was only the latest step of this borkage. Sometime longer ago a bot planted a turd in the citation and then the bots kept on polishing it, making it shinier and shinier but not any less smelly.

The problem here is not the individual edit. The problem is that when bots repeatedly replace and replace and replace bits of citations, without intelligence or oversight, they have a tendency to amplify their earlier mistakes. All it takes is a month or two of a bug where bad dois or bad hdls get added to citations (and we've seen such bugs, not just in this bot) and then later iterations take that as gospel and keep massaging the citation to more closely resemble that bad piece of the reference. One or two passes of Citation bot is usually an improvement. After that, further passes are as likely to break things and make more work for human editors as they are to make anything better.

We need some sort of cone of shame that can stop the bots from continuing to worry the same sore spots over and over, without keeping them away from new citations in need of bot cleanup. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The reciprocal operation seems more common in my experience: DOIs to book reviews where the citation points to the reviewed book. Perhaps the least fun is where the same content is published originally in a journal and later as a book chapter, and the citation scripts pick the opposite publication to the original editor, resulting in wholly mixy-match metadata that can take twenty or thirty minutes to untangle.

Whenever I find myself fixing citations that Citation bot has micrd up in this way (which can often as not be blamed on Crossref), I'll drop a hidden html comment so it ignores the citation in the future, but it would nice not to have to do that every time. However, bots sprinkling |script-embargo-date= or suchlike all over doesn't feel like a super premium solution either. Folly Mox (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

There is no such parameter as |script-embargo-date=. What did you really mean?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry. I was workshopping ideas of how to slow down or arrest the process of citation scripts repeatedly replace and replace and replace bits of citations, and what it might implement like to have some sort of cone of shame that can stop the bots from continuing to worry the same sore spots over and over, without keeping them away from new citations in need of bot cleanup.

I think I skipped a step where I typed out the immediately rejected ideas of scripts keeping track of which citations they had previously edited (too resource intensive), or checking revision histories for their own activity (ditto). Then I leapt straight into rejecting the third idea, where bots drop themselves and each other little reminder notes using an invented parameter for the purpose.

Unlike a few other problems that get mention on this talkpage, I don't have any clear idea how to prevent the sort of error described in this bug report. I forgot to type out some of my unclear bad ideas, probably due to being in an IRL conversation during the edit. Folly Mox (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

can we please not "Upgrade ISBN10 to 13"?

As far as I can tell this has no practical advantage at all, and only serves to make the opaque identifier take up more space at readers' expense. –jacobolus (t) 23:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Looking for 13 ISBN leads to more google hits oddly. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand your reply. Can you clarify? I agree with jacobolus. RememberOrwell (talk) 06:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

{{notabug}} since the isbn13 is much more likely to get a google hit, and it is technically the correct ISBN for newer books. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Can we please not add bibcode when it contains no useful information?

Citation Bot has recently been adding more bibcodes to various citations, but nearly every time I click through the bibcode turns out to contain zero new information. That is, the bibcode has some metadata already included in the Wikipedia citation plus an abstract already included at the publisher's website linked from a DOI, and nothing else whatsoever. Adding these bibcodes to citations seems like a waste of space which is at best useless, or at worst wastes readers time. Sometimes bibcode links contain full text or some other useful information, so I wouldn't say bibcode should never be added, but it seems very unhelpful to add it just because it happens to exist. –jacobolus (t) 04:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Bibcodes always contain useful information. Like every other identifiers, iIf you don't like them, ignore them. That doesn't make them useless to others who know how to use them. No different than PMIDs in medicine. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Which useful information is it that they contain, exactly? How does such a knowing person "use" them? PMIDs are also often useless, I agree. Adding an extra half-dozen opaque identifiers which all point to the same identical information does a disservice to readers and is harmful to the project overall, because it makes the citations harder to read and forces readers to carefully sift through chaff to find the links they are looking for. Anyone who cares about these identifiers for their own sake, for whatever reason, can find them absolutely trivially. –jacobolus (t) 19:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be useful to add an invisible-by-default view for all of these extra identifiers which could be revealed in CSS to the trivial number of "others who know how to use them" without needing to shove a bunch of line noise in everyone else's face. –jacobolus (t) 19:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be some way of distinguishing bibcodes or other ids that provide useful information (like full article text) from the ones that merely point to other ids, so that the useful ones can be shown and the useless ones can be hidden.

But this may be reader-dependent. For instance MathSciNet codes are useful to people with subscription access to MathSciNet (who are shown reviews of the works) but useless to non-subscribers (who get a landing page with a bare citation). In such cases I don't think Wikipedia is capable of determining which readers can make use of the id. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The bibcodes I'm talking about are opaque IDs pointing at a web page which includes: author, title, journal name/issue, date, page numbers, DOI (all included already in the wikipedia citation), plus an abstract (included on the DOI page), but no other information at all. I don't see any benefit to anyone in clicking through to such a page, unless someone's goal is to find the bibcode itself for some (obscure, niche, irrelevant to wikipedia) purpose.

As a concrete example, here is a Wikipedia citation after Citation bot added a bibcode:

Vincenty, Thaddeus (1975-04-01). "Direct and Inverse Solutions of Geodesics on the Ellipsoid with Application of Nested Equations" (PDF). Survey Review. 23 (176). Kingston Road, Tolworth, Surrey: Directorate of Overseas Surveys: 88–93. Bibcode:1975SurRv..23...88V. doi:10.1179/sre.1975.23.176.88. Retrieved 2008-07-21.

If it were up to me, this should instead be:

Vincenty, Thaddeus (1975). "Direct and Inverse Solutions of Geodesics on the Ellipsoid with Application of Nested Equations" (PDF). Survey Review. 23 (176): 88–93. doi:10.1179/sre.1975.23.176.88.

The publisher and their location are not essential or even useful information to include in journal citations like this when we can include them in a wiki page about the journal (though frankly even a wikilink to Survey Review has only marginal value here), but the bibcode especially is pointless, because when we click through we find the following info on the bibcode page:

• Direct and Inverse Solutions of Geodesics on the Ellipsoid with Application of Nested Equations
• Vincenty, T. (-)
• No abstract
• Publication: Survey Review, vol. 23, issue 176, pp. 88-93
• Pub Date: April 1975
• Bibcode: 1975SurRv..23...88V
• FULL TEXT SOURCES: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/link_gateway/1975SurRv..23...88V/PUB_HTML

Where the latter link just points the same place as doi:10.1179/sre.1975.23.176.88.

There is literally no new useful information at the bibcode link.

Remember, from WP:NOT, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information. The purpose of citations is to help readers locate a source for particular claims being made in articles, and that's it. Any information beyond that should be carefully considered and balanced against the significant cost imposed on readers who don't care when we add extra links and opaque identifiers.

I often feel like the main project of Citation bot and some of its friends and supporters is to turn the bottom of every Wikipedia page into a comprehensive bibliographic cross-reference of citation index identifiers. But in my opinion this is not what Wikipedia is for, and they really have no community mandate to impose this vision across the site. –jacobolus (t) 19:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree that Bibcode feels like the worst offender of the unnecessary stable identifiers, mostly due to aesthetics: s2cid is equally useless (unless we count doing Semantic Scholar's work for them) but at least they're not an almost intelligible word followed by a mishmash of letters, numbers, and dots.

I'm sure not all of that awful example citation is Citation bot's fault: it doesn't typically add street addresses or access dates. It would be nice if we could have some sort of discussion somewhere about what is and isn't desirable for citation scripts to add to references, although I doubt anyone who isn't already active on this talkpage would care.

And to answer your edit summary, no, he never checks on the results of his bot runs, and calls Citation bot so profusely that whenever I type "Abductive", my text prediction suggests "who never checks their work" from all the edit summaries I've left cleaning up after him. Folly Mox (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I think Citation bot backed off on s2cids, or at least I haven't found as many being added recently. (If so, thanks for the change!) –jacobolus (t) 20:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The Bibcode link does provide information about what the paper cites and what has cited it. Whether or not the DOI resolves to a page that also provides such information depends upon the journal and publisher (that stuff is paywalled by default on Physical Review websites, for example). XOR'easter (talk) 23:50, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The list of citing papers at a bibcode link is extremely incomplete though. For example, for this particular paper the bibcode page lists 110 results whereas the publisher's page lists 750 results, Semantic Scholar lists 1219 results, Google Scholar lists lists 1742 results, and I'm sure there are other citation indices including this paper in their graph. I don't think a list of citations alone is enough to justify the space it takes to linking any of these citation index pages (beyond the publisher page or sometimes a third-party page including a preprint or similar). Anyone who wants to hop around the literature graph starting from this paper, as part of their research process, is capable of going to their preferred citation index and typing in the title or other basic metadata to find this paper. –jacobolus (t) 00:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not comprehensive, for sure; in my experience, the thoroughness varies by field. The only point I wanted to make is that it provides more than absolutely nothing. (Also, I kind of like bibcodes just because they are alphanumeric-punctuation mishmashes. They give a bibliography a 3l33t h4x0r feel.) XOR'easter (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

As XOR'easter says, "but no other information at all" is wrong.

It also contains how many papers cite it, and how this varies over the year (e.g. [25].)

So far this is no different than including PMIDs.

But additionally, bibcodes will also often contain/host papers itself (e.g. Bibcode:1995ApJS..100..473K), and point to preprints, and related papers (for example, Bibcode:2007A&A...470..685L is the 2nd paper in a series of 3).

Again, that you don't personally like Bibcode or find it useful is not a reason to deprive the reader of easy access to this ressource. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

"how many papers cite it" – or to be precise, a very significant undercount by more than an order of magnitude of how many papers cite it. If we just wanted that we should link Google scholar, but I don't think this information justifies any citation index link; it's not relevant to locating the paper, which is the primary purpose of Wikipedia citations.

"bibcodes will also often ..." – this is not sufficient justification to include every possible bibcode. It only offers a supporting reason to occasionally add a bibcode when it hosts a paper not available from the publisher or some other source which has the right to host it. If the bot cannot determine these cases programmatically, then it should leave it to humans to decide them.

you don't personally It's not about what I personally like, it's about what is worth spending very valuable Wikipedia readers' attention on. There is certainly no site-wide consensus about adding this type of metadata at every possible opportunity, so what you are really arguing for is that bot authors should get to unilaterally make sweeping controversial decisions to match their own preference; I think that approach runs counter to the spirit of the Wikipedia project. In my opinion, every bit of metadata, especially anything added by bots, has to have some strong and clear benefit to justify the space it takes up, and just "it exists and some people sometimes like it" is not good enough reason to mass spam these site-wide. –jacobolus (t) 04:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I am now tracking the bad bibcodes and removing those. So, as least going forward, bibcodes that are on any page that the bot visits will work. That will be a bit of an improvement. I have been removing the bad ones and updating the changed ones for a while, and that should reduce the negative value links. While I personally get access to many of these publications via my various university/military/government/college/etc accesses that I have, I personally consider the bibcodes to often helpful when on my home internet. So, I consider this to be {{notabug}}.AManWithNoPlan (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Don't replace |title= with |chapter= when not adding a new title

Status

{{wontfix}} for now, but need to think about if this ever occurs again

Reported by

:Jay8g [V•T•E] 06:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

What happens

[26]

What should happen

The title should be kept as is to avoid creating a CS1 error

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

Although I agree that the bot's edit was bad, maybe the bot was confused by doi:10.5040/9781472597540.0007 which looks like it should go to chapter 7 within the book (whatever title that chapter might have)? doi:10.5040/9781472597540 appears to refer to the entire book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Eppstein (talk • contribs)

Probably caused by the chapter and booktitle being the same. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Probably an edge case that's not worth fixing

Status

{{fixed}} on page. GIGO, but the GI is meta-data. It is kind of right, but pretty wrong (both DOI and PMID).

Reported by

Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 06:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

What should happen

Good question!

Relevant diffs/links

[27]

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

This citation references an online-only supplement that is not in the journal and therefore not in the article's page range. I suspect this is rare enough to not need any bot code changes, or if there's a better way to input the citation template I am all ears. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 06:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Date format

Status

{{wontfix}}, since the page has no consistent date format and does not have a date format template set

Reported by

ChaseKiwi (talk) 15:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

What happens

bot changed date in reference on page Philippines–Taiwan relations for doi-broken-date=2024-08-20 to doi-broken-date=1 November 2024

What should happen

keep original date and its format, not change date format which is adopted elsewhere on page alone and certainly not change date

Relevant diffs/links

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippines%E2%80%93Taiwan_relations&curid=39377200&diff=1254952941&oldid=1242823249

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

It certainly should be updated, since the broken date is that last time checked, and not the first time found to be dead. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

A point, although it has been known for doi's by genunine journals never to be issued. What ever the change in date format is bad practice.ChaseKiwi (talk) 21:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Stuck in an endless loop on certain pages

Status

{{fixed}} with much better coding

Reported by

:Jay8g [V•T•E] 20:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

What happens

On List of assassinations in the Philippines, Citation Bot gets stuck in an endless loop and eventually crashes. The results page is filled with thousands of

   ~Renamed "work" -> "agency"
   ~Renamed "agency" -> "work"

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

I have fixed the page, which has invalide information. I will look at fixing the bot to deal with that. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Extraneous journal parameter.

Status

{{wontfix}}, since it points out things that need fixed

Reported by

User-duck (talk) 05:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

What happens

Bot adds journal parameter which is not supported by cite book template.

Relevant diffs/links

Draft:Astroclimatology

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

Example: Turchi, A.; Masciadri, E.; Veillet, C. (29 August 2022). "Characterization of LBT atmospheric and turbulence conditions in the context of ALTA project". In Marshall, Heather K.; Spyromilio, Jason; Usuda, Tomonori (eds.). Proc. SPIE 12182, Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes IX; 121824O. Vol. 12182. p. 111. arXiv:2210.11247. Bibcode:2022SPIE12182E..4OT. doi:10.1117/12.2629813. ISBN 978-1-5106-5345-0. {{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help) User-duck (talk) 05:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Those require human fixing, since they are almost always GIGO, but in very rare cases, they need a bot exclusion comment added. That I why I log these and then go back and fix them. Often people get to them much faster than I do. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Slow

Status

{{fixed}}

Reported by

Faymas (talk) 12:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

What happens

Citation bot is not working. It still stops while Loading.

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

What is happening? It takes a very long time between submitting until the edit is made, and in its contribs there are long pauses. 2600:1702:2670:B530:DD90:74FE:804D:EC47 (talk) 14:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I have made some changes to help. Watching it carefully. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about the multiple reboots. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

In use

Status

{{not a bug}}

Reported by

Dave-okanagan (talk) 03:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

Not bug - BUT does CB ignore

- because it took me an extra hour to FIX Julio M. Ottino because of conflict/compare diff/redo/chk/test etc ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave-okanagan (talk • contribs)

Indeed that's not a bug. Plenty of people put the 'in use' tag to give time for the bot to make its edit. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

10.1016/j.proche is free-access

Status

 Fixed

Reported by

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

What should happen

[28]

Untitled_new_bug

Status

{{notabug}}

Reported by

UnsungHistory (Questions or Concerns?) (See how I messed up) 18:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

Falsified title of source,https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Utah_Constitutional_Sovereignity_Act,2024&diff=prev&oldid=1257679955

This is what MOS:CURLY requires. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi

Hello pal. Can you help me citing the sources in Pablo Escobar. From the last paragraph of 'La Catedral Prison' to the 'Death' section. Greetings and thanks for your valuable help. JeanMercier90 (talk) 04:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Leaves an empty cite book due to broken Google Books link

Status

{{fixed}} manually, since we track these

Reported by

:Jay8g [V•T•E] 04:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

What happens

[29]

What should happen

Probably do nothing, otherwise remove the entire template

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

Convert dead-link to url-status

Status

{{fixed}} by adding dead-link as an alias of deadlink in the code

Reported by

:Jay8g [V•T•E] 08:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

What happens

[30]

What should happen

Same thing as other conversions to url-status

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

|url-status= is only valid in conjunction with |archive-url=, which this citation doesn't have. The suggested action here would cause a template error. Folly Mox (talk) 13:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Umm, |dead-link=yes already causes an error so the suggested action merely exchanges the unknown parameter error message for a CS1 maint: url-status maintenance message.

If a cs1|2 template has |url= with an assigned value, any action that creates a |title-link= parameter will cause an error because |title= cannot be simultaneously linked to |url=<target> and to |title-link=<wikipedia-article-title>.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Changing google books top-level domain; "Citation bot bypass" not helping

Citation bot is still changing the google books top-level domain (TLD), such as books.google.it being changed to books.google.com. I thought this issue had been fixed since a 2020 report said it was; see User talk:Citation bot/Archive 20 § Google books top domain. I had tested it last month (and again today) on Estonian Native horse (non-CS1 format) with no changes made by Citation bot. However, I ran it today on Bashkir horse and it changed the TLD on the same citation URL (https://books.google.it/books?id=2UEJDAAAQBAJ&hl=en) but this time using CS1 format and including <!-- Citation bot bypass--> per the instructions.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC) It also did it here: [31].   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

this is {{notabug}}. This has been discussed multiple times. Google book URLs should be .com, unless you have a very good reason otherwise. Also, you did the bypass wrong. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@AManWithNoPlan: That is good news (to me). I'm being stymied by someone who insists on using books.google.it then adding {{bots|deny=Citation bot}} in order to keep their preferred top-level domain. Despite multiple tries, they have refused to discuss it, insist I "first change consensus", and have been reverting my edits where I removed {{bots|deny=Citation bot}} and/or replaced it with a citation using <!-- Citation bot bypass--> (which I thought I had used correctly per the instructions, and cannot find the mistake you hint at). In March 2023 they complained on an Archive 34 thread where you also marked it "not a bug", but then they started to add the {{bots|deny=Citation bot}} to every single article they have edited where they added a google books link (and always to books.google.it). Though I don't care if they use books.google.it, I do care about them denying Citation bot for entire articles with no reasonable basis for doing so. I'm at a loss on how to proceed.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 23:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the syntax error in the citation bypass either: the html comment is between the template name and the pipe for the first parameter. It looks just like the documentation. What are we missing? Folly Mox (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Changing google books top-level domain; "Citation bot bypass" not helping

Citation bot is still changing the google books top-level domain (TLD), such as books.google.it being changed to books.google.com. I thought this issue had been fixed since a 2020 report said it was; see User talk:Citation bot/Archive 20 § Google books top domain. I had tested it last month (and again today) on Estonian Native horse (non-CS1 format) with no changes made by Citation bot. However, I ran it today on Bashkir horse and it changed the TLD on the same citation URL (https://books.google.it/books?id=2UEJDAAAQBAJ&hl=en) but this time using CS1 format and including <!-- Citation bot bypass--> per the instructions.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC) It also did it here: [32].   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

this is {{notabug}}. This has been discussed multiple times. Google book URLs should be .com, unless you have a very good reason otherwise. Also, you did the bypass wrong. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@AManWithNoPlan: That is good news (to me). I'm being stymied by someone who insists on using books.google.it then adding {{bots|deny=Citation bot}} in order to keep their preferred top-level domain. Despite multiple tries, they have refused to discuss it, insist I "first change consensus", and have been reverting my edits where I removed {{bots|deny=Citation bot}} and/or replaced it with a citation using <!-- Citation bot bypass--> (which I thought I had used correctly per the instructions, and cannot find the mistake you hint at). In March 2023 they complained on an Archive 34 thread where you also marked it "not a bug", but then they started to add the {{bots|deny=Citation bot}} to every single article they have edited where they added a google books link (and always to books.google.it). Though I don't care if they use books.google.it, I do care about them denying Citation bot for entire articles with no reasonable basis for doing so. I'm at a loss on how to proceed.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 23:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the syntax error in the citation bypass either: the html comment is between the template name and the pipe for the first parameter. It looks just like the documentation. What are we missing? Folly Mox (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@AManWithNoPlan: Hello???   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 22:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

The documentation states that you put a comment next to the item you do not want changed. So, if you do not want the URL changed, then you put it next to the URL. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 13:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Does "next to" mean in front of the value, or after the value? Let me get this straight... you've suggested I should have used the inadequately-described option #3 from the documentation, while implying that the clearly-described option #2 which I used doesn't work? 2. To prevent Citation bot from editing a specific citation, add a comment to the citation template before the first |, such as {{cite journal <!-- Citation bot bypass--> |last=Smith |first=John |year=2018 |...}} Please change documentation for option #3 to include what one should do in the case of CB modifying a parameter with a value (currently it only describes how to use it when a parament value is absent and CB is adding an incorrect value). Also, please consider this my bug report for option#2 not working as described.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 17:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm hoping the option to skip the whole citation can be restored. It's a nice middle ground between "don't change this one specific value" and "never edit this article again". I use this rather frequently when I'm fixing a citation where Citation bot had previously introduced an error, often because it clearly didn't understand the first time round and I'm not sure exactly how it will damage my repair if it's run on the same article again. Folly Mox (talk) 18:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Or if I just don't want it to change the template type back to an erroneous one. Folly Mox (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Headbomb: to this thread.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 20:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Changing google books top-level domain; "Citation bot bypass" not helping

Citation bot is still changing the google books top-level domain (TLD), such as books.google.it being changed to books.google.com. I thought this issue had been fixed since a 2020 report said it was; see User talk:Citation bot/Archive 20 § Google books top domain. I had tested it last month (and again today) on Estonian Native horse (non-CS1 format) with no changes made by Citation bot. However, I ran it today on Bashkir horse and it changed the TLD on the same citation URL (https://books.google.it/books?id=2UEJDAAAQBAJ&hl=en) but this time using CS1 format and including <!-- Citation bot bypass--> per the instructions.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC) It also did it here: [33].   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

this is not a bug. This has been discussed multiple times. Google book URLs should be .com, unless you have a very good reason otherwise. Also, you did the bypass wrong. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@AManWithNoPlan: That is good news (to me). I'm being stymied by someone who insists on using books.google.it then adding {{bots|deny=Citation bot}} in order to keep their preferred top-level domain. Despite multiple tries, they have refused to discuss it, insist I "first change consensus", and have been reverting my edits where I removed {{bots|deny=Citation bot}} and/or replaced it with a citation using <!-- Citation bot bypass--> (which I thought I had used correctly per the instructions, and cannot find the mistake you hint at). In March 2023 they complained on an Archive 34 thread where you also marked it "not a bug", but then they started to add the {{bots|deny=Citation bot}} to every single article they have edited where they added a google books link (and always to books.google.it). Though I don't care if they use books.google.it, I do care about them denying Citation bot for entire articles with no reasonable basis for doing so. I'm at a loss on how to proceed.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 23:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the syntax error in the citation bypass either: the html comment is between the template name and the pipe for the first parameter. It looks just like the documentation. What are we missing? Folly Mox (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@AManWithNoPlan: Hello???   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 22:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

The documentation states that you put a comment next to the item you do not want changed. So, if you do not want the URL changed, then you put it next to the URL. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 13:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Does "next to" mean in front of the value, or after the value? Let me get this straight... you've suggested I should have used the inadequately-described option #3 from the documentation, while implying that the clearly-described option #2 which I used doesn't work? 2. To prevent Citation bot from editing a specific citation, add a comment to the citation template before the first |, such as {{cite journal <!-- Citation bot bypass--> |last=Smith |first=John |year=2018 |...}} Please change documentation for option #3 to include what one should do in the case of CB modifying a parameter with a value (currently it only describes how to use it when a parament value is absent and CB is adding an incorrect value). Also, please consider this my bug report for option#2 not working as described.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 17:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm hoping the option to skip the whole citation can be restored. It's a nice middle ground between "don't change this one specific value" and "never edit this article again". I use this rather frequently when I'm fixing a citation where Citation bot had previously introduced an error, often because it clearly didn't understand the first time round and I'm not sure exactly how it will damage my repair if it's run on the same article again. Folly Mox (talk) 18:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Or if I just don't want it to change the template type back to an erroneous one. Folly Mox (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Headbomb: to this thread.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 20:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I restored this thread from archive for the second time. @AManWithNoPlan: Please answer my question to clarify what you meant by "next to". @Headbomb: You reverted my edit to the documentation on the main page without attempting to clarify the issue. One of you two, or anyone else, please clarify how to correctly use option #3. Also, it is apparent that option #2 is broken.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 16:59, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Your edit made things less clear. So it was reverted. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

@Headbomb: The documentation for option #3 only shows as an example how to put a comment in a blank parameter that Citation bot is incorrectly adding. AManWithNoPlan, above, alludes to my usage of option #2 as faulty and tells me I 'did it wrong', confusingly referring to option #3 and [ambiguously] stating I needed to put the comment "next to" the parameter. The documentation doesn't say where "next to" (before or after a parameter value?), nor has he answered my request to clarify what he meant. The original objective was to block Citation bot from altering a stated URL. I wanted Citation bot to bypass the citation entirely, but Citation bot continues to modify the URL despite my use of option #2. Now I know you think the documentation was already clear (it wasn't), and that my edit to remove "modify" to option #3 is less clear (I read your revert edit summary yesterday), however, reverting my edit doesn't contribute to clarifying what to do if a parameter value is specified that one wants to be untouched by Citation bot. My edit summary should have given you notice that for a reader, at least this one, the documentation was not clear... and it was an invitation for you to make it more clear (which you didn't do). All I want is for someone to fix option #2 or, failing that, someone to clarify how to use option #3. That shouldn't be so difficult.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 17:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

The docs are updated. Not sure who/when they were changed to something wrong. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, that clarifies why option #2 wasn't the correct choice for me to use. Thank you for updating option #2 documentation. Extrapolating from that, I might imagine for option #3 that I would put the parameter value after the comment? Example, |url = <!-- stop Citation bot changing the url--> https://books.google.it/gobbledegook

Like that?   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:25, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Headbomb for your documentation edit clarifying that the comment goes after the parameter value. I consider this issue now solved.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 19:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Now I'm curious, though: is there a way of telling citation bot to avoid a citation? The recent changes to the documentation provide ways of shutting it out from an entire article, from changing the template type, or from changing one parameter of a template, but nothing in between that would apply to the whole template. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Good point. With the change of the documentation, seems we've lost an option. Folly Mox had pointed that out above, but it went over my head at the time.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

That was never an option. The docs were wrong. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 01:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

The documentation since 2018 made us think it was an option ("To prevent Citation bot from editing a specific citation"). Can we put in a request to add that functionality?   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Bot not/slow on processing pages again

As the title says. The website isn't registering my submitted pages/categories or is slow on them. The last time this happened, it required a few reboots to fix (see section "Slow" in recent talk archive) so I assume another reboot is needed? Spinixster (trout me!) 13:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

It seems to have rebooted itself. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

{{fixed}} bug that was causing this. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Another page that breaks Citation Bot

Status

{{fixed}}

Reported by

:Jay8g [V•T•E] 00:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

What happens

Citation Bot ends up in an infinite loop on Draft:Ray's Disease, seemingly trying to convert work to journal and back again.

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

Existing-big-run blocking is malfunctioning

Status

{{fixed}} - moved back to 50

Reported by

Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty 🏳️‍⚧️ Averted crashes} 02:57, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

What happens

When attempting to run the bot on Category:Cynometra, it spat out a "Run blocked by your existing big run" error, even though this category contains only 28 pages, far below the 50-page cutoff beyond which attempted runs will be blocked by a preexisting 50-page-or-more run.

What should happen

The bot should've run on the inputted category without complaint.

Replication instructions

Try to start a run with a number of pages somewhere in the 30s-40s range while you already have a run with 50 or more pages in progress.

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

It is now 5. Might increase back up. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Citation bot giving errors and not completing

Status

new bug

Reported by

  ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

What happens

I have been trying to run Citation bot from the User:Citation bot page by clicking the "Activate" button. It has been giving me various errors (none consistent). Here are a few I copied:

• OAuth gives error: Incoming authorization tokens did not work - try again please
• !Nothing requested -- OR -- pages got lost during initial authorization
• !Curl error #28
• !User is either invalid or blocked

The first time it wouldn't log me in at OAuth. I've been trying to run it over and over, with varying error messages but no completed status. I have also tried logging out and/or closing the browser (which deletes all cookies). Another time, it gave an error and had logged me out of Wikipedia. Just bizarre results. I have only tried it on two different pages, Pony Club and Bashkir horse.

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

I tried it again and it went through its steps and completed. Maybe the earlier issue was a temporary glitch.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 07:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Happened to Vulcan as well, tried multiple times without success (with OAuth error) –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 08:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Something weird. Lots of user failures and not able to get pages. Errors seemed to have stopped for now. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Bot gives webpages wrong date

Status

new bug

Reported by

Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

What happens

The bot reads the date of an artwork in an online collection catalogue as the date of the webpage (wrongly, in this case!)

What should happen

Bot should realise that no website was published in 150 AD. Suggest a sanity check whereby the bot does not date something using {{cite web}} to before, say, 1990.

Relevant diffs/links

diff; webpage

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

Not quite sure where the bot is getting its date from, but my best guess is <div class="notice__date"> <span> -150 / -125 (3e quart IIe s. av. J.-C.) </span> </div> is being read as the date of the webpage. In addition to the fact that clearly no website was published in 150, if this is the case the bot is just taking the first number it finds in a date range which is also not ideal, and missing the fact that "-150" actually means 150 BC, not 150 AD. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I like that suggested sanity check. The pre-Internet {{Cite web}} |date= thing should probably also generate a maintenance message from Module:CS1. There will likely be tons of false positives due to using the wrong template type though. Folly Mox (talk) 13:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I have added collections.louvre.fr to the list of websites that do not have dates. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 18:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Gadget for other wiki

@AManWithNoPlan, hello! You added this edit, but the tool only searches the English Wikipedia: https://citations.toolforge.org/process_page.php?edit=toolbar&slow=1&page=Король. Do we need extra parameter? Iniquity (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

That is NOT the gadget. No time to explain. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand then, the gadget gave me this link :) Iniquity (talk) 21:06, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

See the addCitationBetaButton part of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AManWithNoPlan/common.js that add the citations button to the edit window. This sends text to the bot and then you have to submit it as you. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:08, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Wow, wow, nice! It works! :) Iniquity (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Citation bot for other wiki

Hello Smith. I am a bureaucrat on mk.wiki and a fellow editor suggested that I should ask you whether the Wikipedia citation bot can be used for our wiki (i.e. whether mk.wiki can be included in the "Wiki to run on". We invariably use English parameters in all our citation templates and we are wondering if we can make use of this excellent tool, if our wiki is enabled for it. Thanks a lot! B. Jankuloski (talk) 11:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Wondering if you would be willing to run the citation bot on MDWiki.org? Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi! We completely migrated the CS1 module last year and now I want to run your bot in the wiki, is this possible? Iniquity (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

And I would like to give this account a bot flag in ruwiki, but it is not registered there :( Iniquity (talk) 20:46, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

This is now in the bot code, but someone with POWER needs to create the account and give it the bot flag. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Request made to the man. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:52, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I think he can use mw.loader.load('//meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Krinkle/Tools/Global_SUL.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript'); Iniquity (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

All accounts created. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Needs bot flag set I assume on all three. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F:%D0%92%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4/Citation_bot

https://mk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%98%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BD%D0%B0:%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%B8/Citation_bot

On MDWiki it seems that the right to edit is held in high reguard or something similar:

[code] => mwoauth-invalid-authorization
[info] => The authorization headers in your request are not valid: Invalid consumer
[*] => See https://mdwiki.org/w/api.php for API usage. Subscribe to the mediawiki-api-announce mailing list at <https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/mediawiki-api-announce.lists.wikimedia.org/> for notice of API deprecations and breaking changes

It might be possible for users that have edit rights to edit though. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

You are the best! :) Thanks! Iniquity (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Captcha errors will continue until the bot flag is set. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, I understand :) Help me, is it possible to i18n descriptions ($auto_summary), with json, for example? Iniquity (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I have created json example: User:Iniquity/en.json. Iniquity (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean? What do you want changed? AManWithNoPlan (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Currently the bot provides short descriptions of edits in English (ru:Служебная:Вклад/Citation_bot), a common practice for global bots is that they provide a short description in the local language of the wiki they are working in (ru:Служебная:Вклад/InternetArchiveBot). Iniquity (talk) 05:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Translations are now in https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/blob/master/constants/translations.php which are based upon google translate, so suggestions/pull requests are requested. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Awesome! :) Do I understand correctly that I can add missing translations myself? :)

'authors {$min_au}-{$max_au}. ' => 'авторы {$min_au}-{$max_au}. ',
'editors {$min_ed}-{$max_ed}. ' => 'редакторы {$min_au}-{$max_au}. ',
'| [[:en:WP:UCB|Use this bot]]. [[:en:WP:DBUG|Report bugs]].  ' => '| [[:en:WP:UCB|Как использовать бота]]. [[:en:WP:DBUG|Сообщить об ошибке]]. ',
'Formatted [[:en:WP:ENDASH|dashes]]. ' => 'Отформатировано [[:en:WP:ENDASH|тире]]. ',
'| Suggested by ' => '| Предложено ',
'| Linked from {$page_name} | #UCB_webform_linked ' => '| Ссылки с {$page_name} | #UCB_webform_linked ',
'| [[Category:{$category}]] | #UCB_Category ' => '| [[Категория:{$category}]] | #UCB_Category ',

Iniquity (talk) 16:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Undoes DELIBERATE formatting of conference-proceedings-in-journal-special issue as cite journal, violating CITEVAR and reintroducing previously-fixed CS1 errors

Status

new bug

Reported by

—David Eppstein (talk) 01:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

What happens

In Kenneth E. Iverson, one of the references is to a paper in the "Conference proceedings on APL as a tool of thought - APL '89", published in a special issue of APL Quote Quad, a periodical. It had a cite conference format but a journal= parameter, a CS1 error, which I fixed in Special:Diff/1238853961. It is not possible to simultaneously format it as a book and a periodical; I deliberately chose one, using cite journal to get most of the metadata correct and using department= to provide the remaining metadata, that this journal issue is a conference proceedings and the name of the proceedings. In the very next edit Special:Diff/1239895881, Citation bot under the control of User:Headbomb edit-warred to restore the citation to its unfixed CS1 error state as a cite book with erroneous journal parameter, but now with an extra erroneous department parameter. Incidentally, all of the major computer graphics conferences and many database conferences now publish their conference proceedings as special issues of journals (and have done so for years), and there are many older programming language conference proceedings published in ACM SIGPLAN Notices. This is something we must handle properly, not a weird one-off situation that we can handle by marking it as special. The situation that the citation templates do not make it easy or convenient to cite such things should not be exacerbated by the citation bot not understanding these things and lobotomizing the citations to fit its poor understanding.

What should happen

Not that

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

David Eppstein, {{Cite conference}} supports both book and journal parameters. That's what I use to cite conference proceedings published as special journal issues. Not sure why Citation bot doesn't. Would certainly be a quicker fix than publisher by publisher. Also, {{cite journal}} supports |isbn=, so I'm not sure why conference proceedings keep getting mistranslated into {{cite book}}s. Folly Mox (talk) 01:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

It's interesting that cite conference allows both conference= and journal=, and that would also be an acceptable way of formatting the citation, but it doesn't format the citation as a publication in a periodical the way cite journal does. (It spells out the volume and issue instead of using the abbreviated format of cite journal.) —David Eppstein (talk) 01:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

It would be nice if {{citation}} supported something like a "conference" parameter. –jacobolus (t) 07:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

First, if you do something deliberately weird, then the 'solution', so to speak, is to follow User:Citation bot#Stopping the bot from editing (bullet #2), not block the bot on the entire article. Second, the issue here is that you're trying to have two citations in one. The first is from the doi:10.1145/75145.75170:

• Hagamen, W.; Berry, P. C.; Iverson, K. E.; Weber, J. C. (1989). "Processing natural language syntactic and semantic mechanisms". ACM SIGAPL APL Quote Quad. 19 (4): 184–189. doi:10.1145/75145.75170.

The second is from the ISBN 0897913272/doi:10.1145/75144.75170 (note 10.1145/75144.75170 vs 10.1145/75145.75170):

• Hagamen, W.; Berry, P. C.; Iverson, K. E.; Weber, J. C. (1989). "Processing natural language syntactic and semantic mechanisms". In Kertész, Ádám; Shaw, Lynne C. (eds.). APL '89 Conference Proceedings: APL as a tool of thought; New York City, August 7–10, 1989. New York, NY: ACM. pp. 184–189. ISBN 0897913272.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you failed to read my message. Perhaps you are unaware how annoying it is to put time and effort into cleaning up problems only to have some editor-with-bot fuck up the article in exactly the same way again. But regardless, you are incorrect. They are not two publications. They are a single publication, of a paper in a conference proceedings in a journal. Conference proceedings get published in journals, all the time. Get over it and stop making work for others when you don't understand things. That goes for the bot, too. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Clearly these have been published both in a book (doi:10.1145/75144.75170) and in APL Quote Quad (doi:10.1145/75145.75170) and the core of the issue is that you've mixed the journal DOI with the book ISBN. These two should not be present in the same citation. That you insist that they are is the root cause of your issues.

I'll flip things back on you, because you clearly are unaware of how annoying it is to be accused of bad faith behaviour get reflexively reverted [34] without understanding what it is you reverted. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok, now this is rising to the level of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The original publication of the book was as an issue of APL Quote Quad. Perhaps you have never subscribed to an ACM SIG newsletter and sometimes received surprise conference proceedings in your mailbox when the conference published its proceedings as an issue of the newsletter. I have. It used to be a standard way to publish the proceedings of minor ACM conferences (the major ones got a separately published proceedings volume). Maybe they separated them later and decided to give them separate dois. Did not the fact that they had identical page numbers give you any second thoughts? Who would reprint a whole conference proceedings as a second, separate publication, and why? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

They have identical publication dates (1 July 1989) as well as page numbers, and both PDFs are marked with "APL QUOTE QUAD" in the page footers. XOR'easter (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Canceling deliberate bot exclusions, as in special:diff/1240206999, without consensus/discussion, seems way, way out of line. –jacobolus (t) 07:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

journal = Reviews in Astronomy

Status

 Fixed - added to list of series

Reported by

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

What happens

[35]

What should happen

[36]

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

This was before the .ch### journal/book fix above though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Caps: VirusDisease

Status

 Fixed

Reported by

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

What should happen

[37]

Book, not journal

Status

 Fixed

Reported by

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:46, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

What should happen

[38] [39]

You can tell because the DOI ends with .ch### Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:46, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

|published date=

Status

 Fixed

Reported by

:Jay8g [V•T•E] 04:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

What happens

[40]

What should happen

Change it to a parameter that actually exists, ideally |date= (in this case that would result in a date error, but it would still make more sense than changing it to a parameter that also does not exist).

I have also added a bunch more test to make sure this does not happen again. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 17:34, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Favor

Hi again. Please help me with the sources of this articles: Enrique Low Murtra; Life Is Beautiful; Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom; Norte del Valle Cartel; Cinematic Development Company (Colombia). Best wishes dude. JeanMercier90 (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Run the bot yourself?. Indagate (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Hey, friend, there are things I don't know how to use. What's better than a BOT; an artificial intelligence? JeanMercier90 (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

We've told you several times how to do this. It's extremely simple. Listen, or don't. If you do, you'll get results. If you don't, you'll keep having people telling you how to do this because it's not our job to clean up after you. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Not a newspaper

Thank you for your bot. This edit was in error and I fixed it. The citation is a {{cite web}} not a newspaper. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

{{fixed}} added website to list of non-news that Zotero thinks is news. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)