Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Citation bot 8

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was

Approved.

Citation bot 8[edit]

Operator: Smith609 (talk · contribs)

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic

Programming language(s): PHP

Source code available: [1]

Function overview: Convert bare URLs to "Cite Journal" or "Citation" templates

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Requested at User_talk:Citation_bot

Edit period(s): Continuous: addition to existing bot code

Estimated number of pages affected: A few per day (after clearing backlog)

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Yes

Function details:

User enters <ref>http://dx.doi.org/10.1010/journalDOI</ref>
Bot expands to a full citation, adding bibliographic information via Template:Cite journal (or whichever template is appropriate)

Discussion[edit]

In the case where an article has been following a consistent citation style, and the bare url is an exception to the style, how will the bot know which style is in use? In particular, if an article does not use citation templates, but rather some other acceptable style, how will the bot know not to add citation templates? Jc3s5h (talk) 12:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In these rare cases, is it not easier for an editor to convert a citation template containing all necessary information to the correct style than to find and enter that data to a bare URL? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 13:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem will only be fixed if there are editors following the article, who are aware of how it used to be and notice what the bot has done. If an article is stable and uses good citations that are not templates, and an editor comes along and throws in a bunch of bare URLs, closely followed by the bot converting them to templates, an editor who is new to the article will have a lot of work to do to discover that the bot violated WP:CITE. In fact, I oppose the entire attitude that bots can be turned loose when we know they are going to make a significant number of error.

Some will interpret this not as a tolerable side-affect of a citation improvement campaign, but a campaign by supporters of citation templates to crush all other methods by using bots. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have to be a special kind of special to consider

http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.83.031303

Better than

Hoffman, C.; Baumann, T.; Brown, J.; Deyoung, P.; Finck, J.; Frank, N.; Hinnefeld, J.; Mosby, S.; Peters, W. (2011). "Observation of a two-neutron cascade from a resonance in ²⁴O". Physical Review C. 83 (3): 031303. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.83.031303.

And a bare url would go against WP:CITE anyway. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The bot should detect what citation style is predominantly used in the article, and write the citation in that style. If the bot can't do that we should wait until bot technology improves. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping articles in inferior versions because the better version is not theoretically perfect is just stupid. If people really cared, they would have changed the plain URLs into the articles' style (whatever it is).

Hoffman, C.; Baumann, T.; Brown, J.; Deyoung, P.; Finck, J.; Frank, N.; Hinnefeld, J.; Mosby, S.; Peters, W. (2011). "Observation of a two-neutron cascade from a resonance in ²⁴O". Physical Review C. 83 (3): 031303. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.83.031303.

is always better than

http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.83.031303

If the bot "introduces" {{cite xxx}}/{{citation}} as the dominant form, then the article has plain URLs for over half their citations, which is a pretty sad state for an article. People can easily switch it to whatever style they think the article should have (and much more easily than if the bot didn't edit the page at all). The bot won't edit wars with editors if they change a citation from

{{cite journal|doi=10.1103/PhysRevC.83.031303|title=Observation of a two-neutron cascade from a resonance in <sup>24</sup>O |year=2011 |last1=Hoffman |first1=C. |last2=Baumann |first2=T. |last3=Brown |first3=J. |last4=Deyoung |first4=P. |last5=Finck |first5=J. |last6=Frank |first6=N. |last7=Hinnefeld |first7=J. |last8=Mosby |first8=S. |last9=Peters |first9=W. |journal=Physical Review C |volume=83 |issue=3 |page=031303}}
Hoffman, C.; Baumann, T.; Brown, J.; Deyoung, P.; Finck, J.; Frank, N.; Hinnefeld, J.; Mosby, S.; Peters, W. (2011). "Observation of a two-neutron cascade from a resonance in ²⁴O". Physical Review C. 83 (3): 031303. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.83.031303.

to a "manual"

C. Hoffman ''et al.'' (2011). "Observation of a two-neutron cascade from a resonance in <sup>24</sup>O", ''Phys. Rev. C'', '''83'''(3): 031303, {{doi|10.1103/PhysRevC.83.031303}}.
C. Hoffman et al. (2011). "Observation of a two-neutron cascade from a resonance in ²⁴O", Phys. Rev. C, 83(3): 031303, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.83.031303.

Likewise for URLs such as

Perfect is the enemy of good, after all. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I question Headbomb's statement "If the bot "introduces" {{cite xxx}}/{{citation}} as the dominant form" because no statement has been made about the bot being able to detect whether the article already predominantly uses one of the citation template families, and whether the bot would conform to the established usage in the article. I also would be interested in the bot's definition of a bare URL. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If {{cite xxx}} is used, the bot will use {{cite xxx}}, if {{citation}} is used, the bot will use {{citation}}. That's already in the bot (as is converting a minority use of {{cite xxx}} to {{citation}} if {{citation}} is the dominant use, and vice-versa). Bare urls come in two forms. <ref>http://dx.doi.org/10.1002%2F%28SICI%291096-8644%28200005%29112%3A1%3C103%3A%3AAID-AJPA10%3E3.0.CO%3B2-6</ref> and <ref>[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002%2F%28SICI%291096-8644%28200005%29112%3A1%3C103%3A%3AAID-AJPA10%3E3.0.CO%3B2-6]</ref>. If something like

<ref>[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002%2F%28SICI%291096-8644%28200005%29112%3A1%3C103%3A%3AAID-AJPA10%3E3.0.CO%3B2-6 JMA Miller (2000)]

is encountered, it would leave it alone, since the URL is not bare. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This seems entirely reasonable to me. As Headbomb (more or less) says, while a different citation style may be appropriate in any given article, it surely is better to have a fully filled-out {{cite xxx}} template than a bare URL. Ucucha 01:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits or 5 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. MBisanz ^talk 03:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Special:Contributions/citation_bot_3 for test diffs. Is it behaving as expected? Are there any other test cases that should be included? (If not, I'll run a broader trial.) Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 19:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The third reference, to Amazon, produces useful information in the previous before the edit but "Forbidden You don't have permission to access /dp/ on this server." after the edit. The proper course of action with Amazon links is to give the author, publisher, and other conventional bibliographic information since the Amazon data cannot be counted on to persist for long periods of time. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{ASIN}} doesn't like whitespace. {{ASIN|0123456789}} gives ASIN 0123456789, while {{ASIN|0123456789}} gives ASIN 0123456789 Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed Template:ASIN. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 13:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anything else? Otherwise it looks good to go. MBisanz ^talk 20:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to go yeah. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. MBisanz ^talk 16:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.