User talk:Citation bot/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

URL tidying up (arxiv)

URLs like like "http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.4523" should be tidied up to |id={{arxiv|0710.4523}}

AKA

Should become

Also {{cite web}} with a URL that matches an arxiv preprint should be converted to {{cite arxiv}}

AKA

Should become

  • Mashnik, Stepan G. (August 2000). "On Solar System and Cosmic Rays Nucleosynthesis and Spallation Processes". arXiv:astro-ph/0008382 [astro-ph].

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you give me a full list of the possible forms of URL that should be converted to arXiv parameters, noting any similar-looking URLs that should NOT be converted? Thanks, Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 15:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Urls of the form http://arxiv.org/abs/SOMETHING or http://arxiv.org/pdf/SOMETHING should be converted to |arxiv=SOMETHING — due to recent changes in the {{cite journal}} and {{citation}} templates |arxiv= is now a separate parameter so we don't need to go through the |id= parameter. Also www.arxiv.org and xxx.lanl.gov are the same as arxiv.org without the www. The SOMETHING part may have a couple of different formats: either yymm.nnnn or archive/identifier, but I think it's easier just to treat it as a atomic unit. There are some rarer access paths (two of them in here) and some other mirror sites but that should at least get most of them safely. Urls that do not have the "/abs/" or "/pdf/" parts in them should be avoided. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done in r284. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 03:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't spot xx.lanl.gov. I'll do that anon. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 05:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's the full list of mirrors:

  • au.arxiv.org (Australia)
  • br.arxiv.org (Brazil)
  • cn.arxiv.org (China)
  • fr.arxiv.org (France)
  • de.arxiv.org (Germany)
  • in.arxiv.org (India)
  • il.arxiv.org (Israel)
  • jp.arxiv.org (Japan)
  • ru.arxiv.org (Russia)
  • es.arxiv.org (Spain)
  • tw.arxiv.org (Taiwan)
  • uk.arxiv.org (U.K.)
  • aps.arxiv.org (U.S. mirror)
  • lanl.arxiv.org (U.S. mirror)
  • arxiv.org (U.S. primary site)
  • xxx.lanl.gov (Original U.S. primary site)

The regex I used to match them is \|(\s*)?url(\s*)?=(\s*)?http://(www\.)?(|au\.|br\.|cn\.|de\.|es\.|fr\.|il\.|in\.|jp\.|ru\.|tw\.|ul\.|aps\.|lanl\.|xxx\.)?(arxiv|lanl)\.(org|gov)/(abs|eprint|pdf)/.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Likewise a bare <ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.4523</ref> or <ref>[http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.4523]</ref> should be converted to <ref>{{cite arxiv|eprint=0710.4523}}</ref> Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

This functionality requested at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Citation_bot_8. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 12:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

URL tidying up (ASIN)

{{resolved}}

URL tidying up (bibcode)

  • Yes check.svg Done As above, URLs like "http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1998MNRAS.301..787L" should be tidied up to |bibcode=1998MNRAS.301..787L.
  • A {{cite web}} with such a link should be converted to {{cite journal}} or {{citation}}
  • Bare references (<ref>http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1998MNRAS.301..787L</ref> or <ref>[http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1998MNRAS.301..787L]</ref>) should be converted to <ref>{{cite journal|bibcode=1998MNRAS.301..787L}}</ref>

I think most of this was covered at User talk:Citation bot/Archive 1#Bibcodes 2, but I don't know how refined the logic was so I'm reposting it. Also, the "articles.adsabs.harvard.edu" url might have been missed in the midst of the discussion. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC) {{resolved}}

URL tidying up (JSTOR)

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC) Not sure whether converting bare URLs to references would be covered by existing bot request? If not, please feel free to make a request for this function. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 23:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC) {{resolved}}

mojibake on dashes/accented characters from citation bot button

Status
Fixed in r346
Reported by
Rjwilmsi 20:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
The Citation Bot button seems to have an encoding issue whereby page dashes, accented characters are changed to some form of mojibake
Link
sandbox

Discussion

Please let me know precisely how to replicate this bug. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 03:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Also see for example [1] (towards the end) and this diff --- seems to mangle first non-Latin character in "journal" field, but not other fields like "title". cab (call) 08:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Never mind, this seems not entirely related, I'll file a separate report below. cab (call) 12:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Here's an example: {{ref doi|10.1007/BF00394819}} Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 19:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
This example is of a bug in the crossRef database. As far as I know, everything within my remit was Fixed in r346. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 04:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

case

Case chosen varies for DOI vs PMID cited titles

Status
new bug
Reported by
LeadSongDog come howl! 07:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Type of bug
Cosmetic
Actual / expected output
Title and journal paras get Crossref's title case if doi is input, or PubMed's sentence case if pmid is input
prefer one style consistently, per article
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Chris_Capoccia/Sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=418471207
We can't proceed until
someone specifies a |waiting for= parameter
Requested action from maintainer

Discussion

Not sure that it's possible to convert from Title Case to Sentence Case, or desirable to convert in the opposite direction. Thoughts? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 23:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Bot does not upload at the correct location... yet again

Status
Fixed in r378
Reported by
Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
When people use {{cite doi|doi:10.xxxx}} or {{cite doi|http://dx.doi.org/10.xxxx}} , the bot uploads the template at Template:Cite doi/doi:10.xxxx or Template:Cite doi/http:.2F.2Fdx.doi.org.2F10.xxxx. The bot should first clean {{cite doi|doi:10.xxxx}}/{{cite doi|http://dx.doi.org/10.xxxx}} to {{cite doi|10.xxxx}}, then upload at {{cite doi|10.xxxx}}
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Cite_doi_templates&from=A

Discussion

Are any of these edits associated with a version of the bot greater than 265? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 04:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I haven't found version in the edit summaries, but these are recent creations and the lists seems to keep growing. For example [2] was made on March 14. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Handling improved in r343. Let me know if any more appear. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 02:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yup. See [[3]] again. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Think I've got it this time. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 15:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

ADSABS database API

Examples

This should be useful for the bot. I chose the "endnote", since it returns the full name of the journal, but there are other formats. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Any plans on making use of this? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Sounds great! Obviously useful for bibcodes; presumably its DOI database is not as extensive as CrossRef's. What other uses do you forsee it being put to? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 05:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
CrossRef probably has a bigger doi database true. However, many (older) publications do not have DOIs, but they do have bibcodes. The ADSABS database will also returns many identifiers (arxiv, bibcode, and doi are returned when available), and you can query it via any of them, meaning that you can further cross check a {{cite arxiv}} to see if it should be updated to a {{cite journal}}. The journal "issue" also tend to be better documented on the ADSABS database, at least in my experience. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Working on it: bibcodes are supported in r290. Do you have an example of an instance with an issue number? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 04:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Bibcode2011PhRvL.106k8501H has issue number 11. ENDNOTE format does not return it, but BIBTEXT does (others formats probably return it as well). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I tried using {{cite journal|bibcode=1998ApJ...502..538B}} (for example) on Gravitational microlensing and the bot failed to expand the citation. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I guess I just wasn't using the latest bot revision. It works fine. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Although the journal field gets cluttered with weird stuff and it missed a few (like . Bibcode:2001A&A...375..701D.  Missing or empty |title= (help)). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

BTW, does the bot try to minimize the number of queries via things like http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/abs_connect?bibcode=1970ApJ...161L..77K&bibcode=2004ApJ...600L..93G&data_type=ENDNOTE ? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Unresolved

Bot does not upconvert {{cite arxiv}} to {{cite journal}}

Status
Fixed
Reported by
Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
Bot does not upconvert {{cite arxiv}} to {{cite journal}}
If you check arXiv:1010.3003, you can see it has a DOI (doi:10.1016/j.jocs.2010.12.007 and has been published in Journal of Computational Science. I seem to recall that citation bot converted {{cite arxiv}} to {{cite journal}} upon publication?
Link
[4]

Discussion

Because arxiv use :s in their XML, the bot couldn't extract the journal or DOI. I've worked around this in r289. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 03:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Tried it again and it still doesn't work. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Were you using r289 or greater? You'll need to replace "citation-bot" with "DOI_bot" in the URL to use the latest version of the bot. The current stable version is r273. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 18:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm using the one in the toolbox via your gadget (User:Headbomb/monobook.js). Is there a way to have that link to the most recent version? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Alright it works if I use that URL, although it doesn't work 100% correct. For example, here the bot correctly retrieved the DOI and various parameters, but did not convert to a cite journal, or retrieve the journal parameter. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done: The CrossRef database is now consulted to recover the journal name. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 16:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Likewise here [5] it converts, but it's a bit half-assed. I notice that there's no DOI in the arxiv, so it can't use that and there's not much it could do. But the main problem when converting to a cite journal is that the bot keeps the year from the cite arxiv which it shouldn't do. It's very common that publication year differ between a preprint and the official publication, so whenever it upconverts, the year/date should be discarded. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
This point improved in r313. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 16:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Awesome. I didn't test it yet, but would it be possible to assign priorities to databases? Like CrossRef > ADSABS> arXiv.org? As in, if you find a doi in the arXiv.org database, query CrossRef with the DOI first, if that fails, query ADSABS with the DOI, and only then use the other information from Arxiv.org? I'm mentionning this because data from ArXiv.org tends to be the crappiest, and CrossRef seems to give the best. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

That'd be quite a bit of work; can you show me a few examples where this would be beneficial, so that I can get my head in? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 04:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

JSTOR problem

Status
{{resolved}}
Reported by
Jheald (talk) 11:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
JSTOR links replaced by new JSTOR reference with a spurious parenthesis; even without it the new reference does not point to the right article.

Examples:

Old link was: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-9002(197008)7%3A2%3C508%3AOAR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Y
Bot changed to: jstor=197008) -- note trailing parenthesis
Actual correct short url: http://www.jstor.org/pss/3211992 -- No, I don't know how you're meant to work that out either.

Old link was: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-4851(197212)43%3A6%3C%3AAR1%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1
Bot changed to: jstor=197212) -- again, note trailing parenthesis
Actual correct short url: http://www.jstor.org/pss/2240189 -- again, seems to be no way to determine this.

Note that http://www.jstor.org/pss/197008, which the new link resolves to if you take the bracket away, goes to a completely different article in a completely different journal.

Link
[6]

Discussion

Bot now (r306) won't interpret the SICI as a JSTOR ID. It should be able to determine the JSTOR ID from the sici, though. I'll implement that anon. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 18:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Remove accessdates when there is no URL

Status
Yes check.svg Done: Fixed in r369
Reported by
Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
When {{cite journal}}/{{citation}}/any {{cite xxx}} (except {{cite web}}) do not have URLs (post cleanup), the accessdate should be removed. It's not displayed, and is pretty useless.

Discussion

Is this true even if a webpage is cited with Template:Citation? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 18:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you're getting at... If there's a {{citation}} without a url, it's pretty safe to assume that people aren't citing a web page. No? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Could there ever be an archiveurl but no url, for example? Just making sure that we've thought of everything before I code. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 02:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
The only scenario I can think of where that would happen is when someone (bot, script, human) archived a url such as |url=http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1998MNRAS.301..787L (which I've seen a few times), and then someone (bot, script, human) later cleaned up the url into |bibcode=1998MNRAS.301..787L.
Not sure what should be done in this situation. When there's an archive url and no url, the template gives an error, so it would be cleaned up pretty fast anyway. Maybe citation bot can check if the archived url is the same as the url it just cleaned up, and remove everything (url, accessdate, archiveurl, and archivedate). Or maybe it's safe to assume that if the url resolves to an identifier, so does the archive url and again everything can be removed (url, accessdate, archiveurl, archidate). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I always wondered what the point was of retaining dead urls when archiveurls were in place. There should be a better way. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Is there any guarantee that a citation with a URL and an archiveurl will also have fields such as title, author, publisher, journal, etc. filled in? If not, the dead URL should be retained in case the archive goes away, because the publisher can often be identified from the URL. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
It's not like the article history is being deleted, the dead url is still there anyhow. Also, I'm not aware of us having a history of problems with archives that vanish. After all, that's what they're for. If they don't make provisions for ongoing availability they won't get the fonds in the first place. Still, if there's a real, valid concern for this, we can simply keep the dead url in hidden text.LeadSongDog come howl! 18:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
The problem with doing this sort of change, according to wikipedia bot policies currently in place and according to several very vocal folks, is that its not allowed because it doesn't render any changes to the page. So since it doesn't render any changes to the page (just like nested, attention=no, invalid parameters on templates, and a wide array of other things) it cannot be deleted via a bot. If someone wants to try and change this policy I would be glad to support it but till then we can't do this type of change unless something else is being changed on the article at the same time. --Kumioko (talk) 18:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── We've gone a bit off topic; the citation bot should NOT remove URLs just because they are dead, nobody should be doing this (need to look for correct URL if moved / mirror / archive link but not just drop URL). Removal of |accessdate= when a URL is converted to an identifier is fine and a sensible housekeeping step. Rjwilmsi 14:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah it should definitely not remove dead urls, although this never was about that. Just cleaning up citations with no urls but with accessdates (for whatever reason). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Its not a digression when a concern is raised about policy. Just because you don't like the policy doesn't mean you don't have to follow it. But I won't post here again because its obvious that knowone cares. So it seems policy is only policy when we want it to be and perhaps this is a WP:IAR scenario. --Kumioko (talk) 04:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there consensus on a solution that can be implemented, or shall I close this thread? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 02:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, this can be implemented. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

Erroneous insertion of PNAS DOIs

Erroneous insertion of PNAS DOIs

Status
Fixed in r307
Reported by
Rjwilmsi 09:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
PNAS DOIs and Bibcodes are inserted though they don't correspond to the paper cited. This seems to be a recently introduced error.
Link
[7], [8]

Discussion

Also [9] for Nature DOI & Bibcode. Rjwilmsi 09:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Investigated further: broken between 289 and 294. All edits with 294 or later need to be checked, I've already had to revert over 50. Rjwilmsi 11:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I've requested a temporary bot block on WP:ANI. Rjwilmsi 12:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
The bot searched the AdsAbs database using the specified title. However AdsAbs often returned very fuzzy matches. As of r307 the bot now checks that the returned title is a good match for the input title. Sorry about the inconvenience caused in the interim; I'll be doing more thorough testing after each edit from the nonce. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 13:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that a match on title alone will be sufficiently reliable. Are you cross validating other criteria such as volume, year, journal and/or pages etc.? Rjwilmsi 20:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Bot adding URLs of articles reviewing books to the books themselves

Bot adding URLs of articles reviewing books to the books themselves

Status
{{resolved}}
Reported by
— Cheers, JackLee talk 08:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
The bot is adding the URLs of book reviews in journals to citations of the books themselves.
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Hues&action=historysubmit&diff=421517624&oldid=415277958

Discussion

Oh, I've just noticed that this issue has already been reported earlier. But it doesn't appear to have been resolved. — Cheers, JackLee talk 08:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
That edit was tagged "([Pu316]Misc citation tidying.)" by the bot. Does it still make that error after the recent code revisions?LeadSongDog come howl! 15:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I haven't encountered any other problems with the articles on my watchlist so far. — Cheers, JackLee talk 08:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Reviews share much semantic information with books. Any ideas on how to avoid false positives? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 02:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I could be flip and say "Don't use {{citation}} where {{cite book}} is intended", but I won't. If a citation has an ISBN the bot should not add data pertaining to a publication in a serial, with a possible exception where that citation appears in an article that is in Category:Books. If the input data provides ambiguos key data (such as title and author only) but searches find both a target with an ISBN and a target with a serial title or ISSN then it would not hurt to explicitly flag the bot-added wikitext for human consideration. Another option is to show {{cite book}}
(reviewed at {{cite journal}}), though there could be objections to that on wp:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT grounds.LeadSongDog come howl! 17:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
In an article about the book, or about the author of the book, it's useful to include reviews, but as separate sources, not as additions to the book's publication data. As for {{citation}} vs {{cite book}}, they have different formats: {{cite book}} goes with {{cite journal}} and is incompatible with {{citation}}. In any case, some books really do have dois or urls for the whole book that would be helpful for citation bot to add, so it is not as simple as "don't add urls to books". In this case, though, the presence of a "review author" in the ADS data is a giveaway that this is a book review, and the fact that the review author is not the same as the author of the {{citation}} is an indication that the original citation refers to the book itself and not to its review. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Format consistency (a MOS issue) should never be allowed to trump accuracy of attribution (a V issue). That way lies madness. If converting to all-{{citation}} or all-{{cite xxx}} breaks the correctness of the attribution then the conversions should stop. Readers can tolerate a misplaced comma or period far better than they can a citation of the wrong source. When the source metadata is fully identified the conversion might then be conducted more safely. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
There's nothing inaccurate or unverifiable about books formatted using {{citation}}. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The example given for this bug was {{citation|last=Shirley|first=John W[illiam]|title=Thomas Harriot: A Biography|location=Oxford|publisher=[[Oxford University Press|Clarendon Press]]|year=1983|isbn=978-0-19-822901-8}}

which the bot changed to {{citation|last=Shirley|first=John W[illiam]|title=Thomas Harriot: A Biography|location=Oxford|journal=Journ. History of Astronomy V.17|volume=17|pages=71|publisher=[[Oxford University Press|Clarendon Press]]|year=1983|isbn=978-0-19-822901-8|bibcode=1986JHA....17...71D}}

If instead the entry had been {{cite book |last=Shirley|first=John W[illiam]|title=Thomas Harriot: A Biography|location=Oxford|publisher=[[Oxford University Press|Clarendon Press]]|year=1983|isbn=978-0-19-822901-8}}

the ambiguity would not have been there in the first place.LeadSongDog come howl! 04:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It might be worth mentioning that {{citation}} and {{cite book}} take almost the same parameters as each other, and display similarly-named parameters in almost the same manner (punctuation being the main difference). As regards specifics, {{cite book}} allows both |trans_title= and |trans_chapter= whereas {{citation}} doesn't, conversely, citation has a parameter for the journal name (|journal= and its four synonyms) which cite book doesn't. It is the presence of any one of |journal=, |periodical=, |newspaper=, |magazine= or |work= which causes {{citation}} to use the "journal" format; if all five are absent, it uses the "book" format. A smaller matter is that if you want harvard referencing to link, and you're not intending to use a custom link (ie |ref={{harvid|...}} ), you must provide an explicit |ref=harv to cite book, whereas that is the default action for citation. Apart from those threetwo areas, {{citation}} and {{cite book}} primarily differ in some very minor ways such as the separator between the various items of information. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC) amended Redrose64 (talk) 13:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
That's correct as far as it goes, but it misses a key factor. A non-entry in {{citation}} of |journal= or its synonyms is not the same as an active entry saying "this is a book I'm citing". Use of {{cite book}} provides that additional bit of information. The problem can also be seen as the ambiguity of |title= which may be used to mean an entire book or a single letter to the editor of a newspaper in the same {{citation}}.LeadSongDog come howl! 20:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
This ambiguity is a good thing, and one of the big reasons why I prefer {{citation}} to {{cite book}} etc. The reason is that when we use {{citation}} we don't need to decide whether we should count a technical report or a senior thesis or a doctoral dissertation or a booklet or a set of course lecture notes or a 100-page online preprint or a single-article issue of a journal is really a "book", and we don't need to set up and maintain separate {{cite report}} and {{cite thesis}} and {{cite booklet}} and {{cite course}} and {{cite preprint}} templates; we just tell citation what types of information are available for this citation and it does the formatting. For similar reasons, when we're using {{citation}}, we don't need to decide whether a periodical that we're citing something in is a journal or a magazine or a newsletter or a newspaper or a catalog, and we don't need separate {{cite journal}} and {{cite newspaper}} and {{cite magazine}} and {{cite newsletter}} and {{cite catalog}} templates. Especially in the context of Citation bot, a piece of software that is not necessarily good at making these sorts of subtle distinctions between different types of publication, it's helpful to avoid having to make these distinctions at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I can't agree that it is a good thing to leave to the bot a determination that humans have difficulty making. Why should we then turn around and complain that the bot gets it wrong? LeadSongDog come howl! 21:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
The error in question had little or nothing to do with the fact that the citation in question was to a book. It was an error of not understanding that the ADS "review author" field implies that the ADS entry is to a review of a source and is not an entry for the source itself. The same error could equally easily have been made for a published review of a journal article. So the fact that the broken citation was a {{citation}} template rather than a {{cite book}} template is a complete red herring. As for why {{citation}} is a good thing, in relation to what citation bot understands or doesn't understand: it's because using {{citation}} allows its users (including citation bot) to omit irrelevant information (like whether it really is a book vs a booklet or whatever), freeing them from having to understand that irrelevant information. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Are you perhaps confusing the needs of readers with those of editors? Many of both groups consider peer review, journal rankings, and even finding physical access to the dead trees to be relevant factors when assessing how much credence to give the source. In any case, the "review author" field is not universally supported by all serial indices, so while using that might be a solution for ADS, it is not a general fix for all the databases. If available we would do better to implement a "publicationtype" parameter (as on PubMed) to explicitly distinguish reviews, systematic reviews, original articles, letters, consensus reports, etc. This could also enormously facilitate article reviews by highlighting the use of primary sources. LeadSongDog come howl! 00:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Does this point need further action from me? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 04:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

{{resolved}} 21:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Bot hangs @ nytimes

This link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/magazine/06Economic-t.html causes the bot to hang in Mainstream economics. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Fixed in r334

Resolved

Capitalization error in name with diacritic

Capitalization error in name with diacritic

Status
Fixed in r368
Reported by
Ucucha 02:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
[10] "GéRaldine". The CrossRef API gives the correct capitalization ("Géraldine").

Discussion

That edit was many versions ago, see the edit comment: "11:56, 27 March 2011 Citation bot 2 (talk | contribs) m (618 bytes) ([cw310]Misc citation tidying.)" It looks to have been done during the creation of the cite doi subpage, though the edit comment doesn't reflect that. Pubmed also has the correct spelling for the forename. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Another example (this one using version 305). In this case, CrossRef has no data. Ucucha 23:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

End of page range not added

End of page range not added

Status
Fixed in r367
Reported by
Ucucha 18:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
Bot does not enter end of page range. The full page range is given by the CrossRef API.
Link
Correction of the bot (previous edit was creation of cite doi subpage).

Discussion

Is it this fix that now causes existing condensed page ranges to be expanded? This is I believe against the wikiproject medicine preference to display the page ranges in the condensed format. Rjwilmsi 10:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Curly quotes

  • Get rid of curly quotes (WP:MOS#Quotation marks). You can put $title = preg_replace(array('/[`‘’]/u', '/[“”]u/'), array("'", '"'), $title); or something somewhere in your code. Ucucha 11:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
    That doesn't seem to work, and neither does $str = preg_replace('~&#821[679];|[\x{2039}\x{203A}\x{2018}-\x{201B}]|&[rl]s?[ab]?quo;~u', "'", $str);. I'm stumped. Suggestions welcome! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 23:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
    Where exactly is the relevant code? Perhaps it has to do with different character encodings somewhere. Does preg_last_error() return anything? Ucucha 23:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
    The regex in r358 fails to compile: there's a closing parenthesis missing in '~&([rlb][ad]?quo;~' (line 2010 of DOItools.php). Not sure exactly what you want there, but you should either add or remove some parentheses there. Ucucha 00:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
    Ugh. Well spotted. Thank you! This brought a couple of other bugs to the surface too, so performance and edit summaries are both now improved. Fixed in r362

{{resolved}}

Bot breaks on deleted (and restored) pages

Bot breaks on deleted (and restored) pages

Status
{{resolved}}
Reported by
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
I run the bot through Wikipedia:Citation expander on Sepukku
instead of executing the citation fixing code
Link
I get an empty page at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seppuku&action=submit with the "Warning: An administrator deleted this page since you started editing it. Please check the deletion log to see the reasoning. " reasoning. Show changes indicates that the bot would save an empty page.
Replication instructions
Try running it on the same page?

Discussion

I can't reproduce this. Does it work now? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 22:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Adding additional authors messes up citations using "et al".

Adding additional authors messes up citations using "et al".

Status
Fixed in r366 {{resolved}}
Reported by
Bluap (talk) 03:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
If one of the authors in the citation has "et al" after his name (which is standard practice, to indicate many additional authors), citation bot will add all of the secondary authors, but keep "et al" in the original name.
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arcminute_Microkelvin_Imager&curid=1514376&diff=427131812&oldid=422901090

Discussion


bizarre deletion and addition of content

bizarre deletion and addition of content

Status
{{resolved}}: Cannot reliably reproduce
Reported by
Sailsbystars (talk) 03:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
Removes and adds content, including talk page comments for no apparent reason
"Touching page to update categories"
Link
[11][12][13]

Discussion

Those diffs seem to be the result of near-simultaneous edits by the bot and a human (note the timestamps), which MediaWiki doesn't always handle well. I don't think much can be done about this problem. Ucucha 03:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Yet every time the bot uses that edit summary it makes the same mistake [14][15], so it's more than just a coincidental edit conflict. I have yet to find an example of that particular edit summary that didn't wind up making a content change.... Sailsbystars (talk) 03:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
The reason for that is that when the bot makes that edit, it normally does not change the article text, and therefore the edit is not recorded. So the only edits that are recorded are those that go wrong. Ucucha 03:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, that makes sense. Sailsbystars (talk) 03:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I've updated the edit summary to highlight the likelihood that it needs reverting. Fixed in r375 Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 21:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of that, this edit does look like a preventable error. Presumably the page size exceeds the bot's buffer. Ucucha 13:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Any idea how I would fix this? (in PHP)
Thanks, Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 21:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Expand the memory allotted to the bot? I'm not sure. It did this on two of those list pages; one was 143,889 bytes and got truncated to 1,078; the other went from 79,654 to 64,791. I can't find any other instances where the bot truncated an article, although it did this same thing on larger articles (e.g., Hockey stick controversy, 104,001 bytes). One possibility I can think of is that the number of citation templates in these pages somehow caused the problem. User:Ucucha/List of mammals/Primates currently has an incomplete cite doi; perhaps you can run the bot on that page to check whether it is still doing this. Ucucha 14:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
The bot worked fine on that page. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 02:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps the phase of the moon was better this time. I guess that means you fixed the bug in one way or another. Ucucha 04:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Could you point me to the approval for this task? I certainly do not see any kind of approval for the bot to make edits that "SHOULD PROBABLY BE REVERTED". It seems the bot is simply making null edits, and causing problems when running into edit conflicts? Please disable this task unless you obtain approval for it. –xenotalk 15:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
    • It appears to be a very rare use-case, where the bot detects an edit conflict and so cannot determine if in fact it is making a non-null edit. I'm not sure why the bot doesn't handle edit conflicts by simply re-starting with the newer version of the page (after a delay). That would seem to be more robust. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
      • The bot should probably not be making null edits in the first place - and certainly not without approval to do so. The job queue is there for a reason. –xenotalk 16:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
  • No comment on the appropriateness, but if a null-edit ever must be performed, do so with an empty appendtext parameter instead of the page content in text. That way, you have no problems with edit conflicts. Amalthea 16:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
    • ... and I note that it's not MediaWiki at fault here, it seems that edit conflict detection is disabled in the bot. Amalthea 16:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Thanks for pointing this out Amalthea; I've enabled this, which should resolve the issue. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 22:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Volume zero

Volume zero

Status
Fixed in r348 {{resolved}}
Reported by
David Eppstein (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
"Springer Monographs in Mathematics" do not have volume numbers, but Citation bot incorrectly adds zero as the volume number anyway
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Max-plus_algebra&action=historysubmit&diff=429942907&oldid=422191314

Discussion


Mangled diacritics

Mangled diacritics

Status
{{resolved}} Fixed in r365{{fixedin|347}}
Reported by
 pablo 06:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
Citations should be fixed without altering characters such as á é í etc
Link
link showing what happens
Replication instructions
click on the 'Citations' button

Discussion

You probably need to add the u pattern modifier to some preg_replace call. Ucucha 10:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Who me? pablo 08:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
No, the bot operator—sorry for the confusion. Ucucha 08:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Done; I needed an mb_convert_encoding. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 21:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not fixed; see this recent edit. nb - seems to work fine using IE on a windows box, but not using Firefox 3.6.18 on Mac OS 10.6.7 pablo 13:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer; I hope that it works now! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 02:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Seems fine now, thanks! pablo 13:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Cochrane Database Syst Rev converts to title, chapter?

Status
Fixed in r361 {{resolved}}
Reported by
RDBrown (talk) 23:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
Move existing title field to chapter, adds title of "Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews"
Don't move title if journal is populated
Link
Migraine history
Replication instructions
Rabbie R, Derry S, Moore RA, McQuay HJ (2010). "Ibuprofen with or without an antiemetic for acute migraine headaches in adults". In Moore, Maura. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 10 (10): CD008039. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD008039.pub2. PMID 20927770. 

Kirthi V, Derry S, Moore RA, McQuay HJ (2010). "Aspirin with or without an antiemetic for acute migraine headaches in adults". In Moore, Maura. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4 (4): CD008041. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD008041.pub2. PMID 20393963.  Derry S, Moore RA, McQuay HJ (2010). "Paracetamol (acetaminophen) with or without an antiemetic for acute migraine headaches in adults". In Moore, Maura. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 11 (11): CD008040. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD008040.pub2. PMID 21069700. 

Discussion


Actually, doing a conversion to {{cite cochrane}} might be better.

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to capitalize on the "series" information in CrossRef, but this doesn't always mean the same thing. I've implemented your suggestion of not using the data when |journal= is set. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 01:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Reference combination errors

Deleted the body of named footnotes

Status
{{resolved}}
Reported by
User:CharlesGillingham
Actual / expected output
See this edit, and look at the footnotes before and after the edit. The bot removed the body of several named footnotes that it believed were defined elsewhere. They were not, apparently, because errors now appear. Still researching what happened.
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Artificial_intelligence&oldid=433822933

Discussion

Apparently this is the same bug as affected Ilium_(novel); bug reports combined. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 00:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Initial problem

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ACite_doi%2F10.1098.2Frstb.1985.0005&diff=prev&oldid=434588043 - Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 13:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC) {{resolved}}

Ilium (novel)

Status
Fixed in r360 {{resolved}}
Reported by
Salamurai (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
Bot finds 2 identical refs and combines them. second ref, however, is in the reflist section (i.e.: {{reflist|refs= ... }} and this causes an error.
Bot could check that it's in the reflist section before combining.
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ilium_%28novel%29&action=historysubmit&diff=434609781&oldid=419146386 (see bright red error in the refs)

Discussion

I've found that this is the same error as reported above with t article Artificial intelligence. - Salamurai (talk) 06:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; Fixed in r 360; see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ADOI_bot%2FZandbox&action=historysubmit&diff=435016611&oldid=435016579. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 00:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Yiddish phonology

Status
Fixed in r359
Reported by
Salamurai (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
Bot combines 2 refs, but earlier instance is in commented-out area, thus breaking refs
Bot needs to BOLO for commented-out refs
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yiddish_phonology&action=historysubmit&diff=434638131&oldid=428268149

Discussion

{{resolved}}

ref name combining error

Status
Fixed in r358
Reported by
Salamurai (talk) 06:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
The bot combines refs, but renames the ref name to have extra quotemarks -- example: <ref name= "Playfair90"> to be <ref name=" "Playfair90""/>. And not always, see Playfair84 at the diff link. It appears to happen more frequently when there is a space after the name= text. Ref code then reads the " " as the ref name, kicking out an error. AnomieBOT then sweeps up behind and removes the original ref name, leaving <ref name=" "/>, compounding the issue.
Can the bot be made to not add the extra quotes? such as, checking for existing quotemarks on the name first?
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Battle_of_El_Alamein&diff=prev&oldid=433960730

Discussion

I didn't realise that placing spaces between "name = 'Playfair'" was legit. The bot now allows for this behaviour. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 23:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Stray periods

Status
Fixed in r359
Reported by
Ucucha 23:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
Clean-up diff. The bot added a stray period after some authors that had only one first name. Also, per Template:Cite doi#Formatting, there should be no space between the initials.

Discussion

Thanks for fixing. Ucucha 00:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC) {{resolved}}

"Broken doi" applied incorrectly

Status
{{resolved}}
Reported by
Philcha (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Actual / expected output

Discussion

The bot says DOI 10.1111/j.1096-0031.2009.00255.x at Mollusca is "broken", but it works perfectly. Please fix the bot and rmv the linked "edit" note. --Philcha (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Might have been due to the line break between the DOI and the }} (changed here). If so, that's a bug in the bot. Ucucha 22:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I cannot replicate this. Perhaps it was a temporary glitch with Crossref? Unless I hear otherwise I'll mark this as resolved. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 21:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Jerusalem Biblical Zoo

Status
{{resolved}}Duplicate of fixed bug; verified fixed on 21:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC).
Reported by
Yoninah (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Actual / expected output

Discussion

The bot made a bit of a mess of my citations on 2 April. It erased about 50 citations and credited them all to one source. Could you revert what it did, and I'll redo the edits I made today? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I figured out how to undo what the bot did. Yoninah (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Incomplete removal of second DOI from id breaks formatting of citation

Incomplete removal of second DOI from id breaks formatting of citation

Status
{{wontfix}}
Reported by
David Eppstein (talk) 00:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
The citation by Lopez and Law in path decomposition has two DOIs (yes really), one of which was formatted as a DOI: wikilink in the id section. Citation bot removed the second DOI but retained the two brackets at the start of the wikilink, causing the entire citation template's formatting to break. (Note, this was back in May, but I only just noticed it recently. So it's possible it's a dup of an already-fixed bug.)
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Path_decomposition&action=historysubmit&diff=429839779&oldid=424822377

Discussion


Comment That's a really, really bad use of |id=. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed: in such a case I would add another reference to cover the alternate source. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of whether you like or dislike the existing formatting, Citation bot should never break the syntax of a citation template to the point that it shows up in the article as garbled plain text. Re-opening because two different problems (the nonstandard id and the garbled template) do not cancel out to make zero problems. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
What solution do you propose? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 21:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
That the bot check that the [ ] and { } in the parameters of the modified citation are all properly balanced, and that it abort making a change to that citation if they are not. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
What about citations that are meant to have unbalanced braces? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 02:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
You mean like ones in <nowiki> tags? If you know how to parse them and ignore them, fine. If not, and the change causes a very small number of valid citation tags with intentional unbalanced braces to be uneditable by the bot and require manual editing instead, is that such a great price to pay for not breaking things? —David Eppstein (talk) 02:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like it's a choice between breaking some things and breaking others. In such cases, I tend to assume that the format that doesn't match the specifications is the one to try to amend. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 00:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Unsuccessful attempt to fix page number

Status
Fixed in r382
Reported by
Jc3s5h (talk) 01:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
a single page number is converted to a malformed range (in diff below, "pages = 642" becomes "pages = 642–642"
"pages = 642" should become "page = 642"
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vanadium_nitrogenase&diff=prev&oldid=439164935

Discussion

{{resolved}}

Page range and author lists

Page range and author lists

Status
{{resolved}}
  • et al handling does not appear to change output format
  • Pages is a duplicate of #Messes with pages, which was Fixed in r392
Reported by
Colin°Talk 08:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
Page ranges altered e.g. 2434–6 to 2434–2436. Author lists altered from short et al style to multi-author multi-parameter.
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asperger_syndrome&diff=439733193&oldid=438898702

Discussion


I have not tried to read the source code, but from this page and the actions of the bot, I infer that the logic for handling authors is to count how many authors were specified by the editor (if any), count how many authors are specified in the database, and examine the editor-specified authors for a few special cases, such as a trailing "et al." It is presumed that if the editor specified fewer authors than the database, and didn't specify "et al.", he must have forgot and more authors should be added, and further, that the first editor-specified author matches the first database-specified author, etc.

I regard this behavior as dangerous. The bot is drawing conclusions about parameters it can't actually interpret (the editor-specified authors). If the number of authors specified by the editor does not match the number specified by the database, and the last author does not contain "et al.", the bot could add a category and comment indicating there is a citation that needs manual attention, but should not try to "fix" it. The only entries that should be fixed are those that have no creators listed (no authors, editors, translators, or any similar designation). Jc3s5h (talk) 11:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Please, could you make it stop doing that? It's really annoying. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Will do when time permits. I'm soon to be away for a while. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 20:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Bug?

I have no knowledge of bots, but this edit just made things worse. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 03:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That is a definite bug. In all SGML-type markup languages (which includes XHTML), the <!-- --> markers enclose comments. It is incorrect to replace the pair of keyboard hyphen-minus characters with any other horizontal line, and especially not with a single em dash. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I think that this has been fixed; can it be reproduced using a recent version of the bot? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 21:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I'll take that as a no. {{resolved}}

Edit conflict bug?

Hi there. Someone pointed me to this edit, which I am assuming is an edit-conflict error? Anyhow, just thought you should be aware. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Almost certainly an EC. Three edits in three minutes.LeadSongDog come howl! 22:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

Doesn't report user

See Special:Contributions/Citation bot. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 19:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC) {{resolved}} - Fixed in r391

Wrong pages

Here, the bot changes page=109 to pages=21-4. That makes no sense. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

That citation is for PMID 16062575, which is a response to McCrae's PMID 16058406. The earlier McCrea paper had been published on pages 21-4. Somehow that page range got picked up by the bot for the de Vaucouleurs & Wertz letter commenting on it. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Now I see, the cite had the wrong PMID inserted way back in this edit from 2008. Then this edit by Citation bot in 2009 trimmed out the correct PMID, leaving the wrong one in place. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

Erroneously reports the addition of doi_inactivedate

Status
{{wontfix}} Cannot reproduce...
Reported by
Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
Erroneously reports the addition of doi_inactivedate
Only report the addition of doi_inactivedate when it's added
Link
[16]

Discussion


Joint Bone Spine → Joint Bone spine?

See [17]. What gives? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

There was a bug in a regexp that italicized species names; it saw the 'sp' in spine and thought that it was an abbreviation for 'species'. Now Fixed in r 401. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 19:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

Changes origdate --> orig year for no apparent reason.

See [18]. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

|origdate= isn't a valid parameter name. Rjwilmsi 07:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

wrong refname in Time

Wrong refname - refname from same encyclopedia but different article used with this edit[19]

Status
{{wontfix}} by = JimWae (talk) 05:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Reported by
Actual / expected output
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Time&diff=452305406&oldid=451634264

Discussion

Unless the references are identical, they won't be combined: the bot cannot tell what differences might be significant. If this doesn't answer your point then perhaps you could spell out more clearly the difference between what happens and what should happen. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 21:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I see now that the ref that the bot named Rynasiewicz already had the same material as an existing ref that had already been misnamed as Rynasiewicz. I have corrected manually--JimWae (talk) 20:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Single page ranges

Status
Fixed in r382 - and duplicated below
Reported by
Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
Puts the page range as |pages=S08007–S08007
Instead, it should be short-and-sweet for ranges spanning 1 page i.e. |pages=S08007
Also it messes with authors, and it probably shouldn't.
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TOTEM&curid=2601903&diff=435168119&oldid=426988967

Discussion

Will look at page ranges. I've tried to ensure that the visual output is unchanged as far as authors go. Adding the extra makes it easier to export the citation to an external program. Let me know if I have missed something with the formatting. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 03:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Wikiproject medicine contributors may go mad if you switch from the use of |author= even if the displayed result is unchanged and meta data becomes available. Rjwilmsi 10:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

Reference consolidation error with list-defined references

Reference consolidation error with list-defined references

Status
Fixed in r387 by = Rjwilmsi 10:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Reported by
Actual / expected output
List-defined references ref condensed incorrectly

Discussion

Please describe what happens and what should happen, so that I can understand the problem. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 21:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

If you follow the diff given, and then go to the references section, there is a red error message at ref no. 25, which wasn't there before the bot edit. Somehow it's broken how <ref name="Holland1909" /> links. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Gotcha. Thanks. Fixed in r 387 Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 23:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

Bot deletes value of |language=

Bot deletes value of |language=

Status
Invalid
Reported by
LeadSongDog come howl! 15:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agostino_Bassi&diff=prev&oldid=436517444

Discussion

The full template prior to the bot edit was as follows:

{{cite journal
|last=Dossena
|first=G
|authorlink=
|year=1954
|month=January
|title=Quello che la medicina deve ad Agostino Bassi
|language=Italian
|trans_title=Debt of medicine to Agostino Bassi
|journal=Rivista d'ostetricia e ginecologia pratica
|volume=36
|issue=1
|pages=43–53
| publisher = | location = | issn =
| pmid = 13168166
| bibcode = | oclc =| id = | url = | language = | format = | accessdate = | laysummary = | laysource = | laydate = | quote =
 }}

The |language= parameter occurs twice, but only the first instance has a value. It is a feature of MediaWiki template expansion that should any named parameter occur more than once, all are ignored except the last one. So, |language=Italian|language= is exactly equivalent to |language= and therefore the rendered appearance before and after the bot edit would be the same. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

True, though surely the correct fix would be to remove the blank parameter only. Rjwilmsi 20:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
The bot is programmed not to affect the visible output of the citation unless necessary. This way articles are not damaged for readers. Editors are responsible for previewing their content before saving. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 21:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

Bad edit

Bad edit

Status
Fixed in r383
Reported by
MZMcBride (talk) 05:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asperger_syndrome&diff=438861601&oldid=438861291

Discussion

Same thing happened here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turner_syndrome&diff=prev&oldid=444016097 --Openmouth (talk) 07:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC) {{resolved}}

Messes with pages

Status
Fixed in r392
Reported by
Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
The bot trims the page range when it should not.
Leave page ranges alone, except for dashes.
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kazimierz_Fajans&diff=prev&oldid=438923847

Discussion

The documentation for {{Cite book}} contains the example "pages=100–110" while the documentation for {{Citation}} contains the example "pages=153–61". There does not appear to be any standard about how to format such page ranges, and it is wrong for the bot to create a standard where none exists. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems all that edit did was reflect the existing page range as shown on Pubmed. Is there some reason to think something more systematic is at work?LeadSongDog come howl! 20:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't know why it did what it did, but there is no standard expressed in the template documentation as to whether the page range is the page range occupied by the article in the journal, or the page range that supports the claim in the article. Therefore it is improper for the bot owner to unilaterally and without broad consensus decide that it means the page range occupied by the article in the journal. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Since the purpose of referencing is to aid verification, it is better to be precise rather than vague when giving a source, so that a reviewer can be directed to the exact position in the source of the claimed fact. We cannot expect such people to read the whole of the source; many academic papers may run into dozens of pages in one journal. Therefore, to my mind, it's the second of these "the page range that supports the claim in the article". --Redrose64 (talk) 22:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Redrose64, I agree that's what the parameters ought to mean, and I encourage you to edit the documentation of the various and sundry templates to reflect that interpretation. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I think you are both missing the issue here (quite unrelated to the issue you are discussing), which is that the bot changed a full range of the form "100–110" to a partial range of the form "100–10". Those are both valid styles to refer to exactly the same thing. I prefer the former, but agree that the bot shouldn't be changing one to the other. Ucucha 22:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
If you look closely at Template:Citation/doc you will see that the way page ranges are shown is different for journals than from books. In this case, the journal citation used the same page range style as used on Pubmed, which was entirely appropriate. That said, I can think of few details that strike me as less significant. How about getting the substantive fixes done before worrying about this? LeadSongDog come howl! 14:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
The problem is not whether "its trivial or not", the problem is that the bot should not be changing this because it overides human editorial decisions. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Is the bot ignoring exclusion? Or are you expecting it to not edit at all? I note in the contribs that other edits by the bot using the same notation 381 just before and just after the one it made to Kazimierz Fajans inserted page ranges that were fully elaborated, not abbreviated. It's pretty clearly just following the source. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand what LeadSongDog's comment is supposed to mean (before the edit conflict).
In the case of journal articles, there are two different ways to use the pages parameter. One is in articles with just a <references/> section, in which case the specific pages supporting the claim should be given. The other case is an article that uses shortened citations, in which case the specific pages that support the claim should be given in the shortened citation and the full citation (which might be a cite xxx or citation template) would give the full page range that the journal article occupies.
Since the bot is not designed to detect whether an article uses shortened citations, and is incapable of detecting whether the shortened citations have been fully implemented or are a "work in progress", the bot should not alter page ranges. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Whether articles use just a "<references/>" or "shortened citations" is completely irrelevant here. The only thing relevant is that citation bot should not change the citation style used by an article. This applies to things like changing "Smith, J." to " Smith J" just as well as changing "pp. 100–110" to "pp. 100–10". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I was referring to abbreviated page ranges, as Headbomb indicated, and as the original bug report showed. The "shortened citations" bit seems to be a red herring. Again, the bot did not alter the page ranges, it only altered the style of page range representation (in this case from 402–404 to 402–4). Frankly, I'm much more concerned about a biography with a single reference than I am with how many digits are shown in the page range representation of that reference, but that's just me. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── LeadSongDog, you stated "It's pretty clearly just following the source." If by that you mean it is using the page range as stated in Pubmed, or some other database, then it's doing the wrong thing, and should leave any page or pages parameter entered by an editor alone. That's both a matter of style, and a matter of substance, because it may not be appropriate to list all the pages that the article occupies. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Jack, it is solely a matter of style, not substance, because the substantial value of the parameter was not changed. The edit did add the cited article's title, which had previously been omitted. Both representations denote the same three pages, as would "402, 403, 404" if someone wanted to use that odd form. It was originally the bot which added that page range as "402–4" over two years ago, and it used the form found on Pubmed. Headbomb revised it here. It is not entirely clear if this citationbot edit was derived from the version Headbomb committed just one minute earlier or based on the one Yobot committed an hour before, but it appears to be based on Headbomb's version. (It might be helpful in cases like this if the bot's edit comment explicitly stated the oldid.) Do you really think it would be a reasonable use of resources to have the bot trawl through edit histories for every parameter change in order to see whether a bot or a human editor inserted the parameter value? Or did you have some other way in mind for it to distinguish? LeadSongDog come howl! 18:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Maybe the particular edit you pointed out was harmless, but it could be a warning of harmful edits that have already, or will in the future, happen. If the logic that the bot is following is to take a page range from a database and overwrite a page (or range) provided to an editor, then sooner or later it will make harmful edits. So the logic should be simple; if the page or pages parameter is present and non-empty the bot should not edit it. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
If we stop every bot from working on the premise that it might get something wrong, there would not be any point in having them, would there? If we have examples of actual problems, they can be addressed. Of course the bot code is available if someone wants to do a code review. LeadSongDog come howl! 00:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
This is not a matter of "right" and "wrong" this is a matter of WP:BOTPOL. Bots should not annoy editors and override perfectly legitimate editorial decisions. Period. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I see nothing to that effect in the current revision of BOTPOL, perhaps it has changed? It does seem an excellent aspirational goal for all editors, though not always practicable. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:BOTPOL#Bot requirements, bullets 2/3/4. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

If by that you mean:


  • does not consume resources unnecessarily
  • performs only tasks for which there is consensus
  • carefully adheres to relevant policies and guidelines

That's something of a reach to "not annoy editors". Or am I looking at the wrong set of bullets?

Anyhow, I just quickly reread all the approvals, and the discussion of what to do with the basic citation parameters doesn't seem to have been very explicit. You seems to have spent more attention on the basic questions such as whether bare urls should be replaced. Still, you certainly seem to feel strongly about this, for whatever reason. I'll just drop the stick and move away. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

  • The bot tries to complete incomplete page ranges. It considers any page range without a dash to be incomplete. It turns out that there are more ways of specifying an &endash; than I was aware of, so the bot didn't recognize certain en-dash characters in WP. Hopefully all the possibilities are taken into account as of r392 and no further abbreviations should be made. Sorry that it took me so long to get round to fixing this. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 00:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Does that mean that if the bot encounters the "pages" parameter with only one digit group and no dash, it looks in a database to try to find the page range. On the other hand, if it finds the "page" parameter, and a digit group, it leaves it alone? Jc3s5h (talk) 01:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Never mind, I performed an experiment and confirmed that if a single page is given with the "page" parameter, and the "pages" parameter is absent, the bot will leave it alone. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

Erroneous 5th author

erroneous 5th author

Status
Invalid
Reported by
Crowsnest (talk) 07:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
erroneous adds copy of 4th author as 5th author
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Group_velocity&diff=439576566&oldid=439576451

Discussion

  • The fourth author was missing from the ref. Instead the 5th author was given as 4th author. Citation bot added the 5th author but did not check it was identical to the 4th. -- Crowsnest (talk) 07:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
    • The fourth author was specified using |first4=S. |last4=Jarabo. The bot doesn't modify human-entered authors. It correctly added a missing |author5=. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 21:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

Taurine

Taurine

Status
Duplicate of User_talk:Citation_bot#bizarre_deletion_and_addition_of_content
Reported by
Pthalo (talk) 04:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
the bot unfixed a typo in a citation that I had corrected. It replaced "Energy Drinks" with "Energy Dinks". another editor reverted the bot's edit back to mine.
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taurine&diff=prev&oldid=440058068
Replication instructions
don't know

Discussion

I don't know if this happens frequently or not, but it might be worth looking into why the bot did this and whether it can be prevented from doing it.

Your edit and the bot's edit were only two minutes apart and there is no obvious reason why the bot would change "drinks" to "dinks", since the word was not even in a citation template, so I think this was a race condition of some sort (for example, the bot may have started its edit before you saved), leading the bot to overwrite your edit. There may be a way to fix this, but as far as I know MediaWiki's handling of edit conflicts is fairly bad in general, so that glitches like this happen. Ucucha 11:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
There's a pretty clear trend that the bot is not handling such edit conflicts well. I'd suggest that there needs to be some sort of watch over the bot's contribs that checks for likely race conditions (say any other edit within 3 minutes?) and gets a human to check the results.LeadSongDog come howl! 17:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
This looks like a duplicate of a (probably fixed) bug; see User_talk:Citation_bot#bizarre_deletion_and_addition_of_content. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 21:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Sure? The diff was from midnight 17/18 July. Your fix was before that, wasn't it? I'm thinking that there might be a special kind of race condition that crops up at midnight... LeadSongDog come howl! 22:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The revision number should be listed in the edit summary; you can check which revision was running. I don't tend to roll out 'bleeding-edge' revisions until I'm comfortable that they're not (too) buggy.Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 19:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

Missing identifier

JSTOR/DOI not added

Status
Fixed in r 397
Reported by
Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 19:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
See Template:Cite_doi/10.2307.2F1305049

Discussion

{{resolved}}

I undid your edit

I undid your edit because it said you fixed the problem I pointed out, but it wasn't fixed. Maybe you can try again. Arkmanda (talk) 04:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

This seems to refer to this edit. The generated <ref name=2009factbook> may have been at issue. I note this was another midnight edit. I'm growing convinced there's some kind of timing problem at work.LeadSongDog come howl! 04:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
This is another case of a bug that has been fixed in the current version of the bot, but an older version of the script is being run. I shall update the stable version imminently.
Or is it? : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sextans_B&diff=prev&oldid=442895028 Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 19:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
In that Sextans B edit, there is a perfectly duplicated defining entry for a named ref in wp:LDR form. The bot deleted both, replacing them each with a callout of the named ref instead. What it should have done is delete one entirely and leave the other unchanged. Gotta give the little guy props for finding it, though. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Fixed in r393 Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 02:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

can't process bibcodes with ampersand

can't process bibcodes with ampersand

Status
Fixed in r389
Reported by
  —Chris Capoccia TC 21:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
{{cite journal |bibcode=1997A&A...322..709K}} is not processed. the ampersand has to be replaced with %26 like {{cite journal |bibcode=1997A%26A...322..709K}} before the bot will do anything with it.

Discussion


The bot will need to query with A&26%A, but the ampersand (A&A) follows the correct template usage. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I just noticed the same problem. It should be a simple enough change to convert the ampersand into &26% before querying the URL, right? Modest Genius talk 19:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

Question

Concerning Function 10, does that mean the bot adds something like |url=http://dx.doi.org/foobar/? Or does it add something like |doi-free=yes? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think that it does this any more. I've updated the function list to be a little pithier. Thanks for pointing this out. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 13:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

Does not query for doi when only jstor is given

Status
Fixed in r 396
Reported by
Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
Template is filled with most of the info that can be derived from jstor
Same, but further queries should be made to get the doi / bibcode / etc...
Link
[20] then [21]

Discussion

Thanks for the quick fix. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC) {{resolved}}

JSTOR url cleaner

I've tested things pretty extensively, and this regex cleans absolutely everything flawlessly. I highly-recommend you add this to an article "pre-cleaning" logic that would kick in before doing queries and whatnots.

Find
  • \|(\s*)url(\s*)=(\s*)(http://)?www.jstor.org/(stable|pss)/(view/|pdfplus/)?(\d+)([^(\s|\||})]*)
Replace
  • |$1jstor$2=$3$7
Find
  • >\s*\[?(http://)?www.jstor.org/(stable|pss)/(view/|pdfplus/)?(\d+)([^\s]*)\]?\s*</ref>
Replace
  • >{{cite journal|jstor=$4}}</ref>

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

One problem with using a regexp on the entire page is that it affects all templates, which might produce adverse effects. Also the regexp that you suggest doesn't handle URLs that lack the http:// or have a "pss" format. But I agree that a 'pre-expansion formatting sweep' could catch cases like this; I'll look into it. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 13:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Well then it's a simple matter of having (http://)? and (stable|pss). You probably have ways to restrict the regex to citation templates too.
Rjwilmsi mentions that this would fail on JSTORs using a doi-format, like (http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/gfc.2003.3.3.20). I need to think a bit more about that one. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
My point is that there are often other formats that the regexp won't catch. Are you sure that the regexps I'm already using are not adequate? See function get_identifiers_from_url() in expandFns.php Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 15:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm getting a 500 (server error) from google. I don't know what regex you are using, but it could be improved to cover cases like this. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
|jstor= is not listed as a parameter for Template:Cite news. I've tweaked the regexp so that this format will be okay in {{cite journal}} (etc.) templates. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 18:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
It's not listed but it works. If we want to be even better, those cases should be converted to a {{{cite journal}}. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. Are there other templates besides Cite Web that should be examined in a similar way (i.e. converted to Cite Journal)? I decided not to include Cite Encyclopaedia as I can imagine Encyclopaedia entries being archived in JSTOR. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 16:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
{{Vcite news}}/{{Vcite web}}? → {{Vcite journal}}? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Afraid I'm not going to venture into the Vcite world. One citation format is quite enough to keep me occupied. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 16:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Alright then I guess that's everything that would need to be converted. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

Merging references

Combining references removes both

Status
Fixed in r 400
Reported by
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
[22]
Link
[23]

Discussion

{{resolved}}

template:London Gazette removal

London Gazette removal

Status
Fixed in r 405
Reported by
Victoria and Albert (talk) 00:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
used references are removed, resulting in red-ink in reference sections. things get very broken.
bot should have done nothing to the article
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Princess_Louise%2C_Duchess_of_Argyll&action=historysubmit&diff=446063258&oldid=446063059
Replication instructions
unknown, other than to restore the article to using that approach

Discussion


The Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll page has a lot of messy references on it, so it is possible that something else is triggering the deletion of the London Gazette template (note; it's not doing them all; 8 out of 11. Of course, I may be missing something in what I was trying to do.

See this; it's another article that was using the same approach of template:London Gazette in a template:reflist. While the article was using the same approach, I ran citation bot on it and it did nothing. Good luck, Victoria and Albert (talk) 00:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC) {{resolved}}

Dont add ISSNs to journals

Status
Fixed in r 404
Reported by
Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
[24]
same thing, minus the ISSNs

Discussion

{{resolved}}

Bot does not expand when only pmc is specified

Status
Fixed in r 403
Reported by
Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
{{cite journal|pmc=foobar}} is not expanded
should be expanded
Replication instructions
Run on this revision [25]

Discussion

Example that I should have checked is Epidemiol Infect. 1992 August; 109(1): 1–22. PMCID: PMC2272232, which isn't an antique PDF only PMC target and has citation_pmid as 1499664 in the meta tags. Existence of a PMCID doesn't guarantee the existence of a PMID and Diberri's template filler at least requires finding the PMID to populate the data. Note that this case happens mainly on older articles — 1960s and earlier. RDBrown (talk) 05:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

See [26]. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

NB

ref name = bare_url? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Film_pull&action=historysubmit&diff=450311078&oldid=450310741 Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 15:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC) Fixed in r402 Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 19:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC) {{resolved}}

Combined duplicate references = editing them out completely

Combined duplicate references = editing them out completely

Status
Duplicate of #Merging_references
Reported by
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
[27] (all "ilo" refs combined into short form)
one should have been kept like here
Link
[28]

Discussion


Sample had two LDR entries "ilo" and "ilo2", otherwise identical. Former had two inline callout instances [2a, 2b], latter had one [6]. Bot deleted both LDR definitions and converted [6] to [2c], eg <ref name "ilo" /> LeadSongDog come howl! 18:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC) {{resolved}}

Redundant chapter when contribution already present

Status
Fixed in r 407
Reported by
David Eppstein (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
Citation bot adds redundant chapter= parameters to entries that already have the same information in a contribution= parameter
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fractional_cascading&action=historysubmit&diff=452927283&oldid=429898076

Discussion

{{resolved}}

cite def and use both in "reflist refs =" — but not the same one

Status
{{resolved}}
Reported by
 —Portuguese Man o' War 07:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
citation definition is removed and replaced by an invokation of a now undefined citation.
bot should not have modified the page.
Link
bot edit

Discussion

{{reflist
| group = lower-alpha
| refs =

{{#tag:ref
| Experimental data for BB-1 and BB-2 was lumped together and the rounded average calculated.<ref name="Bryan1901" />
| name = range
}}

}}

{{reflist
| refs =

<ref name="Bryan1901">
{{cite doi|10.1111/j.1559-3584.1901.tb03372.x}}
</ref>

}}

in the above, the bot changed the entire ref-definition using {{cite doi}} to <ref name="Bryan1901" /> leaving the citation undefined and spilling red in the article. This edit took things in another direction—moved cite def out of reflist and invoked it with {{sfn}}—and the bot isn't offering to change the page at all, now (which is fine).  —Portuguese Man o' War 07:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It looks like this was an attempt to use wp:REFNEST that went wrong, and the bot just made it worse. LeadSongDog come howl! 12:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Compare
The sentence being supported.{{#tag:ref
|Experimental data for BB-1 and BB-2 was lumped together and the rounded average calculated.<ref name="Bryan1901b">
 {{cite doi |10.1111/j.1559-3584.1901.tb03372.x }}</ref>
 |group="foots"
}}

== Bot incorrectly combines multiple references ==

{{bot bug
| title = Bot incorrectly combines multiple references
| status = {{tl|resolved}}
| reported by = [[User:Nick Thorne|<font color = "darkblue">'''Nick Thorne'''</font>]] [[User talk:Nick Thorne|<font color = "darkblue"><sup>''talk''</sup></font>]] 04:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
| type of bug = Deleterious<!-- Please select one of:
Improvement: The bot would be much better if ...
Cosmetic: The bot modifies appearance (e.g. capitalization) but not content
Inconvenience: Humans must occasionally make immediate edits to clean up after the bot
Deleterious: Human-input data is deleted or articles are otherwise significantly affected.  Many bot edits require undoing.
Catastrophical: The bot should stop editing immediately
-->
| what happens = Bot incorrectly combines separate inline references to different page ranges within a source to only one page range.  This makes complete nonsense of the references.
<!-- and/or: --> | what should happen = Leave these references alone
| link showing what happens = [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_for_aircraft_carrier_service&curid=18976493&diff=453554448&oldid=444016821 here]
| how to replicate the bug = 
| waiting for = Consensus<!--
User: Input from editors
Consensus: Agreement on the best solution
Operator: Bot operator's feedback on what is feasible
Maintainer: A specific edit to the bot's code is requested below.
-->
| action required from maintainer = <!--specific details-->
}}
<!-- Discussion starts below this line -->
The problem here is that the same ref name was in use for two different page ranges:
*<code>21 February — {{HMS|Implacable|R86|6}} laid down.<ref name="ches-128-129">Chesneau (1998), pp.128–129</ref></code>
*<code>December — HMS ''Indefatigable'' decommissioned.<ref name="ches-128-129">Chesneau (1998), pp.134–139</ref></code>
--[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#d30000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 08:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
== Error in journal article title ==

{{bot bug
| title = Error in journal article title<!-- Brief description to display in section header -->
| status = {{tl|Resolved}}
| reported by = [[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 22:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
| type of bug = Inconvenience: Humans must occasionally make immediate edits to clean up after the bot
| what happens = The bot changed the title of a journal article to the title of a ''different'' journal article that was cited on the same page.
| link showing what happens = [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Opioid_receptor&action=historysubmit&diff=455282882&oldid=455277152]
| how to replicate the bug = 
| waiting for = Consensus<!--
User: Input from editors
Consensus: Agreement on the best solution
Operator: Bot operator's feedback on what is feasible
Maintainer: A specific edit to the bot's code is requested below.
-->
| action required from maintainer = <!--specific details-->
}}
<!-- Discussion starts below this line -->
:The cite for Ingoglia had the wrong PMID and the PMC and DOI for the wrong PMID, which I've now fixed for you. The bot picked up the title off those identifiers. [[User talk:Rjwilmsi|<font color="darkgreen">'''''Rjwilmsi'''''</font>]] 07:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
::Thanks! That certainly explains it. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 20:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
== Enacted small enhancements ==

*<s>Missed reference combination opportunity ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grisellatheca&diff=prev&oldid=425207413 example]) [[User:Smith609|Martin]] '''<small>([[User:Smith609|Smith609]] – [[User_talk:Smith609|Talk]])</small>''' 18:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)</s> {{fixedin|351}}
*<s>NB seems to break when trying to expand endnote templates, for instance http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Molluscan_diets&oldid=425855201. [[User:Smith609|Martin]] '''<small>([[User:Smith609|Smith609]] – [[User_talk:Smith609|Talk]])</small>''' 17:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)</s>
*<s> Some URLs are crashing the bot, in articles [[Sexually_dimorphic_nucleus]], [[Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome ]], and [[Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans]]. [[User:Smith609|Martin]] '''<small>([[User:Smith609|Smith609]] – [[User_talk:Smith609|Talk]])</small>''' 01:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)</s> {{Fixedin|355}} [[User:Smith609|Martin]] '''<small>([[User:Smith609|Smith609]] – [[User_talk:Smith609|Talk]])</small>''' 01:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

*Pipes in titles with cite web? e.g. {{cite web | url=http://www.meteorologynews.com/2009/10/29/cloud-streets-photographed-over-gulf-of-mexico/ | title=Cloud Streets Photographed over Gulf of Mexico: Gallery of Cloud Streets Images | Meteorology News | accessdate=2009-10-29}} [[User:Smith609|Martin]] '''<small>([[User:Smith609|Smith609]] – [[User_talk:Smith609|Talk]])</small>''' 16:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
**To me, that should be formatted as {{para|title|Cloud Streets Photographed over Gulf of Mexico}} {{para|work|Meteorology News}}. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#d30000; background:#ffeeee">Red</span>rose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 20:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
*(Also e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trevor_Linden&diff=prev&oldid=434161461 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turn_Left_(Doctor_Who)&diff=prev&oldid=434585064)
{{fixedin|374}}

* In press page ranges may be denoted | pages = n/a–n/a .  See {{Cite doi|10.1002/bies.201100035}}.[[Special:Contributions/192.75.204.31|192.75.204.31]] ([[User talk:192.75.204.31|talk]]) 15:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


* "| Volume: 12 " and "| Issue: 12" are replaced by "Volume = : | unused_data=12". [[User:Smith609|Martin]] '''<small>([[User:Smith609|Smith609]] – [[User_talk:Smith609|Talk]])</small>''' 14:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

*NB still rearranging citation parameters: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3A+Cite+doi%2F10.2307.2F2400629&diff=prev&oldid=425351739 [[User:Smith609|Martin]] '''<small>([[User:Smith609|Smith609]] – [[User_talk:Smith609|Talk]])</small>''' 15:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC): This was in r338; cannot replicate now. [[User:Smith609|Martin]] '''<small>([[User:Smith609|Smith609]] – [[User_talk:Smith609|Talk]])</small>''' 22:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


*Remove leading zero ({{diff2|424890924|example}}). [[User talk:Ucucha|Ucucha]] 18:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
*:{{fixedin|374}} [[User:Smith609|Martin]] '''<small>([[User:Smith609|Smith609]] – [[User_talk:Smith609|Talk]])</small>''' 13:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
== Suggested small enhancements ==
*NB http://toolserver.org/~verisimilus/Bot/DOI_bot/category.php?cat=Refs_for_Citation_Bot is down. [[User:Smith609|Martin]] '''<small>([[User:Smith609|Smith609]] – [[User_talk:Smith609|Talk]])</small>''' 19:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
== Dead bot ==
{{bot bug
| title = The bot is dead
| status = {{tl|resolved}}
| reported by = [[Special:Contributions/70.137.134.91|70.137.134.91]] ([[User talk:70.137.134.91|talk]]) 09:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
| type of bug = <!-- Please select one of:
Improvement: The bot would be much better if ...
Cosmetic: The bot modifies appearance (e.g. capitalization) but not content
Inconvenience: Humans must occasionally make immediate edits to clean up after the bot
Deleterious: Human-input data is deleted or articles are otherwise significantly affected.  Many bot edits require undoing.
Catastrophical: The bot should stop editing immediately
-->
| what happens = 
<!-- and/or: --> | what should happen = 
| link showing what happens = 
| how to replicate the bug = 
| waiting for = Consensus<!--
User: Input from editors
Consensus: Agreement on the best solution
Operator: Bot operator's feedback on what is feasible
Maintainer: A specific edit to the bot's code is requested below.
-->
| action required from maintainer = <!--specific details-->
}}
<!-- Discussion starts below this line -->
Above bug report was a mess, but it seems to be regarding a (now remedied) toolserver account issue, not a bot bug. [[User:LeadSongDog|LeadSongDog]] <small>[[User talk:LeadSongDog#top|<font color="red" face="Papyrus">come howl!</font>]]</small> 01:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
== RFC on identifiers ==

There is an [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RFC_on_the_bot-addition_of_identifier_links_to_citations|RFC on the addition of identifier links to citations by bots]]. Please comment. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|contribs]] / [[WP:PHYS|physics]] / [[WP:WBOOKS|books]]}</span> 15:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
== Fails on certain jstor ==

{{bot bug
| title = <!-- Brief description to display in section header -->
| status = new bug
| reported by = <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|contribs]] / [[WP:PHYS|physics]] / [[WP:WBOOKS|books]]}</span> 16:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
| type of bug = <!-- Please select one of:
Improvement: The bot would be much better if ...
Cosmetic: The bot modifies appearance (e.g. capitalization) but not content
Inconvenience: Humans must occasionally make immediate edits to clean up after the bot
Deleterious: Human-input data is deleted or articles are otherwise significantly affected.  Many bot edits require undoing.
Catastrophical: The bot should stop editing immediately
-->
| what happens = Fails on certain jstor like {{jstor|4494763}} (or a different jstor to the same article {{jstor|10.1086/519028}}. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Principle_of_transformation_groups&oldid=446007535] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Principle_of_transformation_groups&oldid=446008178]. The bot works fine when the doi is given, however [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Principle_of_transformation_groups&oldid=446008351][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Principle_of_transformation_groups&diff=prev&oldid=446008389].
<!-- and/or: --> | what should happen = 
| link showing what happens = 
| how to replicate the bug = 
| waiting for = Consensus<!--
User: Input from editors
Consensus: Agreement on the best solution
Operator: Bot operator's feedback on what is feasible
Maintainer: A specific edit to the bot's code is requested below.
-->
| action required from maintainer = <!--specific details-->
}}
<!-- Discussion starts below this line -->
Funny, the JSTOR API seems not to be returning results.  The bot plugs the JSTOR identifier into the dc.identifier search term accessible via http://dfr.jstor.org/sru/? ; in the past this has worked, today it doesn't seem to.  I wonder whether this is a temporary glitch - I hope so! [[User:Smith609|Martin]] '''<small>([[User:Smith609|Smith609]] – [[User_talk:Smith609|Talk]])</small>''' 16:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
==References==
{{reflist|name="Bryan1901b"}}
Things were working fine in the version before the bot-run, and I'm happy with the sfn-route I took things in. NB: the quotes around 'foots' are problematic (and I prefer the lower-alpha' presentation). Anyway, the bot seems to have improperly parsed things due to the nesting and/or multiple reflist instances. (see also; Indiana)  —Portuguese Man o' War 13:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Is this a problem that would be avoided if conventional ref tags were used? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 21:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't notice this for a week. I expect it may be due to using the #tag:ref. That article has moved away from that approach, both because of this and because it is better to stick to the usual syntax when possible. At some point ref-tags may be able to be nested ;) It seems to me that (past) limitations of MediaWiki are responsible for millions of references being fleshed-out inline instead of kept in discrete sections. The current inability to nest effectively is similarly forcing practice in other than the best direction. The costs of late software are huge. The cost of developing quality software are huge, too.  —Portuguese Man o' War 05:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Error code: BADMD5: The supplied MD5 hash was incorrect.

Status
accepted
Reported by
Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Type of bug
 ??
Actual / expected output
Writing to De_Sitter_invariant_special_relativity ... Edit may have failed. Retrying: xxx Still no good. One last try: Failed. Error code: BADMD5: The supplied MD5 hash was incorrect.
Link
Run it on De_Sitter_invariant_special_relativity or Carbon nanotube, N-ethylmaleimide sensitive fusion protein, http://toolserver.org/~verisimilus/Bot/DOI_bot/doibot.php?doi=10.1038%2Fnews.2011.485
Replication instructions
Run on a page containing (certain?) special characters. The character string passed to the md5-hasher must be in a different encoding to the string received by Wikimedia (?)
We can't proceed until
Requested action from maintainer

Discussion

Bad handling of authors in {{cite arxiv}}

Status
new bug
Reported by
Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Type of bug
Improvement/Inconvenience
Actual / expected output
Only lists the last names of authors in |author-n= fields
use |last-n= and |first-n= appropriately
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OPERA_experiment&diff=454129355&oldid=454129254
We can't proceed until
Requested action from maintainer
Update the bot

Discussion

First names

Why does this bot abbreviate first names, ie in a cite doi template? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

To comply with Template:Cite doi/doc#Formatting. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 02:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Confusing results when no changes are made by the bot

For new users of this bot, such as myself yesterday, the results when no changes are made are baffling. I almost gave up on the bot thinking it was another broken or developing Wikipedia function. One sees this at the top of the page:

Latest revision _______ Your text.

Followed by the edit window. When one saves the page hoping for some improved citations one sees no changes, and nothing shows up in the revision history.

Fortunately, I used it on a page where it made some changes and now I see how it works. I suggest some kind of indication be added to the results saying something like this:

"Citation bot sees nothing it can fix, and no changes have been made."

Thanks for this bot. It is very useful. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Messes with author... again

Status
Duplicate of Expanding author lists truncated with et al.
Reported by
Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
Many changes to the author fields
No changes to the author fields
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Three_jet_event&curid=2574002&diff=435219353&oldid=426985904

Discussion


I think it's pretty much established by now that the bot should not be editing the author fields for any reason. It's removing et al., cluttering citations with additional parameters, etc... This has been raised several times in the past, and I'm re-raising this again because for some reason these changes were re-enabled. The bot does not have consensus to perform changes related to authors fields, so please stop the bot from making them. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you please clarify how the displayed output is changed? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 21:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The et al. is removed, indicating that the named author did it all by himself, when in fact he has unnamed coauthors. The name of a collaboration is given after the author in the case of this particular work, but it is unclear if that is an indication of coauthors, or just affiliation information. Since citation templates have no manual of style, there is no way to determine the meaning of the phrase in parenthesis after the author. Readers must not be expected to understand how Citation bot works, or even that it exists, so I preemptively reject any explanation about how the bot looks it up in some database. The rules for presenting authorship in any such database are not incorporated in the description of the citation templates, and thus are not available to readers. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I have looked at the diff link above, and whilst there are several changes, they mostly follow the same pattern. Ignoring irrelevances such as issue numbers and page ranges, the main problem seems to be centred around a misapprehension of how the |display-authors= parameter works. For example, in the first change, the |author=R. Brandelik et al. (TASSO collaboration) is changed to |author=R. Brandelik (TASSO collaboration) and two parameters are added: |author-separator=,|display-authors=1. This would work as intended if either |author2= or |last2=|first2= were provided, but they aren't. |display-authors= only operates if there are more authors than the figure specified. As in:
{{cite journal |author=Doe, John|author2=Public, Joe|journal=A Journal|title=A Paper|year=2011}}
Doe, John; Public, Joe (2011). "A Paper". A Journal. 
{{cite journal |author=Doe, John|author2=Public, Joe|journal=A Journal|title=A Paper|year=2011|display-authors=1}}
Doe, John et al. (2011). "A Paper". A Journal. 
{{cite journal |author=Doe, John|journal=A Journal|title=A Paper|year=2011|display-authors=1}}
Doe, John (2011). "A Paper". A Journal. 
I seem to recall that in the past the bot would fill in those missing author parameters. Why is it not doing so here? If it were, the "et al." would be triggered. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I've made a start with a fix here. I am not convinced that "J.D. Smith et al (JADE collaboration)" is a valid value for the author parameter, so am not sure how to handle it. If it is the norm in particle physics, then I can add a special case. If it is confined to a couple of articles then it will be quicker to fix by hand. Please advise. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 21:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
It's indeed the norm, but it also doesn't change the fact the the bot should not mess with the author fields in the first place. Having a bot adding lists of unseen authors for the sake of metadata has never been approved, and whenever a bot's been messing with the authors fields, it always comes up here so I doubt it qualifies as uncontroversial changes. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Will you stop the bot from making those stupidly annoying changes? [29]. I don't know how many of them I reverted in the last few days. I've asked for a blocked until this is resolved. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Fixing ISSN fields

Status
Accepted
Reported by
Beagel (talk) 04:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Type of bug
Actual / expected output
Instead of repairing issn field of citation, the bot removed it.
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fushun_Mining_Group&action=historysubmit&diff=451226695&oldid=438639791
We can't proceed until
A specific edit to the bot's code is requested below.
Requested action from maintainer
Looks like there is consensus to translate "id=ISSN xxxx-xxxx" to "issn=xxxx-xxxx", but not to add or remvoe an issn parameter otherwise. Correct me if wrong.

Discussion

Another example --Redrose64 (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I wonder whether these are cases that the ISSN should not be displayed, per Template:Cite journal/doc? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 15:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't think so... Template:Cite journal/doc doesn't state when not to provide an |issn= - it merely states that |publisher= is only necessary in the absence of |issn= or |doi= - this does not mean that in the presence of a |publisher=, the |issn= should be removed. Oh BTW, here's another. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually, Template:Cite journal/doc says "Only include if ISSN and DOI are unavailable." That means the publisher should be omitted if those parameters are present, and says nothing about whether the publisher should be named if ISSN and DOI are absent. Indeed, most scholarly citations I have seen do not name the publisher. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem was not about the 'publisher' field. The problem is that if ISSN is presented like e.g. 'id = ISSN 0208-189X', the bot does not replace it with 'issn = 0208-189X', but just remove it. The latest removal I discovered happened just 30 minutes ago. Removing the ISSN field, even if incorrectly formatted, is not the correct solution. Beagel (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I tend to think that issn's are almost always useless and should be omitted, but that's a human editorial decision that shouldn't be left up to the bot. I agree that deleting id=ISSN rather than converting it into issn= is the wrong thing for the bot to do. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
We've been over this ground before, iirc. In any case where there is no more specific article identifier available, the ISSN is useful in finding the serial, though an OCLCn would often be equal or better. The template can and should suppress display of the ISSN when such article-specific ID is provided (e.g. DOI, PMID, JSTOR, etc) but there's no reason the ISSN shouldn't be included in the COINS metadata. Converting "|id=ISSN " to "|issn=" is a harmless and helpful bot task. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Using the Citation bot at the Hebrew Wikipedia

Greetings,

Could Citation bot run at the Hebrew Wikipedia as well? We have translated Template:Cite doi to he:תבנית:ציטוט DOI and the relevant data should be saved to subpage /מזהה DOI. The reference itself should look the same as in the English Wikipedia, preferrably with the aid of a divstyle alignment (i.e. <div style="direction: ltr;">To the left</div>). Many thanks, ליאור • Lior (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

That would be great. Past requests for internationalization have petered out when I've enquired whether someone is willing to put in a bot request at their native wiki. If you can get approval for the bot to run, I'll start working on the coding.
Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 03:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Setting "last1" equal to "journal"

Adding "last1" equal to "journal"

Status
Accepted
Reported by
Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Type of bug
Inconvenience
Actual / expected output
In the bot's first change in the link, it adds "last1=The Lancet" to a {{cite journal}}, where that's also the name of the journal
I'm not sure about the other edits, but "last1" should never equal "journal", even if it's an editorial comment
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antineoplaston&action=historysubmit&diff=454137697&oldid=453412234
We can't proceed until
A specific edit to the bot's code is requested below.
Requested action from maintainer

Discussion


Postscript period when converting citation to cite journal

Postscript period when converting citation to cite journal

Status
Accepted
Reported by
David Eppstein (talk) 17:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Type of bug
Improvement: The bot would be much better if ...
Actual / expected output
Frequently, the {{citation}} template is followed by a period, outside the template. When the bot converts it to cite journal (to match the majority of other citations in the article), the bot adds a postscript= to suppress the period generated by the template, so that we don't get doubled periods. This causes the correct appearance, but increases the complexity of the template's parameters. It would be simpler and better to simply remove the trailing period instead of using a postscript.
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Majority_problem_(cellular_automaton)&curid=10388995&diff=454261546&oldid=449063664
We can't proceed until
A specific edit to the bot's code is requested below.
Requested action from maintainer
Sounds good, will implement. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 03:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion


content of a citation deleted

content of a citation deleted

Status
new bug
Reported by
83.134.21.249 (talk) 23:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

(login problem : fjanss in fr.wikipedia.org , but cannot unify in en.wikipedia.org )

Type of bug
Deleterious: Human-input data is deleted or articles are otherwise significantly affected. Many bot edits require undoing.
Actual / expected output
content of a citation deleted
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bipedalism&offset=20110103073114&action=history

19:47, 9 June 2010‎ Vashtihorvat

contains a valid citation 37 :

^ Niemitz, C. (2010). "The evolution of the upright posture and gait--a review and a new synthesis.". Die Naturwissenschaften 97 (3): 241–263. Bibcode 2010NW.....97..241N. doi:10.1007/s00114-009-0637-3. PMC 2819487. PMID 20127307. edit


04:55, 10 June 2010‎ Citation bot 1

citation 37 is empty
We can't proceed until
Agreement on the best solution
Requested action from maintainer

Discussion

Have you been able to replicate this bug since 2010? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 03:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Date in cit book template

Date in Cite book

Status
new bug
Reported by
Keith D (talk) 09:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Type of bug
Deleterious: Human-input data is deleted or articles are otherwise significantly affected.
Actual / expected output
In this edit the bot added "date=2003-09" to a {{cite book}} template
The date format did not match the existing format of day first dates, as it is not a full date should not use ISO format and should use the "month" & "year" parameters.
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wales&curid=69894&diff=454341035&oldid=453405674
We can't proceed until
Agreement on the best solution
Requested action from maintainer

Discussion

Another problem with the same bot edit is that it changed a pipe character into %7C, the effect of which was to add extra characters to a valid URL, making it invalid. The change was from |url=http://wales.gov.uk/docs/statistics/2010/100917sb772010en.pdf|September 2010 to |url=http://wales.gov.uk/docs/statistics/2010/100917sb772010en.pdf%7CSeptember 2010 - it has assumed that the pipe is part of the URL, not a parameter separator. The correct change would have been to insert date=, as in |url=http://wales.gov.uk/docs/statistics/2010/100917sb772010en.pdf |date=September 2010. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Often the pipe is part of the preceding parameter. In either case its usage is incorrect. Any suggestions about how to improve the bot's guesswork?
Regarding the main bug, what fix do you propose? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 03:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Might be part of the preceding parameter, but I don't think I ever saw a pipe in a URL. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
You can't have an unescaped pipe in the URL as the template parser always interprets it as a separator, but there are some URLs that do use pipes that must be escaped (as the CB is doing). In the pipe character example I think it would be better if the bot didn't try to fix it, and maybe added a 'bad cite' tag. I've been working on a script to fix such errors (parameter name and = missing), but it's not easy and often requires human review. Rjwilmsi 07:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Improper edit to examples on discussion page

Improper edit to examples on discussion page

Status
new bug
Reported by
Redrose64 (talk) 16:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Type of bug
Inconvenience: Humans must occasionally make immediate edits to clean up after the bot
Actual / expected output
On Template talk:Cite journal, a number of examples crafted to exhibit variation in parameters, or the difference between {{cite journal}} and {{citation}}, were altered so that the points under discussion were no longer suitably illustrated.
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Cite_journal&curid=4028770&diff=454406936&oldid=453691231
We can't proceed until
Bot operator's feedback on what is feasible
Requested action from maintainer
Please leave discussion pages alone. If I recall correctly, that this has come up before, some months ago.

Discussion

I've tagged the page with {{bots|deny=citation bot}}. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 03:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Author names again

Please do design some short field to stop the bot from changing author lists in references; et al. could be ideal. The bot is very useful, but it is adding long author lists and other code such as "author separator", "display authors= " and "<Please add first missing authors to populate metadata.>". This is a real issue with overloading long articles as it adds so much junk code. The bot is currently designed to care about the article output ignoring the code length. Another undesirable feature is "|postscript = ..; inconsistent citations" which adds so much code just to care about a full stop at the end of the reference. We do love this bot and do not want to disable it on specific articles. Just a little flexibility in its operation (don't change when asked not to) will solve this longstanding issue. Materialscientist (talk) 00:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

WTF?

Whast on earth is going on here? There are edits removing the whole content of the page and leaving nothing but fragments of code [30], leaving the following edit summary: "Touching page to update categories. ** THIS EDIT SHOULD PROBABLY BE REVERTED ** as page content will only be changed if there was an edit conflict." Paul B (talk) 10:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a recurring problem: User talk:Citation bot/Archive1#bizarre deletion and addition of content. The bot does not have approval for null edits, whether they are done properly or not. Accordingly, I have blocked Citation bot 2 from editing pending confirmation that the bot will no longer make these edits improperly, and no longer make them without approval. –xenotalk 16:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Bugzilla: 29233 seems to be involved, for what it's worth. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
The earlier case was an edit conflict. This case looks like an unavailable server, which likely was a problem with the MW 1.18 rollout. Similar edit comments gave the impression the error was the same. LeadSongDog come howl! 01:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
The task should not have been active at all; it has no approval to make null edits. –xenotalk 14:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
The behaviour has been approved so once I work out how to work around the MW bug we'll be back up and running. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 20:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok - unblocked, but please don't run this task until you fix the bug(s). –xenotalk 20:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Parsing error

Parsing error with Springer/LNCS

Status
new bug
Reported by
Chire (talk) 14:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Type of bug
Inconvenience
Actual / expected output
DOI: 10.1007/3-540-63238-7_38 could not be auto-filled; rerunning the bot after manually filling the template inserted an incorrect author name for the reference.
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cite_doi/10.1007.2F3-540-63238-7_38&diff=454547594&oldid=454547572
We can't proceed until
Agreement on the best solution
Requested action from maintainer

Discussion

Thank you for the extremely helpful bot! A pity it didn't work for this reference. Maybe this can be helpful for improving the parser; I don't "expect" any action, I just wanted to share this DOI with you, since it didn't work. --Chire (talk) 14:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, {{cite journal}} is the wrong template to use here — LNCS is not a journal, it's a book series. But that was not a bot error as the bot didn't choose that template. I changed the one in the example to {{cite conference}} instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! Makes sense. cite journal was the pregenerated template when I clicked "fill manually". --Chire (talk) 09:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Bot is disobeying title case / MOS

Title case modified

Status
Accepted
Reported by
τ ¢ 14:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Type of bug
Cosmetic
Actual / expected output
The citation bot changed a title into allcaps
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rumination_syndrome&diff=455004321&oldid=451542695
We can't proceed until
A specific edit to the bot's code is requested below.
Requested action from maintainer

Discussion


References containing speech marks are malformed by bot

References containing speech marks are malformed by bot

Status
Accepted
Reported by
GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Type of bug
Actual / expected output
We can't proceed until
A specific edit to the bot's code is requested below.
Requested action from maintainer

Discussion

Kenneth Hahn Deleterious. Diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kenneth_Hahn&action=historysubmit&diff=455056890&oldid=454962024

Can't contact the database server

"THIS EDIT SHOULD PROBABLY BE REVERTED"

Status
new bug
Reported by
jonkerz 16:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Type of bug
Actual / expected output
It looks like a server is down. Here is an example of an edit summary:
"[cw408] Touching page to update categories. ** THIS EDIT SHOULD PROBABLY BE REVERTED ** as page content will only be changed if there was an edit conflict."
Here is an excerpt from an edit:
"<h1>Sorry! This site is experiencing technical difficulties.</h1><p>Try waiting a few minutes and reloading.</p><p><small>(Can't contact the database server: <span dir="ltr">Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/var/run/mysqld/mysqld.sock' (2) (localhost)</span>)</small></p><hr /><div style="margin: 1.5em">You can try searching via Google in the meantime.<br />
Link
[31][32][33][34]
We can't proceed until
Agreement on the best solution
Requested action from maintainer

Discussion

I'm not sure how to report this or if it is new, but the links will show. jonkerz 16:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not a bot issue. See Bugzilla: Bugzilla:31530 or the recent posts at wp:VPT.LeadSongDog come howl! 18:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Expanding author lists truncated with et al.

Expanding author lists truncated with et al.

Status
Fixed in rr408
Reported by
Materialscientist (talk) 23:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ocelot&curid=268115&diff=450723625&oldid=450617932

Discussion

Look correct to me...? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 18:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
It's messing with the author and adding useless clutter. See also User_talk:Citation_bot#Page_range_and_author_lists and User_talk:Citation_bot#Messes_with_author..._again where this was raised. It's the single-most annoying thing about this bot, and I don't know how many hours I spent cleaning up after it because of this. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
It's not useless; whilst invisible, it does get put into the COinS metadata. See COinS in Wikipedia for background information. Templates generating such data are listed at Category:Templates generating COinS. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
AKA pure clutter. Metadata is a secondary concern. It should not trump desires for clean edit windows. et al. means "shut up" about the other authors, there's too many to list or care for. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

<indent>The issue might be more general. I perceive it as currently the bot tends to not care about bloating the reference templates with unused text, whereas this has at least two issues (i) the article code becomes hard to work with, especially for newcomers; (ii) reaching parsing limits on some articles. Apart from expanding author lists, the bot adds "author-separator" field and a long line of |postscript= and "{{inconsistent citations}} .." note. Can the bot not do that please? Citations are often inconsistent for numerous other (than full stop at the end) reasons which the bot can't assess and which are sorted out manually at WP:GAN or WP:FAC. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 23:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Given the above I've modified the bot (in r408) so that it only adds the 'bloat' if this is already the editorial preference on the page (i.e. "|display_authors=" is set in other citations). I would suggest that someone modifies Template:Citation/doc, which I had been reading to imply that it was incorrect to specify more than one author in the 'author' parameter. I just re-read Template:Cite journal/doc, says something different. Cheers, Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Citation bot (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

This bug led to a block request of User:Citation bot 1 per [35] . Because Citation bot 1 does not have a separate user talk page (it redirects here) I am asking for it to be unblocked here. Note that User:Citation bot is not blocked, but User:Citation bot 1 is.

Accept reason:

See below.

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.
As noted below, this request pertains to User:citation bot 1, which doesn't have a separate talk page. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 16:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)}}
Citation bot isn't blocked. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry - the blocked alias is User:Citation bot 1. Thanks, Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 15:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Unblocked. T. Canens (talk) 21:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
It's still doing it... [36]. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
This looks like something different; the bot is not programmed to distinguish "coauthors=et al." from "coauthors = Smith, e.t."
Could you please advise:
  1. Is this the intended usage of |coauthors=?
  2. Can you give a complete list of cases where the bot should / should not add missing authors?
Thanks, Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 03:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Seems to me that if the bot did not expand the author lists whenever there's an et\s+al\.? in the author/first/last/coauthor/etc... fields, it would solve this issue. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

DOI links duplicating the JSTOR ones

The bot would be better if it didn't add DOI links that redirect to the same place as the JSTOR ones.

Status
new bug
Reported by
Have mörser, will travel (talk) 16:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Type of bug
Improvement
Actual / expected output
Replication instructions
[37]
We can't proceed until
Agreement on the best solution
Requested action from maintainer

Discussion

Agree that the duplication is not useful, though I think it would be better to replace the JSTOR link with the DOI link. Rjwilmsi 07:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
If find duplication very useful. If I click on "doi" I don't know where I'll land. I'll know where I'll land if I click on the JSTOR link. Plus, we also have offline version to think of, and these greatly benefit from having both the doi and the jstor given. Some databases are queriably via JSTOR, others via DOI. Both offer complementary information. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Duplication of links in "cite journal" might be bad, but there are subtleties: (i) Access. Most institutions either have access to jstor or haven't; this is unpredictable for other links (doi/pmid/etc). (ii) Visibility. jstor always provides the first page with the abstract, but it is not plain text and can't be copy/pasted; only some doi (wiley) lead to a similar first-page access. Most doi/pmid lead to plain-text abstracts, but some just to the title. Materialscientist (talk) 07:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
If my first comment wasn't clear I was only talking about the strict case where there is a jstor link e.g. |jstor=11345 and a DOI with the JSTOR in it e.g. |doi=10.2307/11345 (not real values), since both resolve to the same place. If there is a jstor and a DOI to a different publisher then both are certainly useful and are not duplication. Rjwilmsi 08:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Impairs function of Harvard and short citations

Impairs function of Harvard and short citations

Status
new bug
Reported by
Jc3s5h (talk) 00:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Type of bug
Inconvenience
Actual / expected output
When most citations are cite xxx, citation templates are converted, but the ref=harv parameter is never included, so linking from Harvard citations or short footnotes to the full bibliographic information is broken.
Always include ref = harv on conversions from citation to cite xxx.
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AJc3s5h%2Fsandbox2&action=historysubmit&diff=455687330&oldid=455686765
We can't proceed until
Requested action from maintainer

Discussion

ISBN missing

ISBN missing

Status
new bug
Reported by
Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Type of bug
Improvement
Actual / expected output
I have tried it out on Seniors centre and got the message "Educational Activity Programs for Older Adults Already has an ISBN. Book reference assessed in 0 secs."
It should report ISBN missing and/or try to fix it
We can't proceed until
Bot operator's feedback on what is feasible
Requested action from maintainer

Discussion

An edit by this bot on Causality

Just a quick note that I reverted an edit by this bot. I saw no improvements, and arguably three changes which are all making the article worse. (The citation to cite book change is perhaps arguable, but I have noticed in the past that cite book sometimes does not work with harvtxt templates.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

By default, {{cite book}} doesn't work with {{harvtxt}} (or any of the other Harvard-group templates); but it can be made to work by the simple addition of |ref=harv to the {{cite book}}, something that is built in to {{citation}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that information, but what is the advantage of doing that?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
The advantage of changing {{citation}} to {{cite book}} is for consistency: previous to the bot edit, the article had one each of {{citation}}, {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}} and {{cite web}}, which is a ratio of 3:1 of {{cite xxx}} over {{citation}}, and you shouldn't mix the two styles in the same article.
The advantage of adding |ref=harv to a {{cite book}} is so that {{harvtxt}} will link to it. I now see that in Causality, {{harvtxt}} isn't actually used (nor are any other Harvard-group templates, or {{sfn}}), so the absence of |ref=harv isn't a problem. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I performed a test case and found that the bot does not add |ref=harv when converting from citation to cite xxx, even when there is a short footnote pointing to the reference, and even when other cite xxx templates in the article are using |ref=harv. This is a bug. A crude solution would be to always add |ref=harv. A fancy solution would be to detect whether there is a short footnote or parenthetical note pointing to what the anchor would be, and add the parameter when necessary. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
@Redrose, I do not understand the importance of using only one template on an article, but anyway, if it is important what would be wrong with just using citation templates on an article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I didn't say that only one template should be used. I hoped to say that only one style should be used. The three templates {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}} and {{cite web}} (collectively known as {{cite xxx}}) are all the same style (known as Help:Citation Style 1); {{citation}} is a different style, see Wikipedia:Citation templates#Introduction, first list, items 2 & 3. There is no harm in using {{citation}} exclusively, but if the article is already using the {{cite xxx}} templates, new citations should use those, or others in the same group.
The {{citation}} was introduced to that article with this edit, at a time when there were already one each of {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}} and {{cite web}}. Therefore, in the interests of WP:CITEVAR, the new reference should have used {{cite book}}, not {{citation}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Automated resolution of multiple title parameters deletes content

Automated resolution of multiple title parameters deletes content

Status
new bug
Reported by
Fifelfoo (talk) 23:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Type of bug
Deleterious
Actual / expected output
The bot selects one title as "authorative" where humans have incorrectly used title for chapter in book citations; this deletes vital citation content: the chapter of works cited in collection
The bot leaves multiple title parameters in book citations for manual resolution
We can't proceed until
Agreement on the best solution
Requested action from maintainer

Discussion

I have a hard enough time indicating to editors that chapters in collections need to be cited individually without this occurring where humans get it half right. This needs to be left for manual resolution. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

removing needed italics from journal article title

Status
new bug
Reported by
WolfmanSF (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Type of bug
Actual / expected output
We can't proceed until
Agreement on the best solution
Requested action from maintainer

Discussion


In this example, the bot removed the italics from the Latin species name Smilodon fatalis in a journal article title, which of course are appropriate and which are present in the actual title.

Amazon/asin

Hi

I just saw this edit by the CitationBot and wanted to know why the bot is removing access dates. I consider them very helpful if I want to verify when the information was obtained, since it could have changed in the mean time. --Maitch (talk) 13:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Ugh! Why was that using {{cite web}} instead of {{cite video}} anyhow? The idea of Amazon as a video "publisher" would be a scary one if it were accurate. But accessdates are for volatile urls, not for permalinks. An ASIN, like an ISBN, is supposed to describe exactly one edition. Do you have reason to think that isn't the case? LeadSongDog come howl! 15:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you mean. I did not write that article, but Amazon is sometimes used to prove that a DVD simply exists or to document a release date. That part of Amazon is not user edited and therefore can still be considered a RS. "Cape Feare" is a featured article that also uses Amazon as a source. --Maitch (talk) 23:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Malformed refs are made worse, not better

Malformed refs are made worse, not better

Status
new bug
Reported by
Redrose64 (talk) 19:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Type of bug
Inconvenience: Humans must occasionally make immediate edits to clean up after the bot
Actual / expected output
In attempting to combine named refs which happen to be malformed with one quote (not a pair) e.g. <ref name="socialnomics.net>...</ref>, two extra double quotes are introduced <ref name=""socialnomics.net" />, rather than just one <ref name="socialnomics.net" />
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_media&diff=456520570&oldid=456414698
We can't proceed until
Agreement on the best solution
Requested action from maintainer

Discussion

PMID 0

PMID 0

Status
new bug
Reported by
Rjwilmsi 07:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Type of bug
Inconvenience: Humans must occasionally make immediate edits to clean up after the bot
Actual / expected output
|pmid=0 inserted
don't set PMID if none available
Link
[38]
We can't proceed until
Agreement on the best solution
Requested action from maintainer

Discussion


Bad edit

Please stop making this edit. It adds nothing useful. When an editor has been reverted, they should not make the same edit again. The edit removes the italics from a scientific name, wrongly, and repeats two pieces of information (the issue number / page number in one instance – many online journals don't fully distinguish the two, and a DOI beginning 10.2307, when a JSTOR link is already included). --Stemonitis (talk) 10:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Citation bot autoimplements Harvard style?

Can someone explain why did the bot add "| ref =harv" to "cite journal" here? Materialscientist (talk) 12:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess Smith609 has taken note of the bug described in #Impairs function of Harvard and short citations and fixed it in a very simple way. I infer that if the bot has to change any {{citation}} to a {{cite xxx}} it sticks ref=harv into every template it touches on that run. Since in the diff provided by Materialscientist, the citation for the book by Neil Nodding was converted from citation to cite xxx, every template in that edit had ref=harv stuck in. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Please note that the addition of |ref=harv does not change the referencing style: all it does is to create an anchor to facilitate the linking of parenthetical refs or shortnotes, such parenthetical refs or shortnotes having already been created by means of templates in the {{harv}} family, including {{sfn}}. The {{citation}} template has a |ref=harv built in by default - the {{cite xxx}} family do not.
In the article Education, ref no. 42 is created using one of these templates: to be precise, <ref>{{Harvnb|Noddings|1995|pages=1–6}}</ref>. If you click on the bluelink in that ref, it doesn't go anywhere. You can reveal the broken link as a red error message by following the technique described at User:Ucucha/HarvErrors. The addition of |ref=harv to the {{cite book}} in ref 40 will fix that broken link. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I understand that. My point is the bot creates code clutter, and adding simple logical rules can prevent it from doing so. See, e.g., subsection "Author names again" above. With all the benefits the bot brings, I often resort to disabling it on long articles. Materialscientist (talk) 00:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Possible Error in Page Number

Status
new bug
Reported by
Jessemv (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Type of bug
Inconvenience
Actual / expected output
Bot filled missing information into a journal citation, but placed "111011113923008" as the page number. I have not been able to find this page number stated in journal places online, so I suspect it is some sort of parsing error. The number is excessive anyway, suggesting an invalid page number anyway.
Refrain from inserting this again. Instead leave alone or find correct page number.
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Folding%40home&action=historysubmit&diff=456679184&oldid=456637895 Search for the page number or "Line 245"
Replication instructions
I would suspect rerunning the bot through the Folding@home article would add back in this page number, as I have undone that particular work.
We can't proceed until
Bot operator's feedback on what is feasible
Requested action from maintainer
Please investigate the cause, possible making a special case to leave this particular journal citation alone. A better solution would be to have the bot find the correct page number and use that instead.

Discussion


Redirects

Status
new bug
Reported by
L888Y5 (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Type of bug
Actual / expected output
We can't proceed until
Agreement on the best solution
Requested action from maintainer

Discussion

You keep creating redirects to nonexistent templates. L888Y5 (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Uploads template at Template:cite doi/doi:10.foobar instead of Template:cite doi/10.foobar

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Cite_doi_templates&from=A . Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect change to lowercase

Incorrect change to lowercase

Status
{{resolved}}
Reported by
Crowsnest (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
ASME AES and ASME MTD are incorrectly changed to lowercase.
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dimensionless_quantity&diff=prev&oldid=456661910

Discussion

They need adding to the capitalization exclusion list. See User:Citation bot. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 19:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Citation bot is dead

does not expand

Shulgin, A. T.; Sargent, T.; Naranjo, C. (1967). "The Chemistry and Psychopharmacology of Nutmeg and of Several Related Phenylisopropylamines" (pdf). Psychopharmacology Bulletin 4 (3): 13. PMID 5615546.  edit

or cite doi any more. comes back with "the user account at toolserver.org expired" if click on "jump queue" 70.137.134.91 (talk) 09:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Gives error message

403: User account expired

The page you requested is hosted by the Toolserver user verisimilus, whose account has expired. Toolserver user accounts are automatically expired if the user is inactive for over six months. To prevent stale pages remaining accessible, we automatically block requests to expired content.

If you think you are receiving this page in error, or you have a question, please contact the owner of this document: verisimilus [at] toolserver [dot] org. (Please do not contact Toolserver administrators about this problem, as we cannot fix it—only the Toolserver account owner may renew their account.)

HTTP server at toolserver.org - ts-admins [at] toolserver [dot] org 70.137.134.91 (talk) 10:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I will second this -- I was trying to use the cite DOI template a few minutes ago, and it appears to be broken. Wingman4l7 (talk) 23:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, it seems that the bot did expand it, just not as soon as expected. Perhaps the toolserver account has been sorted? LeadSongDog come howl! 01:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Yip. Sorry: my home computer has been out of action for a while so I missed the chance to renew my account. All should be back in order now! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 01:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

Duplication of author names

Here. Search for "last2" to find the duplications. I thought the ampersand in the "author=" list tricked the bot; thus replaced ampersands and re-run, with the same result. The bot seems to misunderstand the "author=" field. Materialscientist (talk) 13:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The author parameter should only be used for a single author; see Template:Citation/doc. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 16:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

PHP page for bot not working for some reason

Status
{{resolved}}
Reported by
LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 19:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
doibot.php does not do anything when called on with parameters. i.e. [39] does not respond with anything, while [40] does for some reason
Link
http://toolserver.org/~verisimilus/Bot/citation-bot/doibot.php?edit=toolbar&slow=1&page=User%3ASmith609
Replication instructions
Just try accessing the link above. It does nothing.

Discussion


Oh, of COURSE its starts working as soon as I report the error. -_-' LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 20:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, back to it being a problem. I don't know what the problem is. I was trying to access http://toolserver.org/~verisimilus/Bot/citation-bot/doibot.php?edit=toolbar&slow=1&user=LikeLakers2&page=Michael_the_Brave, and I never had problems with it before that. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 20:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Strange: I haven't touched the bot for some time, and it works fine in some cases. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 17:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The specified link looks to be working fine now. Perhaps this was an intermittent server problem? Marked as resolved. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 15:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Documentation doesn't agree with bot action

Status
{{resolved}}
Reported by
Trappist the monk (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
Edit summary doesn't match §Reading the edit summaries
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Match&diff=460788893&oldid=460788059

Discussion

This edit summary from article Match 2011-11-15: [394]Add: issue, doi, pmid, pmc. Tweak: pages, url, title, issue, doi. | Innotata

Documentation is ALWAYS as important as the bot's functionality. Yeah, ok, I'm done ranting.

--Trappist the monk (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Change to documentation noted. Thanks. But...

  • Nothing (previously U) - Initiated by a user whose name is usually listed in the edit summary
  • by a user

Link goes to UCB disambiguation page. Is that where you want it to go?

--Trappist the monk (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Fixed; thanks. You are welcome to edit the page yourself, by the way! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 16:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Apparently improper converts to doi.

In trying to pare down the incomplete doi references page, I've run into a few places where the Citation bot has replaced a jstor.org link with an incorrect doi. These are

Any ideas on the fix?Naraht (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The errors all have the same general form. The input is a naked url of the form http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0008-4239(197412)7%3A4%3C738%3ASELRAT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-7 which links to an extant paper at JSTOR. It is being replaced by a malformed jstor link, as if the first four digits of the ISSN (in this case "0008") were the JSTOR stable id instead of the correct "3230592". LeadSongDog come howl! 19:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
A step in the right direction...Naraht (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
The bug is in the url2template function at line 631 of expandFns.php. The regular expression fails to recognize all types of JSTOR URLs. It could probably be fixed by changing the regex into something like "~jstor\.org/(?!sici).*[/=](\d+)~". However, ideally the bot should retrieve data from the SICI; not sure whether it already has code available that does that. Ucucha (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Should we use the bug template for that?Naraht (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the bot extracts info where it finds a SICI. I've implemented the suggested regexp modification: Fixed in r409 Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 15:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC) {{resolved}}

major content deletion

Status
{{resolved}}
Reported by
Kevin (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
tons of content was mysteriously deleted from a page, I'm unsure why/what triggered it/if it has occurred in other places
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hells_Angels&diff=470272680&oldid=469723734

Discussion

This was garbage-in-garbage-out. See the para containing "Fuerst", with its corrupted ref tag. We've previously discussed handling of mismatched markup tags, braces, etc, this looks like another example. LeadSongDog come howl! 23:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Colon remains

: remains

Status
Fixed in r 411
Reported by
Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 15:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
Colon remains
Colon removed
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burgess_Shale_type_preservation&action=historysubmit&diff=462909158&oldid=462908870

Discussion

Also: this citation should be expanded with a DOI: Kroger, B. (2007). "Early orthoceratoid cephalopods from the Argentine Precordillera". Journal of Palaeontology 81 (6): 1266–1283. 

Fixed in r412{{resolved}}

Citation becomes an odd page in the Template: namespace

Citation becomes an odd page in the Template: namespace

Status
{{resolved}}
Reported by
Teratornis (talk) 00:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
Citation bot evidently created a page in the Template: namespace containing wikitext from a citation that appears in several Wikipedia articles. I'm not sure which article Citation bot was editing at the time.
Link
Template:Cite doi/10.1093.2Feurpub.2Fckn139

Discussion

That's (a large part of) this bot's job. It generates a citation automatically from a database, and stores it on a Wikipedia page, so that multiple articles can easily reuse the same citation. In this case, {{cite doi|10.1093.2Feurpub.2Fckn139}} will produce the citation. Ucucha (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate reference false hit

Status
{{wontfix}}
Reported by
24.254.222.77 (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
This is from a few months back (29 September). In the [Comparison of regular expression engines] article, the bot deleted the definition text for a ref with note "Combined duplicate references" resulting in a cite error since it was not a duplicate.
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_regular_expression_engines&diff=453166257&oldid=453049398
Replication instructions
The ref was named "unicode optional 1" with spaces. An earlier ref was labeled "unicode_optional" underscores. Perhaps this combination triggered a false hit in the duplicate reference matching logic.

Discussion

The bot was confused by Template:R, which should not be mixed & matched with <ref> tags. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 17:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Citation deleted due to a stray newline?

I saw this revision on my watchlist. It corrected a dash issue in one citation, but deleted another citation. I don't know much about such things, but I'm guessing the bot was confused by an extra newline in the middle of the second one. Ntsimp (talk) 14:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The presence of newlines in the second one is not an error - newlines are perfectly valid in citation templates, provided that they don't occur partway along either: (i) the template name; (ii) a parameter name; or (iii) the value of a named parameter (named or unnamed). In this case the two newlines occur (i) between a parameter value and the pipe character which separates that parameter from the next, and (ii) between the }} which closes the template and the </ref> which closes the reference. Both of these are legal uses of newlines. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I said I didn't know much. So why did the bot delete a whole reference? Ntsimp (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

{{resolved}} - duplicate bug report

Reference Name Bug

(Moved to the end, added by User:Smith609) Reference name bug; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phosphatic_fossilization&diff=prev&oldid=470456980

OK, what's the problem? It changed the doi that was outside of a reference to being inside which strikes me as the correct thingto do.Naraht (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Apostrophe/single quote breaks wikilink

Apostrophe/single quote breaks wikilink

Status
Fixed in r410
Reported by
Devourer09 (t·c) 23:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
On the bot's output page the link that links back to the article just edited will be malformed if the article has a single quote/apostrophe in it.
The link should link to the proper article
Link
http://toolserver.org/~verisimilus/Bot/citation-bot/doibot.php?edit=toolbar&slow=1&user=Citation%20Bot&page=Northern_Ireland_Women's_Coalition
Replication instructions
Run the bot on an article with a single quote/apostrophe and click the link that links back the article in the output page.

Discussion


References removed

References removed

Status
Duplicate of #Deleted refs
Reported by
U+003F? 14:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
References removed from page
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Speed&action=historysubmit&diff=463295266&oldid=463294939

Discussion


Deleted refs

Status
Fixed in r413
Reported by
Renata (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
References are deleted. Not sure if that's an isolated incident or a more general issue.
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soviet%E2%80%93Lithuanian_Peace_Treaty&curid=8851057&diff=464750990&oldid=422822825

Discussion


It's the same issue as I reported above. Not an isolated incident, at least. U+003F?

This case looks a bit more subtle. Here it was evidently tripped up by citations that were duplicates except for page numbers. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Not quite; the cases also differed in |url= and |title=. I haven't been able to find the bot code that performs these changes; Citation bot's code is rather unstructured in my opinion. Ucucha (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Can you suggest resources that would help me to improve the structure? I've learned a lot since I started coding the bot but good structural practice is something that's hard to pick up intuitively. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 15:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
A lot of it is probably my personal preference and habit; I've written some similar code for my own use (most of it at [41]), and approached it differently. In your code, many of the files have non-intuitive names (e.g. DOItools.php has stuff that deals with much more than DOIs, expand.php isn't the only place where citations are expanded, and what it has to do with expandFns.php I'm not entirely sure). I think using objects (for example, to represent a single citation) would help, and avoiding some globals. You could also make blocks of code (files, classes, groups of methods, and soon traits) for related functionality (e.g., expanding DOIs, finding DOIs, dealing with fishy parameters, and whatever else the bot does). Ucucha (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
The bot stumbles very often on the {{reflist|refs= <ref></ref>}} referencing style, by deleting some references. I can provide at least several examples of that, a recent one here. Materialscientist (talk) 08:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
A typo meant that if the stem of a reference was the same as the name of another (e.g. "name=ref" and "name=ref_2"), the bot would spot the stem "ref" and mark the references as duplicates with the same name. This was the case in Germanium, and I've fixed this bug in r413. Do any of the examples you mention not conform to this pattern? (NB references aren't being deleted in Gary Speed in the latest build.)Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 16:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Articles on medical subjects

An editor -- SandyGeorgia -- complains of the edits made by the DOI bot. She says the bot edits do not follow the standard practice of editors of medical articles: "We don't use capital case in article titles on Wikipedia-- we use sentence case (which means we don't capitalize the words in the article titles). [Confirmed by WP:MOS, yet DOI bot is substituting capital case.] And, most medical articles use the Diberri format, which uses only one author field." Please advise. Fconaway (talk) 04:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:MOS is about articles, not citations. How to write citations is covered in WP:CITE. That guideline mostly says follow the established style in the article, and if the article relies on a particular printed style guide, follow it. This bot (Citation bot AKA DOI bot) only operates on citations that use citation templates. There is no manual of style for the citation templates, so there is no answer to your question. I suggest you either write a style manual for the citation templates or stop using them.
If you are the editor invoking Citation bot, you are responsible for the use. If the established style in an article is to use sentence-case capitalization for the title of citations, and Citation bot defies the established style in the article, stop using Citation bot, or fix the titles manually. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I would think the citation bot could assess existing use of |author= versus |last1=, and existing case in titles, and follow the existing conventions if present. I'm sure this would be helpful to and appreciated by wikiproject medicine and though it's not my code I wouldn't think it would be that difficult to implement. Rjwilmsi 20:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
It could guess; if existing titles have lots of capitals and the title to be added has few capitals, the bot could refuse to act, and vice versa. But the bot couldn't change the case of a title due to proper names and a few names that retain a lower case letter at the beginning, such as "iPod". Jc3s5h (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
It sounds as if the bot is taking the title value from CrossRef rather than from PubMed data. I would suggest that if a PMID is found, the PubMed data should be preferred over the CrossRef date, if only for its openness. That said, I don't think anyone will be terribly confused one way or the other by titlecase/sentencecase choices. Just so long as we don't inflict ALLCAPS TITLES on readers. LeadSongDog come howl! 23:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Is there any way of converting from Title Case to sentence case, whilst keeping proper nouns capitalized? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 17:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Corrupted journal number and journal title

Corrupted journal number and journal title based on bib code strange entry

Status
Fixed in r414
Reported by
WilliamKF (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
| volume = 6..

| journal = [Mount Hamilton? Calif.
| volume = 6 | journal = <nowiki>[Mount Hamilton? Calif., 1941]</nowiki>

Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicholas_Mayall&oldid=456560491

Discussion

The error was AdsAbs', but I've incorporated a fix in r414. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 17:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Handling angle brackets (greater than/less than)

I don't think the Citationbot is handling angles correctly. On Rubidium telluride, the {{cite doi|10.1002/1521-3773(20020802)41:15<2725::AID-ANIE2725>3.0.CO;2-G}} doesn't seem to get handled correctly, and yet, when I enter that doi at dx.doi.org, it doesn't seem to bat an eyelash. I've tried changing the angles to %3C and %3E but that doesn't seem to help. (Similar issues apparently at Jack D. Dunitz Any ideas?Naraht (talk) 11:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried using the character entity references, ie &lt; and &gt; --Redrose64 (talk) 12:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, dot-encoding (.3C and .3E) works, because citation bot anchorencodes the DOIs. Ucucha (talk) 13:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I try those techniques. (But if one of you wants to try first and let me know, go ahead. :) )Naraht (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Looks like both techniques would work. I tried changing one them to the lt; > with amper and that worked in the *preview* and was able to connect to the dot encoded version. Now how do we fix this disconnect and/or document it.Naraht (talk) 11:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that MediaWiki changed the Anchorencode parserfunction so that it removes anything contained within <>s. I've updated the bot accordingly but will have to work out how to go through the backlog. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 18:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

MD5 problems?

I've attempted to change two cite broken doi entries to cite doi and jump the queue. But I get "Edit may have failed. Retrying: xxx Still no good. One last try: Failed. Error code: BADMD5: The supplied MD5 hash was incorrect." after it seems to have gotten to the end. What's going on with that? (See http://toolserver.org/~verisimilus/Bot/DOI_bot/doibot.php?doi=10.1063%2F1.3633090 as an example) Naraht (talk) 03:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Investigating; and as a note to myself the capitalization of |last1= has gone a bit funny... Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 22:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

First and foremost - I have great respect to this bot and its operator.

Block summary: the bot was introducing minor changes, some of which were questionable and too many of which (IMHO) were hardly an improvement. The block is to initiate a dialogue with the person behind those edits. (If he/she does not show up, then I propose the bot operator makes the user identifiable).

Difs. Let us go from last edit back.

  • Surely there are many constructive edits.
  • Most edits bring infinitesimal changes, i.e. spamming watchlists. This is a minor issue and the proposal here is to see who initiated the edit (and engage into a friendly dialogue with them), and maybe amend the bot code not to save minor edits. Examples [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58], .. , this can go for pages.
    Bot edits can be hidden from watchlists using the option on Special:Watchlist or by navigating to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Watchlist&hideBots=1 Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 22:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Unconstructive or mixed (+/-) edits.
    • [59] [60] In some edits the bot corrects the article title (removes italics from species names) perhaps using some html reference, whereas the actual title uses italics (say, [61]).
      Fixed in r417 Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 22:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
    • More on titles: [62] the first bot-corrected ref is capped in the PMC, but not in the original [63]. The second ref title should contain Interleukin-21, not IL-21 (perhaps taken from erroneous PMC), same thing with the third bot-corrected title which should start with "The" per doi (doi is the primary link, pmc and pmid are derivatives). The issue is not about these changes, but about the bot algorithm of title correction. Materialscientist (talk) 06:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
      Here too the bot was overwriting user input with data from the PMC database. It should not have been. Fixed in r417 Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 22:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
    • [64] [65] [66]. These are examples of a need for human intervention, which has not happened (yet), thus my point of identifying the bot user.
      Not sure what you mean by 'bot user'; the bot runs automatically. In these cases the bot's edits did not alter what was displayed on the page. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 22:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
    • [67] [68] not a big deal, but why?
      A while ago we had a discussion about when ISSNs should be added and when they should be removed. If this information was added to the Cite Journal documentation, it has since been removed. The bot will accord with whatever the consensus is. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 22:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
    • [69]. This is perhaps my personal issue with the bot: it adds a behemoth '''|postscript=<!-- Bot inserted parameter. Either remove it; or change its value to "." for the cite to end in a ".", as necessary. -->{{inconsistent citations}}''' merely to say that a full stop is missing or excessive. Materialscientist (talk) 05:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
      Again, this solution was the result of protracted discussion on these pages. Feel free to resurrect this discussion if the solution is not to your taste. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 22:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Is this block not a bit harsh to initiate a discussion? Maybe I missed it, but did you try to discuss this first with the bot operator whether it would be possible to identify the editor requesting the edits, Materialscientist? And as far as I can see, most edits are minor, not 'null'-type. What do you think of as a 'minor' edit, is that not personal taste? --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, admittedly harsh, and admittedly biased (against some implementations in the bot algorithm). The trigger was tweaking the titles, which is apparently a minor bug needing a fix. The bot is very useful, but also makes controversial changes; it often tries to fix semi-broken code where human intervention is required. Given its high rate of edits, I do not believe the bot can operate autonomously at this stage. Materialscientist (talk) 05:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I think that if you check PMID 11830664 and PMID 17032458 you will see that the removal of the italics in the titles is based on the source, not a problem with the bot itself. You may prefer the CrossRef version to the PubMed version, but that's hardly an unambiguous or irreversible choice. If we at some point think that is the right preference, another bot run past the article would restore the italicised (CrossRef) version. We already ask this bot to do some very subtle things, let's not make it more failure prone by fussing over trivia such as watchlist spamming. Most of us see far less valuable "contributions" from human editors without batting an eyelash. LeadSongDog come howl! 06:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
There are a range of items here, from acceptable minor edits adding a correct |issue=, to errors in ISSN formatting, to a long-winded comment over a full stop (correct, but can the message be shorter?), to errors in title re-formatting. Which editor initiated the edits hardly seems relevant, these are bot code problems or improvements. I think it would be sensible that the bot temporarily disable all changes to casing/italics of titles, and a later discussion establishes what changes, if any, the bot could accurately make to titles. Can we establish a list of 'blocker' problems that need to be addressed for an unblock:
  • Changes to italics or casing of titles (also Wikiproject medicine concern)
  • Loss of |id= ISSN xxxxxxxx
  • use of |last1= etc. when the rest of the article uses |author= (also Wikiproject medicine concern)
would be three for me that would address a lot of the oustanding concerns. Rjwilmsi 08:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Per Rjwilmsi I'll sum up what I am not happy about (I am the blocker, but surely my suggestions need consensus and discussion.

  • Changing article titles: somewhat critical, not per changes themselves but per algorithm. In the examples above, the bot apparently took secondary source, ignoring the titles which were provided by a human editor and were correct per original source.
    Yes check.svg Done
  • Removal of id=ISSN: not crucial to me per se, but puzzling, as in some (very recent) edits the bot actually added ISSNs.
  • Author field: I am neutral to the use of "last"/"author" but strongly support reversal of the code to the point of not touching author fields truncated with et al. This is how the bot used to operate in a recent past, and too many articles still keep the author lists with et al. (not only medical convention). What happens now is the automatic operation of Citation bot 1 triggers changes to the article even if the only change is to expand et al. lists.
    Please explain how the bot modifies the parsed output in these cases (save the addition of metadata). Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 22:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Saving minor changes. The user can not predict the changes the bot will bring to the article, thus I propose the bot does not save changes which are "too minor". Before defining "too minor" I suggest the following: the bot operates in a mode similar to the interactive reflinks mode: i.e. the user manually saves the changes proposed by the bot (and thus takes responsibility :-).
    This can be done using the 'citation expander' gadget available through Special:UserPreferences. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 22:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Last point: I've blocked Citation bot 1 (talk · contribs) which was running automatically, at a significantly high rate. Citation bot (talk · contribs) is not blocked, and the crucial difference Citation bot is manually activated. This leaves username and hope that the user checked the bot edits. Materialscientist (talk) 09:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Article titles maybe should be left alone, or stripped of all formatting and then checked whether they are correct (and then still). Only fill in when empty?
  • ISSN one is indeed a bit puzzling .. but should the ISSN not be in an ISSN-field, and maybe id is deprecated?
  • I don't mind et al.-lists, but I would prefer that the bot expands them, and IMHO preferably into forms where the names of the authors are (were available) the same as the on-wiki pagenames (or redirects thereto). Even if that is the only change to the article, I prefer the full-credit and since Wikipedia is turning more into a research tool, at some point we may want to be able to have a neat trick so we can search for all articles which have articles by Dr. J. Doe cited (I know, some get excessively wrong, but then the template should impose 'et al.').
  • There are many users who will also save those minor changes. I think that would be detriment to the function of the bot, is adding only one pagenumber a minor edit .. it may be just adding a '1' to one empty parameter??
  • Let me get this clear, Citation bot is the one that is user-operated, and Citation bot 1 is doing essentially the same, but 'chooses its own articles'/works from a list?
Still I don't think this is worth blocking over. Was discussion with the bot-owner about these issues tried before blocking? --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The two cases of removed ISSN mentioned (above numbered as 36 and 37) were of ISSN 1524-7848 and ISSN 0820-4217. In both these cases, the serial title found on WorldCat varies from that provided by the human editor. The short titles provided by the human editors were ambiguous as well. Perhaps a better result would have been the application of a tag such as {{dubious}} to attract human attention, but removing the conflicting ISSN seems pretty reasonable to me in that circumstance. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The |id= field is not deprecated, but it is preferred not to use this when another param is designed specifically for the task. {{citation}} and {{cite journal}} both have an |issn= parameter, as do {{cite book}}, {{cite encyclopedia}} and others, although it's not documented on all of them. Where such parameter exists, the use of |issn=0123-4567 is preferable to |id={{ISSN|0123-4567}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. The template /doc needs some cleanup on this to clarify all the identifiers that are directly supported vice the ones that need to go via the |id= parameter. I discovered this morning that id={{OL|123456M}} can be replaced by |ol=123456M, and there are likely others not documented.LeadSongDog come howl! 16:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I have been working this. The Citation Style 1 template documentation pages vary from minor to major points. I created {{Citation Style documentation}} to create the doc pages in consistent chunks. I have more work to do before I want to deploy it, mainly in making it a bit easier to edit. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 18:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
With regard to the behemoth postscript, User_talk:Citation_bot/Archive1#Postscript_period_when_converting_citation_to_cite_journal and User_talk:Citation_bot/Archive_1#Postscript pertain. I'm not sure if the fixes discussed there were correctly implemented, but it certainly seems like the first one (just remove the excess period following the template instead) could be. While the amalgamation of the various cite and citation template /doc pages was a good choice, it introduced some confusion that still needs more sorting out.
With regard to the et al., the bot can hardly be expected to implement a stylistic choice that hasn't been made. If editors care about this, the best approach is to use the |display-authors=3 (or whatever value they like), so the metadata can attribute up to ten authors without the template imposing them all against editors' stylistic choice. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
There were voices for and against et al. expansion, but consider this: in the past, the user could control this option by adding or removing et al. Now the bot will "ignore" (in the code, the article display is kept) user input in this field. As a result, some scientific article become really hard to edit because their code is swamped by ref. code. My proposal to the bot is simply to be more flexible. Materialscientist (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Re issn, I believe that this information is almost always redundant and useless for publications for which more accurate identifiers (doi etc) are available. Issn only tells you what journal it is, doi tells you the specific article. But probably actual removal of issns is the sort of editorial decision that should be done by humans not bots. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

(butting in). Fully agree on redundancy of issn when there is doi/pmid/jstor/or alike, but, there are many legitimate links which don't have those and where the journal is hard to locate, especially good old, yet discontinued journals. Materialscientist (talk) 03:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
So how would you suggest the bot should handle the specific mismatches in the examples above, David? Flag them for human action? LeadSongDog come howl! 17:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
You mean like here? Why do you think it's necessary that the bot do anything in this case? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
That's a good example. I doubt the bot would correctly have processed that malformed input, but it should have gotten attention long ago:

{{ cite journal | author=Zalivako, Anke | title=A Critique of the Preservation of Moscow's Planetarium | url=http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/future_anterior/v005/5.1.zalivako.pdf | journal=Future Anterior | year=2008 | volume=5 | issue=1 | id=ISSN 1549-7915 (print), ISSN 1934-6026 (online) }} rendered Zalivako, Anke (2008). "A Critique of the Preservation of Moscow's Planetarium". Future Anterior 5 (1). ISSN 1549-7915 (print), ISSN 1934-6026 (online). 

Should probably have been just:

{{ cite journal | author=Zalivako, Anke | title=A Critique of the Preservation of Moscow's Planetarium | url=http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/future_anterior/v005/5.1.zalivako.pdf | journal=Future Anterior | year=2008 | volume=5 | issue=1 | issn=1934-6026 }} rendered Zalivako, Anke (2008). "A Critique of the Preservation of Moscow's Planetarium". Future Anterior 5 (1). ISSN 1934-6026. 

(this is a bit troublesome as the p-ISSN isn't found on worldcat while the e-ISSN is, both are valid, and the template doesn't take an |e-issn= parameter, hence human intervention would clearly have been better) LeadSongDog come howl! 14:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Action from maintainer

Is there anything outstanding that requires my attention before the bot is resumed? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 22:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for replies and fixes. Sorry if some of the issues were discussed/decided before (I understand you follow the developed consensus), but I would rather launch (new) straw polls. Materialscientist (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

ASINs truncated resulting in a broken link

ASINs truncated resulting in a broken link

Status
Fixed in r420 although RedRose offers a better solution. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 15:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Reported by
Allen4names 01:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
The ASINs 159116401X and 159116415X were truncated to 159116401 and 159116415
Link
diff

Discussion

I note that these ASINs are identical to the ISBN-10s of the books concerned; in the ISBN-10 system, X is a valid character in position 10. So, instead of using |asin=159116401X and |asin=159116415X, use |isbn=159116401X and |isbn=159116415X - by using ISBN, library catalogues may be linked as well as Amazon, rather than directing people to one specific supplier. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I added a note on this to the meta-documentation I am developing; see Template:Citation Style documentation#id2. Please review and comment. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Redrose, ISBNs should not be used as a substitute for ASINs in references because it is the Amazon.com page being referenced not the book. If you want to continue this discussion do so at Talk:List of Neon Genesis Evangelion chapters and leave a {{Please see}} on my talk page. – Allen4names 05:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

what is it doing?

Reverting good edits/"combining" non-existent refs

Status
new bug
Reported by
SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Type of bug
Deleterious
Actual / expected output
Really weird edits
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeffrey_R._Immelt&diff=prev&oldid=473364977 - reverted my good edit, did nothing terribly useful to refs -- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ecce_Ancilla_Domini&diff=prev&oldid=473365495 - combined two empty refs
We can't proceed until
Agreement on the best solution
Requested action from maintainer

Discussion

The bot has joined the Democrats :-D. Just a hunch, the replication lag is high for the past few days, i.e. some databases are not catching up. Materialscientist (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Looks like two independent issues. The first one (Immelt) looks like a race condition, which we've seen before. The bot should be noting the pre-run version number. After saving a new version, it should check the history. If there has been an intervening version saved by another user, it should self-undo, delay a few minutes, then run again fresh. The second one's simpler. Empty refs should simply be deleted, not combined.LeadSongDog come howl! 15:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Bot mixes up books and journal articles

Bot mixes up books and journal articles

Status
new bug
Reported by
Crowsnest (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Type of bug
Inconvenience
Actual / expected output
In the two instances shown in the diff, the bot mistakenly interprets the entries as journal articles instead of the books (which they are), and starts modifying the entries erroneously.
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ACrowsnest%2FWork3&diff=prev&oldid=475846347
We can't proceed until
Agreement on the best solution
Requested action from maintainer

Discussion

Bug

Removes URL on malformed reference

Status
new bug
Reported by
Mattg82 (talk) 23:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Type of bug
Deleterious
Actual / expected output
Removes URL on malformed reference.
add |url= and if possible |title= and don't use |isbn= as it isn't a book
Link
link
We can't proceed until
Agreement on the best solution
Requested action from maintainer

Discussion

I can't blame the bot for not fixing that correctly, but I don't think it should be finding an ISBN there. The check on line 1190 of Citation bot's DOItools.php seems to assume that any 10- or 13-digit number is an ISBN, which is risky. However, I think the bug that led to this problem is in the first part of the regex there, which has (?!< instead of the correct <code(?<! for the lookbehind. Ucucha (talk) 23:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The presumed ISBN isn't even valid. It seems obvious that the bot ought to verify them before adding them. Looks like two distinct problems to be fixed.LeadSongDog come howl! 02:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Finding duplicate "cite doi" templates in an article

Is there a tool or another way to find duplicate uses of the same "cite doi" reference in an article? Preferably a particular "cite doi" template should only be used once in an article and other references to the same source should use "ref name" and link to only one "cite doi" template. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 11:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Poll2

The bot is altered to remove ISSN if a solid link (doi/pmid/pmc/jstor) is present and not remove ISSN otherwise. (Correct me if I missed a "solid link" type.)

Poll3

The bot is altered to leave the author field untouched if it contains "et al". (Just a matter of flexibility - an editor can always remove et al and rerun the bot.)

JSTOR doi encoding again

JSTOR not retrieving properly in individual case

Status
new bug
Reported by
Tom Morris (talk) 10:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Type of bug
inconvenience
Actual / expected output
I'm attempting to cite this paper on JSTOR in the article Coherentism. I used {{Cite jstor}} but when I hit "jump the queue", it cannot actually retrieve the metadata from JSTOR.
It should retrieve the citation from JSTOR.
Link
here
Replication instructions
see above (I've expanded it manually now)
We can't proceed until
Agreement on the best solution
Requested action from maintainer

Discussion

Well, following that link, the bot says that JSTOR didn't find the doi. The whole question of how those things should be encoded still seems buggy or badly explained. When should it be percent-encoded, when dot-encoded, when just plain? Further, the JSTOR doi should not be a substitute for the original publisher's doi, it should only be used when there is no publisher's doi available. In this case Springer has a munged PII-as-DOI that should be turned up on Crossref: doi:10.1007/s11229-006-9062-8
All in all, a pretty fine mess. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I didn't think there were supposed to be papers with both a DOI resolving to JSTOR and a publisher DOI going elsewhere (obviously paper with JSTOR ID and publisher DOI fine)? Rjwilmsi 18:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Right. The problem may be that the publisher DOI was not found, so the JSTOR DOI was used. Really though, what is the value of using the JSTOR DOI vice the JSTOR ID and corresponding url? So far as I can see, it just confuses matters. We should just leave the DOI for the publisher. Let the reader decide if xhe wants one or the other. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
There are many papers with both a JSTOR doi and a publisher doi, since in many cases JSTOR indexes journals for which recent issues are also available from the publisher. As LeadSongDog says, it makes sense in that case to have the JSTOR id and the publisher doi—the JSTOR doi doesn't add anything. Ucucha (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
As a humanities guy, I tend to not worry about DOIs. In philosophy, the vast majority of sources are book sources, and the papers tend to just supplement the books. Given this, I don't really worry too much about the DOI, and just use JSTOR URLs for my private research. I use {{Cite jstor}} because I can simply find the paper on JSTOR, copy the segment of the URL with the JSTOR ID and then paste it in. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

example of bot-mangled list of authors

Status
new bug
Reported by
Decstop (talk) 01:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Type of bug
Deleterious: Human-input data is deleted or articles are otherwise significantly affected. Many bot edits require undoing.
Actual / expected output
mangles list of authors, requires human intervention to correct
Link
[70]
Replication instructions
unknown
We can't proceed until
Agreement on the best solution
Requested action from maintainer

Discussion

This is a late report on an edit last October. Is the issue simply the change from spelled-out firstnames to initials? The current version still does that. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Don't really see what's the problem with that link of yours LeadSongDog. All the bot did was remove unused and useless parameters (bunch of empty |author#=). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps it was this earlier edit by Citationbot3 in 2009 that was the issue? I don't really see it as a problem either. After all, the full names are still available from crossref if they are wanted. LeadSongDog come howl! 06:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear enough - the bot appears to have made a number of successive edits over the past few months, getting the first and last names of five authors mixed up and at one point splitting up the names into 6 sets of first = and last =. Need to review all the change log for all the edits to really see what's going on. See [71], [72], [73], [74] The original list of five authors, manually entered by G716, was changed by the bot to a list of 6, incorrect, authors Decstop (talk) 06:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Now I see. In this edit back in 2009 the bot tried to parse "author = Paul Cowpertwait, Graeme Wake, Robert D. Anderson, Howard Edwards, and Shayle Searle", but got it very wrong, confusing first and last names. The later edits eventually fixed it, so that the current rev displays as "Cowpertwait, P.; Wake, G.; Anderson, R. D.; Edwards, H.; Searle, S."

All the same, this is yet another example of why hiding content in unwatched template subpages is a bad idea. LeadSongDog come howl! 07:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Poll1

The bot is altered not to add "|postscript=<!-- Bot inserted parameter. Either remove it; or change its value to "." for the cite to end in a ".", as necessary. -->{{inconsistent citations}}" to citation templates. (Better solution is welcome, but as a separate thread).

  • Support Materialscientist (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless meaningful reasons to deviate from existing consensus are demonstrated. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 02:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd wish for a less horrible message, but that is no reason to block the bot over. Personally, I would prefer for the bot to determine whether to add or remove that ".", and then add or remove it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Bad uploads locations [again]

I just did my semi-annual round up of crap cite doi templates. Turns out there's a lot, so I made a BOTREQ to clean things up. See Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 46#Citation Bot cleanup.

IMO, Citation Bot really should check for the input matching '10.Foobar' before doing anything else. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Cite|PMID templates not being filled in

Hey there, I noticed that a number of {{Cite|PMID}} templates were not being filled in on some gene pages, such as this one, which was created in January. I've pushed a few of them manually (through the 'jump the queue' button), but I was wondering if automatic completion would be restored at some point. Thanks for the awesome utility- it's a huge help! Pleiotrope (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Tweak URL error involving the pipe "|" character

Tweak URL error involving the pipe "|" character

Status
new bug
Reported by
Allen4names 17:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Type of bug
Inconvenience: Humans must occasionally make immediate edits to clean up after the bot
Actual / expected output
The pipe character "|" gets replaced by "%7C" when there are two pipe characters at the end of the URL.
The extra pipe character should be removed.
Link
[75]
Replication instructions
Have a URL with an extra pipe character added at the end.
We can't proceed until
Agreement on the best solution
Requested action from maintainer

Discussion

Bot needed to get ISBNs

I posted this over at Wikipedia:Bot requests:

{{cite doi}}, {{cite pmid}} etc are nice ways of adding references and I see the need for a {{cite ISBN}}/{{cite isbn}}. Books are frequently cited in articles and most new books and most books published in the past 20-30 years have an ISBN. Adding book citations by hand is tedious and some of the citation tools are sporadic in operation or are a little "fiddly". I would like to have a {{cite ISBN}} template created and then a bot goes off to find the biblio data to build a reference along the same lines as what happens with {{cite doi}}. There are concerns about availability of ISBN data in the quantities that would be used by WP, however WorldCat allows up to 1000 ISBN queries per day with other options available. That may be sufficient for WP needs. The citation templates would then be placed in a Category:Cite ISBN templates similar to Category:Cite doi templates, Category:Cite pmid templates etc.

I am told that this is your dept. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

In the meanwhile, there's nothing wrong with {{cite book}}, which will get pretty much the same result without creating yet another unwatched template subpage. Initially (before bot improvement populates it) that would look like:
The bot seems not to look up the isbn, though. Even if worldcat limits search frequency,

Hi, i just created the template {{cite isbn}} for the purpose of synchronization of citations on different pages. I suppose i could add the openlibrary link to the fill-out form. Although not perfect, this would ease the creation of new references. BR84 (talk) 18:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Bad authors from arxiv database

Status
new bug
Reported by
Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Type of bug
Inconvenience/Improvement
Actual / expected output
Doesn't correctly add authors from arXiv database. It seems to add |lastn= as |authorn=.
The bot should fill |lastn= and |firstn=.
Link
[78]
We can't proceed until
Agreement on the best solution
Requested action from maintainer

Discussion

I've seen this happen millions of time, it always annoyed me. Can't really say why I didn't bother to report it until now. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Similar things seem to happen for the bibcode database. It uses |author1= instead of |last1=, but gets all |firstn= and all other |lastn= correctly. [79]. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Added a PubMed id of zero

Added a PubMed id of zero

Status
new bug
Reported by
ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Type of bug
Inconvenience
Actual / expected output
The bot added a 0 (zero) to an empty pmid field in a {{cite journal}}
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mestranol%2Fnorethynodrel&diff=prev&oldid=482590017
We can't proceed until
Agreement on the best solution
Requested action from maintainer

Discussion

This is one of those weird cases where content is in PMC but not Pubmed. A check finds no pmid and presumably returns 0 rather than null. Clearly the bot should not use this as output unless the template expects 0 as a special case.LeadSongDog come howl! 21:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

New type of Bogus DOI's appearing

New type of Bogus DOI's appearing

Status
new bug
Reported by
AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Type of bug
Inconvenience
Actual / expected output
People seem to now be pasting DOI's like this alot: {{cite journal|doi= doi:10.1017/S175569100900704X}}
We can't proceed until
Agreement on the best solution
Requested action from maintainer
Clean up these DOI's automatically (ie remove the doi:)

Discussion

Unusual date of publication causes problems

Had to edit Template:Cite pmid/20301430 by hand to correct publication date. PubMed says "1993-2006 Jul 31 [updated 2010 Nov 02]". -- Richiez (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Removing citations within footnotes

Citation bot removes citations within footnotes

Status
new bug
Reported by
Colin°Talk 07:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Type of bug
Deleterious: Human-input data is deleted or articles are otherwise significantly affected. Many bot edits require undoing.
Actual / expected output
The ketogenic diet article has footnotes (notes) and reference citations. Some of the footnotes have reference citations. These were removed by the bot.
It should leave citations within footnotes alone. Since it probably can't tell the difference between a reference footnote and a note footnote, this "feature" should probably be disabled.
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ketogenic_diet&diff=489097410&oldid=483500235
We can't proceed until
Agreement on the best solution
Requested action from maintainer

Discussion

KBrainbridge edits

Hi, wondering about Special:Contributions/KBrainbridge. Either this are all good faith edits then hopefully the bot could do them or something strange is going on? 21:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the journal has moved to a new publisher. This demonstrates the advantage of DOIs over URLs. My opinion is that using the bot to edit URLs risks overriding deliberate user intention, so wouldn't be a good idea. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 13:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

merging refs

Status
new bug
Reported by
mabdul 12:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Type of bug
Improvement: The bot would be much better if the bot would also check for existing merges like in that edit amde by me after the bot was activated by me.
Actual / expected output
missed to combine a ref
Link
see above
Replication instructions
see above
We can't proceed until
Agreement on the best solution
Requested action from maintainer
check for bare urls and existing refs using citation templates/non linkrot urls and combine them

Discussion

PMC jump the queue does not work

PMC jump the queue does not work

Status
{{Resolved}}
Reported by
AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
on pages like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_deprivation when you click jump the queue on PMC 353042, the bot runs and then complains that the cite PMC is a redirect so it does not edit. But, the redirect is to Template:Cite pmid/ with no number at all. Try it: {{Cite pmc | 353042 }}

Discussion

I'd suggest avoiding {{Cite pmc}}, it's pretty much an unused orphan. If all you have is a pmc, try {{Cite journal}} with parameter |pmc= instead. Will propose deleting.LeadSongDog come howl! 18:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

How about having the bot automatically blow away all {{Cite pmc}} references and convert them to {{Cite pmid}}, {{Cite doi}}, or {{Cite journal}}.

There are almost no pages using that template: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Cite_pmc&limit=500

This template has been deleted - Bug closed. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Creating redirects to nonexistent pages

Creating redirects to nonexistent pages

Status
{{Resolved}}
Reported by
Night Ranger (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
The bot seems to be repeatedly creating redirects to nonexistent templates/pages. I tagged several of these for speedy yesterday and it looks like there are now more.
Please resolve the bug
Link
[80]

Discussion

This is same as #PMC Bug above. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Cite pmc emplate deleted. Closing bug. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

403: User account expired

403: User account expired

Status
{{Resolved}}
Reported by
JJJ (talk) 01:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
The bot does not initialize
Replication instructions
"The page you requested is hosted by the Toolserver user verisimilus, whose account has expired. Toolserver user accounts are automatically expired if the user is inactive for over six months. To prevent stale pages remaining accessible, we automatically block requests to expired content...If you think you are receiving this page in error, or you have a question, please contact the owner of this document: verisimilus [at] toolserver [dot] org. (Please do not contact Toolserver administrators about this problem, as we cannot fix it—only the Toolserver account owner may renew their account.)"

Discussion

The account must be renewed before the bot will be operable again. JJJ (talk) 01:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

this is a recurring problem. someone should find a way to keep the account from becoming inactive or apply for an exception to this rule.  —Chris Capoccia TC 21:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
All sorts of things stop working. I understand toolservers policy, but this account is not exactly a "here today, gone tomorrow" account. It would be nice if they emailed the person in charge a week before at least. That would keep us from singing the blues. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree. This type of service should never expire. I have used this bot on thousands of edits. We should contact them about this. Or, does anyone know of another *nix toolsever hosting service? --Thorwald (talk) 05:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
The username on the toolserver account is versimilus, but that user now uses a different account on Wikipedia, Smith609. Perhaps because of the 'name-change', the versimilus toolserver account isn't checked as frequently. The Wikipedia user account redirects to the new account, but the toolserver account possibly has no way to 'redirect' to the new account and the name on the account (possibly) cannot be changed, so continuously checking this account registered to the old username could be a hassle. -- JJJ (talk) 07:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Martin is aware of the issue. Realistically, it's simpler for him to just set a calendar reminder to renew rather than to change toolserver account policies.LeadSongDog come howl! 14:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
As of now, the bot is still blocked. What's the estimated time to get this reinstated? --Mblumber (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
These things take time. Human time and computer time. Last time it took several days for Mr. Citation to contact them, and for them to act. So, I felt a great disturbance in the Wiki, as if a thousand citations cried out in horror and were suddenly silenced. :-) He knows and it will get done when it gets done. Nagging won't help. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It is alive. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

LCCN template suggestion

LCCN template

Status
{{wontfix}}
Reported by
AManWithNoPlan (talk) 22:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
LCCN should be cleaned up. All LCCN's should not have | in them. For example, change {{LCCN|27||1234}} to {{LCCN|271234}}
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_using_legacy_format_in_Template:LCCN

Discussion

Malformated accessdate further mangled

{{wontfix}} At http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cato_Institute&diff=500664442&oldid=500661433 , the bot changed the string "|Retrieved November 12, 2007" into "|year=2007|unused_date=Retrieved November 12". I fixed it to "|accessdate = November 12, 2007", but I don't see how that raw year should be interpreted as "year=", especially on a {{cite web}}. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It was |unused_data=, not |unused_date=. None of the citation templates use positional parameters - they all use named parameters exclusively - so when the bot encounters information in a positional parameter it attempts to put it into the best named parameter. Anything that can't be so assigned ends up in |unused_data= for a manual fix later on. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

PMC Bug

PMC template Bug

Status
{{resolved}}
Reported by
174.56.57.138 (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
the bot is redirecting templates to a non-existing template
the bot should not be breaking citations
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ACite_pmc%2F1632361&diff=485417413&oldid=380860900

Discussion

This makes the PMC bug a couple of bugs above not work-around-able.

Template cite pmc is deleted. Bug no longer relevant. Closing. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 20:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The bot is still making these pages. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cite_pmc/344826&action=history AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Removing a non-duplicate reference

Discussion

I assume the bot went wrong because the reference's name was either a short or a long version of another reference's name (ARana vs. ARanard and AR), but that wouldn't fully explain its behaviour. For now the bot has stopped removing the reference. Huon (talk) 03:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It's odd to have multiple named references to the same book at different pages. Such cases are what {{sfn}} is for.LeadSongDog come howl! 05:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
If the article evolved with references to different sources, and then one source is used twice with different pages, it would be understandable that the editor who added the twice-cited source didn't want to bother and go through the whole article and convert it to short footnotes. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
In this case, it's still at wp:Articles for creation. It's only got a few sources. Several pages in Arana are cited, not just two.LeadSongDog come howl! 13:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree the references could be simplified, but that's no reason for the bot to remove one of them. I expect the user who wrote the draft was not aware of {{sfn}}. Huon (talk) 14:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
LeadSongDog just switched to Harvard referencing. The bot still removes this reference. I'll try renaming it, maybe that will help. Huon (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I cannot replicate this. {{resolved}} Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 08:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Cite pmc

Cite pmc

Status
{{resolved}}
Reported by
Paul A (talk) 06:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
Citation bot creates a new instance of the deleted "Cite pmc" template, causing a red link and requiring cleanup.
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biotin&diff=500349443&oldid=498181102

Discussion

The offending PMC value PMC2726758 has a corresponding PMID, so if possible, the Bot should do a PMID lookup and generate a cite PMID template. Some older PMC values may only have the PDF, without a matching PMID entry. RDBrown (talk) 08:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

This bug is still present. Here is another instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mental_disorder&diff=506845207&oldid=503912969Paul A (talk) 08:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC) And again: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radiology&diff=507543374&oldid=507137154Paul A (talk) 01:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that {{cite pmc}} template was deprecated for a long time and is now deleted: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_21#Template:Cite_pmc. See also earlier entries on this page. Most PMC articles have a DOI and are also listed on PubMed, so you are able to use {{cite doi}} and {{cite pmid}} templates. kashmiri 09:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
The template seems to have been deleted by someone who didn't understand how it worked. I've restored it. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 07:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Bad handling of authors in cite arxiv

Bad handling of authors in cite arxiv

Status
Fixed in r 421
Reported by
Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
Authors are not handled correctly
The same handling of authors as in the {{cite xxx}} or {{citation}} family.
Link
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BD-08%C2%B02823_b&diff=504988246&oldid=504988131

Discussion

{{resolved}}

Incorrect hyphenation of pages

Incorrect hyphenation of pages

Status
Fixed in r423
Reported by
Jc3s5h (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
Hyphenated pages like C-12, which are a single page number, are changed to use an n-dash, like C–12.
Do not modify any page number(s) that contain anything except numerals and a hyphen.
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pound_%28mass%29&diff=507667446&oldid=507666205

Discussion

{{resolved}}

JSTOR

JSTOR not working

Status
{{wontfix}}
Reported by
AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
JSTOR's don't get expanded
Replication instructions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pages_with_incomplete_JSTOR_references is getting bigger all the time

Discussion

jstor refs also don't get expanded if the doi is used instead of the jstor parameter.  —Chris Capoccia TC 13:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Must be a problem with the JSTOR API. I'll investigate. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 08:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
JSTOR's API seems to be down. I'm following this up with JSTOR. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 07:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Here's the response from JSTOR:
Thanks for your message. The JSTOR API has been taken down for the time being. There are currently no plans for when this interface may be available again. Apologies for any inconvenience caused here.
Face-sad.svg Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 19:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Cite isbn

cite isbn

Status
{{wontfix}}
Reported by
someone
Actual / expected output
cite isbn appeared
cite isbn should just work

Discussion


This seems like the place to bring up this question, but if not I'd appreciate someone directing me to where would be a good spot. A {{cite isbn}} template was created not that long ago but it seems to lack the automated process that {{cite doi}} has (I think that is this bot). Is there a way to get this template added to the automated process? I'd be willing to help work on it, but I have no experience with bots so would at the very least greatly appreciate guidance. Zfeinst (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Please don't go there. The template {{cite isbn|0836221192}} (which renders:
Adams, Scott (1996). Fugitive from the Cubicle Police. Kansas City, Missouri: Andrews and McMeel. ISBN 978-0-8362-2119-0. LCCN 96084103.  edit )
doesn't add anything to {{cite book|isbn=0836221192}} which renders as
. ISBN 0836221192.  Missing or empty |title= (help), and introduces all the same problems that {{cite doi}} et al. bring. The subpages, isolated from the articles which transclude them, do not adapt to the citation format in the article. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Zfeinst:I don't know why yoou added this to the bot-filled templates, as it is not bot-filled.
LeadSongDog: The template documentation is wrong and the template is rather borked. When you use {{cite isbn|0836221192}}, it shows as Adams, Scott (1996). Fugitive from the Cubicle Police. Kansas City, Missouri: Andrews and McMeel. ISBN 978-0-8362-2119-0. LCCN 96084103.  edit with the edit link because the subtemplate does not exist until you edit it. If you do use an existing subtemplate, then {{cite isbn|978067144133}} shows as Wrong format. 978067144133 Number must have 10 or 13 digits. (now: 12 digits) because the template requires a /, thus {{cite isbn/978067144133}} shows as Rhodes, Richard (1986). The Making of the Atomic Bomb. New York: Simon and Schuster. ISBN 0671441337. . But if you use a slash in the non-existing template {{cite isbn/0836221192}}, it shows as Template:Cite isbn/0836221192. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 17:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
At the time I added it I thought it was bot-filled, have just undid my edit there. My bad, thanks for pointing that out.Zfeinst (talk) 17:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I have made minimal changes to enhance the usefulness of this: optional page, pages and ref parameters are now passed to the subpage. The first two existing subpages and the preload definition are updated to support these parameters. Please see the new testcases, and sandbox for testing any further updates.
We will also need a year suffix parameter for 1996b etc in articles. I am thinking of |ys= to define the "b" etc, since the value will nearly always be a single letter there doesn't seem much point in making the name long. Thinking further: the user has to know the year anyway to decide on the suffix, it will make the article source clearer to define the year-plus-suffix together, thus just passing through the year parameter will be better. Usage in the subpages would be, for example, |year={{{year|1996}}} . (updated Mirokado (talk) 09:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC))
The first subpage Template:Cite isbn/978006039436 illustrates some of the confusion which could arise if care is not taken with these templates: the subpage name has one isbn but the cite book definition uses a different one. We need to decide how to correct this: which isbn did the book being referred to have?
I think we should be providing hyphenated 13-digit isbns in the citation definition for MOS conformance (at least the 13-digits) and general readability. --Mirokado (talk) 23:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I have finished "messing about" for a while now... The testcases page is working as expected and I'm happy with the support for four article-specific parameters:
  • |ref= and |year= needed particularly for articles using Harvard style (supporting year tidily required rather more extensive changes than I had at first expected)
  • |page= and |pages= for single citations with a page range.
Comments of course welcome... --Mirokado (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
While ISBN-13 should always be preferred to ISBN-10, it can always be computed from the ISBN-10, so it doesn't matter too much, so long as what is given is correct. The hyphenation is not based on a fixed pattern. Different ISBNs are hyphenated differently, so the templates and the bot should not fidget with hyphenation unless it is looked up from an authoritative reference.
I hate to harp on this, but again, it is better not to use these subpage templates at all. They cause no end of problems, even if they work as intended. They can't adapt to {{usedmy}} or {{usemdy}}. Indeed, they don't adapt to any article-specific formatting conventions. The bot should replace any transclusion instances in articlespace with equivalent {{citation}} or {{cite book}} (as appropriate) once the data has been populated. Then article editors can tweak format as necessary without it spilling over into other articles' formats. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. Certainly there will be articles for which the subpage templates are not suitable. The ones generating {{cite journal}} work quite well (for articles using cs1 style) as they rarely contain dmy/mdy/iso dates which would not suit all articles, a doi or pmid identifies a unique object, and it is at least arguable that a particular name, initials format for journal article authors can coexist with something else for web pages, books etc. The book citations I have seen also overwhelmingly contain just year so date formats should not be an insuperable problem.
More problematic is the fact that an isbn does not uniquely identify an object and its page ranges. I am thinking about that issue, which of course almost certainly affects some articles for which different editors have referred to different editions of a book without adding separate citation definitions. This also means that, I agree, a bot is not really suitable except perhaps for post facto tidying up.
I would quite like to see how far we can get with this template but I will not be using it at all on real articles until the user interface is satisfactory and reasonably stable. --Mirokado (talk) 22:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Issues which need to be sorted out include:

  • isbns do not determine a unique object
  • the #ifexists function is "expensive", I don't think we can have it used once the subpage has been created

--Mirokado (talk) 22:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Something that always worries me about subpage citations is that they're very unlikely to be on anybody's watchlists, hence more susceptible to vandalism than usual. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I'm not sure what you mean by "isbns do not determine a unique object". Do you have examples? Perhaps you are thinking of books in a series, which have both the series isbn and the volume isbn, but in such cases each isbn has its own "object".
I agree that for books the dateformat is less significant, but perhaps I wasn't clear enough about the real problem. The editors of all the different articles that transclude the templates are entitled to choose how reformat them. Imagine having an article going through FAR, only to have it fail because suddenly the rendered citations change without any record in the article history, when editors on an unrelated stub wanted to use a different format. The only ways to prevent that are to not use the subpage templates, or to make them unique to each article using them (which defeats the purpose). LeadSongDog come howl! 01:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Small publishers, such as art galleries, genealogy publishers, and others, reuse isbns. As mentioned at International Standard Book Number#ISBN issuance they cost money. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Reuse? Wouldn't that defeat the purpose? It certainly violates the standard, not to mention making life difficult for librarians (the people who really matter). LeadSongDog come howl! 02:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Reuse is actually encouraged by some organizations to save money (we have to deal with what people do, not what they should do). Also, different editions often have the same ISBN and different printings with the exact same information end up with different ISBN. It is not a single unique identifier. For example see warning from : http://www.fictiondb.com/faq.htm Hardcover vs. Softcover. It is best to just use cite book. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 03:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
And some more http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/86773-multiple-books---same-isbn http://www.amazon.com/forum/textbook%20buyback?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx3QLVRL4OTAZTD&cdThread=Tx149035TZ63GOE http://www.librarything.com/topic/19387 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 03:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Cite_isbn too risky with pop-culture articles

Just to emphasize the risks noted above, there is no guarantee that numerous ISBN numbers have not been reused for newer books or a specific book have other edition numbers not matching the {cite_isbn|<ISBN>} on file, confusing people who find a different title/number. Meanwhile, we want to leave each Cite_isbn/xx subpage unprotected to allow others to expand detail and fix typos. However, the use of {Cite_isbn} with unprotected subpages would quickly enter the frequently read pop-culture articles, which do cite from books, and famous books would more likely use {Cite_isbn} entries. Note those articles rarely cite from DOI numbers, which are more common in medical or other journal-related articles. Plus, I can confirm the recent horrors of unprotected templates, even outside of pop-culture article vandalism, where some well-meaning admins unprotected many string-handling templates a year ago, and within months, almost all were vandalized/hacked by IP-address users, then re-protected. It took a while to find where the vandalism was hidden, and with {Cite_isbn}, there would be strong temptation to rename any book as "Celebrity Xxx drug abuse with underage students". The reason vandalism remains for weeks or months is because it is 50x times easier to vandalize than to find and correct. I dred the protected subtemplates of Template:Taxobox or others when attempting improvements, but they must be protected due to extreme risk of hacking, and if {Cite_isbn} subpages were to get automatic protection, then that would thwart the promise of "fix one place" for improvement everywhere. Instead, the reality is most likely, "vandalize one place for embarrassing insults" everywhere. Hence, it is better to repeat a {cite_book} in 20 celebrity articles, rather than risk hideous {cite_isbn} vandalism to attack 20 semi-protected pages, where 99.99% of readers, for days/weeks, would search and not know if or where vandalism had occurred, with drugs for "underage students" (re: History of Facebook). Since there is a critical need to protect string-utility templates from registered editors, then imagine the risk to {cite_isbn} entries in pop-culture articles. Hence, for those reasons, I agree with the fears expressed above, and advise the new {cite_isbn} should be kept limited in usage. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The bot (or person) should convert {{cite isbn}} to {{cite book}} and then delete the template. {{cite isbn}} must be destroyed AManWithNoPlan (talk) 01:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Add parameters sep and fmter to select formatter

To solve the problem of incompatible citation format, perhaps alongside some hand-coded citations, then the Template:Cite_isbn and bot (if any) should handle new parameters "fmter=cite book" and "sep=," to optionally put commas as the separator between phrases in the citations. With parameter "fmter=cite book" then the actual stored format would be "{{ {{{fmter|cite book}}} |isbn=1112223334}}" where the name of the cite-template (fmter) could be passed as some other template than {cite_book}. The most obvious small format difference is likely to be separator "," rather than dot "." and the short name "sep" avoids the spelling glitch "seperator" with syllable "-er". Although unusual, the unique parameter name "fmter" would also allow wikisearch to track the use within all prior articles as usage expands (I had imagined calling fmter as "citer" but that word is very common from French sources, already matching 95,000 articles). -Wikid77 (talk) 13:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Stop the bot from reverting good edits

The bot is overwriting human changes to cite doi templates contrary to WP:CITEVAR

Status
{{wontfix}}; problem is with the inflexible cite doi template
Reported by
Urhixidur (talk) 14:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Actual / expected output

Discussion


Such as this one. Urhixidur (talk) 14:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

It is not clear this was an intended edit. It looks more like a race condition. Attempting to reproduce, it seems even stranger. Perhaps the comment is confusing the bot? LeadSongDog come howl! 15:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I keep reverting its reverts such as this latest one. Fix this or I'll have to block the bot. Urhixidur (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
This one on the same article is a better example. Clearly not a race as it happens nearly an hour after the previous edit. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Weird bug. Seems to be triggered by an edit of a {{Cite pmid}} or {{Cite doi}} sub-template, giving the contributor the impression of being stalked by the bot. Once reverted, it seems to keep quiet. Urhixidur (talk) 21:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Note that the bot will edit citations so they comply with Template:Cite_doi#Formatting. Doesn't explain the comment handling but does explain the abbreviation of author forenames. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 08:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Template:Cite_doi#Formatting is incredibly vague as far as author formatting goes. The Manual of Style does not mandate abbreviations, and that entry in the template's documentation seems pointless: simply require doi and pmd entries to specify the first/last parameters of the citation templates, and let them handle it. Urhixidur (talk) 13:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
this edit by the bot shows that it does not force abbreviations onto citations. Not systematically, anyway. Urhixidur (talk) 13:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I am having a similar problem with my edits being reverted by the bot. See for example this. Boghog (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
A cite doi template is designed to be used on multiple pages. It is important to some editors that references within an article are formatted consistently. For this reason it is necessary to be able to predict how a cite doi template will be formatted. If it is important to you that an author's initial is not followed by a period, then I suggest that you either generate consensus for this change to be made on all pages that use a cite doi template, or do not use the cite doi template on articles where the additional period is deleterious. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 08:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree that it is important to have consistently formatted references within an article. There are cases where an individual {{cite doi}} template is transcluded into a set of articles that are otherwise consistently formatted in a different style. Where is the consensus that all cite doi templates must use the same style? This would seem to directly contradict WP:CITEVAR. This proposal might be a solution, but unfortunately it has not yet been implemented. In the mean time, I have replaced the cite doi template in the specific example mentioned above with in-line templates in the articles that tranclude this template. Boghog (talk) 09:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
The {{cite doi}} family of templates is pretty clear about initials only. Some fields insist on initials so that you don't know if the author is a girl or a boy (and to a lesser extend race, ethnicity, etc.). Of course one could counter that is it well documented that ones sex effects ones interpretation of data. If one really wants to control the formatting of a reference, don't use {{cite doi}}, use {{cite journal}}. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 19:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
The articles that I was referring to use the Vancouver system (initials without periods). The cite doi template documentation states that "this template need[s] to be formatted consistently so they match the reference formatting of all the articles they are used in"". What if all the articles that use a specific cite doi template are otherwise consistently formatted using another style? Of course, I have in the past and I will continue in the future substituting these templates where appropriate. Boghog (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I have never myself inserted a {{cite doi}} into an article. I am editing articles where Vancouver system has previously been established and someone else has inserted a cite doi template. Substituting templates, especially if the same template has been inserted into several articles becomes tedious. Boghog (talk) 06:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Search for {{cite doi| and replace with {{cite journal|doi=, then let bot do the rest. Not too bad. Simple fact is you are cleaning up someone else's mess. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. However I want to avoid introducing verbose "first1, last1, first2, last2, ..." parameters and instead use a single author parameter for the author list. Using the single author parameter reduces clutter and page load times. Unfortunately the bot will not do that but User:Diberri's Wikipedia template filling tool will. Boghog (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
If load times really matter to you, then you should not use {{cite doi}} because that adds an extra template between your page and the {{cite journal}} template. On a personal side note, I hate {{cite doi}},{{cite pmc}},{{cite isbn}},{{cite pmid}}, etc. because of this. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
The reasons I dislike these templates are different: (1) they force {{cite}} formatting, making them inconsistent whenever they're used in articles that have different formatting such as that of {{citation}}; (2) they are unlikely to be watchlisted, making it likely that vandalism to them will take much longer to detect. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
But {{cite}} is merely a redirect to {{citation}} so it doesn't matter which is used, the output is the same. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I meant the "cite x" series of templates. Citation Style 1, to give them their proper name. I prefer Citation Style 2, and splitting off the citations into separate little templates gets in the way of that. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
It is pretty clear by now that the problem is in formatting. The cite doi templates should be used as data repositories (and hence be as complete as possible) but should not force a formatting over another. Hence their invocations should be accompanied by a format= parameter that would allow the invoker to choose his citation format (initials vs. full names, semi-colons vs. periods, etc.). This change is not a minor one, however. Urhixidur (talk) 13:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
We've known for a long time that cite doi and kin are fundamentaly flawed concepts, but their convenience means that editors can't resist using them. Data should not be in template space. Format choices should be local to the transcluding page. But this is not template talk:cite doi. Let's stick to discussions of the bot. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
So, can we agree that there is no bug in the bot, and that the solution is to avoid the evil templates designed for lazy editor?  :-) AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, except for the "evil" bit. They were definitely well-intentioned, but afaisi misconceived.LeadSongDog come howl! 22:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
No, I do not agree that the bot is bug-less. Its description talks repeatedly of adding data (which it does, mostly), but the one thing I've seen it do repeatedly is remove data by stripping first names down to initials. I think it simply needs to be improved to recognize initials vs. full names for what they are. There also seems to be a problem with its extraction of ending page numbers, but that's clearly a different bug. Urhixidur (talk) 11:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
If you want to make a case for the templates needing distinct handling of initials vs forenames, that's a valid perspective, but this is not the place for pursuing it. What the bot is doing, though, is in keeping with its assigned task and with the documentation at template:cite doi/doc#Formatting. You always have the option of not using cite doi. If the subpage is only transcluded in one place, you could apply bot exclusion to the subpage, though I would not really want to encourage that: as it freezes the data, you might as well just subst the template into the article.LeadSongDog come howl! 15:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Removing wrong data is well within the rights of the bot. And full names (not just initials) is wrong data in the {{cite doi}} templates. Like we tell little kids "You get what you get, and you don't throw a fit". Use {{cite doi}} and all you get is initials. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
The problem is not with the data, but an inflexible template that does not conform to WP:CITEVAR. One can argue not use it or to substitute it, but because the template is so easy to use, it ends up being widely misused. Boghog (talk) 17:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
The problem isn't with what the data is, but where the data is. It does not belong in templatespace, but that is what has happened. Separation of code from data is a basic principle of robust software systems design. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree in theory but nevertheless there are situations where storing data in template space may be desirable. There have been a number of templates whose data has been entirely moved to template space. For example the data in ~10,000 {{GNF_Protein_box}} templates has smoothly been moved to template space without controversy. Because of random vandalism, there has also been an effort to validate "immutable" data in main space (see for example Chembox validation). Citation data should also be "immutable". Perhaps what is necessary is a new namespace reserved for immutable data. Boghog (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Another potential solution may be Wikidata. Boghog (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, meta:WikiScholar is part of meta:Wikicite, which in turn depends on Wikidata. These should eventually help, but it won't be anytime very soon. Citations just aren't sexy enough to get the needed priority. Infoboxes, though, they make the first round :-) LeadSongDog come howl! 20:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
In the mean time, I have added a cautionary hatnote to the template documentation that will hopefully reduce the misuse of this template. The only caution previously in the documentation was buried in the middle of the text where many editors (including myself) probably would not notice it. Boghog (talk) 06:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

pardon if it's my fault

I don't know what I am doing

Status
{{wontfix}}
Reported by
Cake (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
I have it selected for as a gadget. When that didnt respond, I have tried to use it by demoepedia and toolserver, and both failed multiple tries. It worked wonders for my edits of Matthew Lyon, but has seemed to not respond to my edits on the page for 1922 Vanderbilt football team.
I would just like it to make it so one reference can have multiple instances in the page (such as when there are superscript a and b on the reference list) instead of 45 Ibids

Discussion

I suggest you read Help:Footnotes and {{cite}}. This is a bug report page for the Citation bot. kashmiri 20:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Citation bot deleting stuff at Comparison of birth control methods

Citation bot deleting stuff at Comparison of birth control methods

Status
{{resolved}}
Reported by
  —Chris Capoccia TC 01:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
I run citation bot, expecting some improvements, but a lot of text is deleted instead.
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_birth_control_methods&diff=497949716&oldid=497949384 diff

Discussion

It is fixed now. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Not converting bare references to Google books

Not converting bare references to Google books

Status
{{resolved}}
Reported by
2001:5C0:1400:A:0:0:0:217 (talk) 22:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
Currently, nothing happens at all... the page is not edited, a bare link to a book inserted here remained unchanged even after running the 'bot using this link.
The 'bot used to be able to find date and ISBN for a Google book reference and insert them into the reference on-page when activated by a user.
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John%27s_Modern_Cabins&action=history
Replication instructions
http://toolserver.org/~verisimilus/Bot/citation-bot/doibot.php?edit=toolbar&slow=1&user=&page=John%27s%20Modern%20Cabins (this URL is in the same format at that templated onto all WP:AFC article submissions, which used to work)

Discussion

Could you spell out the specific references that you hope that the bot will expand? Thanks, Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 07:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

This is is working for me, and no updates in months. Tagging as resolved. Plus that page had many messed up references that I fixed, and the bot then worked on them. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Breaking link to article title that uses all-caps

Breaking link to article title that uses all-caps

Status
{{resolved}}
Reported by
Neelix (talk) 21:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
When the title of a journal is in caps (such as CFSK-DT) and is linked to the appropriate article, the bot undoes the caps, thereby breaking the link to the article about the journal.
The bot should be configured such that it leaves linked journal titles alone if the target article has a title that is in all-caps.
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=She_Has_a_Name&diff=504726400&oldid=504701426

Discussion

You need to add the journal acronym to the list of capitalization exclusions; see the bot's user page for instructions. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 07:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Marking as resolved. I added it to the exclusions list. Interesting that person who reported the "bug" didn't fix it. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Citations not unfolded

Citation bot is not working

Status
{{wontfix}}
Reported by
Somogyi26 (talk) 17:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
the citations are not unfolded

Discussion

The link does not work. What do you mean by not unfolded? AManWithNoPlan (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Flagging as wontfix, because there is nothing to fix. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

A race condition

AFC submitter was changed!

Status
{{wontfix}}
Reported by
mabdul 14:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
Link
[81]

Discussion

Hope the diff is enough. mabdul 14:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a race condition. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
race? I don't understand... mabdul 15:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
See race condition. GoingBatty (talk) 15:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

{{cite isbn}} support

{{cite isbn}} support

Status
{{wontfix}}
Reported by
AManWithNoPlan (talk) 03:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
{{cite book}} within {{cite isbn}} should have first names truncated to just letters like {{cite doi}} and {{cite pmid}}

Discussion


  • This functionality cannot be added without consensus, reflected at Template:Cite isbn/doc, that this formatting choice should be enforced on all cite isbn templates (see example at cite doi). Even then, I'm not sure that I'll have time to code support for the Cite ISBN family of templates. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks

Status
{{wontfix}}
Reported by
Benzband
Actual / expected output

Discussion

Wow bot, you are saving me heaps of time. Literally. Cheers, SFriendly.svg benzband (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

convert bare URL refs to cite web refs

convert bare URL refs to cite web refs

Status
{{wontfix}}
Reported by
Elvey (talk) 01:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
I don't know of/think there are any bots that convert bare URL refs to cite web refs
<ref>http://elvey.com/insecure</ref> should become <ref>{{cite title=blah, author = blah, date=fee, url="http://elvey.com/insecure", archiveurl="<the bot could trigger the Internet Archive and/or WebCite to archive the URL...>"... }}.
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Property_list&diff=prev&oldid=516069117

Discussion



Why not have a bot do this? Has it been attempted before? I'd guess it has... I'm wondering why it isn't happening. --Elvey (talk) 01:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Try using Reflinks for a while, and you'll see that there are quite a few parameters that don't get populated properly. GoingBatty (talk) 01:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
A fine idea but not one I have the time or ability to implement. Sorry! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 08:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Hyphen to dash

Hyphen to dash

Status
{{wontfix}}
Reported by
Imzadi 1979  08:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
It is changing a hyphen in a page number to an en dash
Nothing
Link
First time, second time

Discussion

The article, "I-696: Three Pedestrian Plazas Over Freeway" in the MDOT Context Sensitive Solutions Case Study: Metro Region by the Michigan Department of Transportation appears on page B1-17. The study uses chapter-based pagination, so that's the 17th page of chapter B1, or page B1-17. It isn't a page range, but twice now I've reverted the bot. I'm not sure what can be done to avoid false positives like that. One revert is understandable, but twice (yes, I know, user-requested and no one's looking for the reverts in the page history first) means that the bot has now been blocked from editing the page. Imzadi 1979  08:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Easy to fix. use this as your dash character &#x 2012; (but with the space removed). AManWithNoPlan (talk) 03:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Except that the page number doesn't, and shouldn't, have a dash. Blindly converting hyphens in page numbers to dashes just doesn't work though, because they aren't all wrong. Imzadi 1979  03:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Then use the hyphen HTML code & #8209; in the rare cases that a hyphen is needed. 99% of the time a dash is right and a hyphen is wrong. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 13:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
No, no! The thread is not about "how to circumvent the bot" – but how to improve the bot. Based on the example above, I would suggest that if a page number consists of a letter followed by a number, then any hyphen between them should not be converted to a dash. That is, I am proposing a new rule for the bot. Any objections or examples to the contrary? kashmiri 15:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Therefore, B1-B5 should be considered normal page number, but B1-17 should be considered a dash. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
A dash would be misleading as dashes normally denote page range, not a single page. My suggestion stands. kashmiri 14:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • What about cases where an editor provides "E310-15" to denote the range "E310-E315"? In this case, a hyphen would be incorrect. I would suggest that the use of &-codes as suggested above is the best way to make it clear that an editor's choice of dash glyph is intentional. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Bot added this tag to article: 'This article does not cite any references or sources' but there were plenty of references

Bot added this tag to article: 'This article does not cite any references or sources' but there were plenty of references

Discussion

The bot did not add the {{references|date=November 2012}} - it was already present in your first draft, so you must have put it there yourself.

In the version immediately prior to the bot edit, the {{references|date=November 2012}} is clearly present. This version has two instances of the following construct:

<ref name="BCC Musgrave Park">[http://www.belfastcity.gov.uk/parksandopenspaces/parks/musgravepark.asp Belfast City Council - Musgrave Park]</ref>

and four instances of

<ref name="Keep Britain Tidy">[http://greenflag.keepbritaintidy.org/park-summary/?ParkID=1210 Keep Britain Tidy]</ref>

One of the first group may be simplified to <ref name="BCC Musgrave Park" />, similarly, three of the second group may be simplified to <ref name="Keep Britain Tidy" />, and that is what the bot did. It added no maintenance templates. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Addition of incorrect parameters

Addition of incorrect parameters

Status
{{wontfix}} - no viable solution suggested
Reported by
GoingBatty (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
Incorrect addition of |author1= and |first1=
Only add if author is a person's name
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Concert_for_Bangladesh_%28album%29&diff=501239147&oldid=501157432

Discussion

Can you suggest an algorithm by which the bot can tell whether the data specified as an author is a person's name or not? I can't do anything otherwise. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 07:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

If the bot wants to add |first1=Inc, it's probably not a person's name. GoingBatty (talk) 04:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Same problem on this edit. GoingBatty (talk) 00:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Could you please help me understand why my suggested solution is not viable? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Problem in Wonderlic Test

Problem in Wonderlic Test

Status
{{resolved}}
Reported by
Nathan2055talk - contribs 21:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
The bot starts working and then stops.
The bot saves it's edits.
Replication instructions
Run the bot on Wonderlic Test

Discussion

The bot runs to completion, but there is nothing in the article that it needs to change. That's not a bug. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Cite DOI doesn't create template for doi:10.2307/461317

Status
{{resolved}}
Reported by
Temporal User (Talk) 05:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
A template for doi:10.2307/461317 isn't created,
when it should be created.
Replication instructions
Place {{cite doi|10.2307/461317}} on a page. Then click on the "jump the queue" link.

Discussion

JSTOR DOI's don't work right anymore (note that {{cite jstor}} is just a wrapper for {{cite doi}}). There is nothing the bot can do. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 17:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I made a suggestion a while back about making the template display an error message informing the editor that the JSTOR API is down. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 10:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure the bot fails for all JSTOR articles. I tried it with doi:10.1086/591861, and it worked fine.–Temporal User (Talk) 01:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
That is not a JSTOR DOI, that is a DOI owned by the Journal. So, {{cite jstor}} does not work for that article. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 02:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Now that I read this again, I don't see why JSTOR came up. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 02:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
{{cite jstor}} is just a wrapper for {{cite doi}}, and the DOI that the complaint is about is a JSTOR DOI. It does not matter if you use {{cite jstor|461317}} or {{cite doi|10.2307/461317}} the result is the same (other than {{cite jstor}} avoids tell you that the bot will fill it in for you). AManWithNoPlan (talk) 04:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
How do you distinguish between a JSTOR DOI and a DOI owned by the journal? –Temporal User (Talk) 08:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
10.2307 is JSTOR AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
How do I determine if any DOI, not just 10.2307, is JSTOR or not? (Also, I don't think 10.2307 is JSTOR. doi:10.2307/2998600 links to a non-JSTOR page.) –Temporal User (Talk) 05:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
10.2307/2998600 is a JSTOR DOI, but the journal seems to have taken it over from JSTOR. Off course, it still does not exist in the databases that the bot uses because JSTOR doesn't do what it should do. Of course they aren't the only offenders http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pages_with_inactive_DOIs 15:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
http://www.crossref.org/guestquery/#bibsearch does return Meta Data for this DOI 10.2307/461317. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 17:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
The bot needs to remove the special code that accesses the JSTOR databases and switch to the Cross-Ref code (unless it already does that). AManWithNoPlan (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The code does this:

   } else {
     echo "not found in JSTOR?";
   }
 } else {
   // Not a JSTOR doi, use CrossRef
   $crossRef = $crossRef?$crossRef:crossRefData(urlencode(trim($p["doi"][0])));
 }

Note that after the not found in JSTOR complaint, the code does not even try CrossRef AManWithNoPlan (talk) 17:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

What's it doing on List of longest novels ?

What's it doing on List of longest novels ?

Status
{{resolved}}
Reported by
Choor monster (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
Stray "p. m." shows up in citations.
Maybe it should be left alone?
Link
List of longest novels
Replication instructions
 ??

Discussion

This page's citations are indeed an ugly jumble. So perhaps the bot is easily confused. Perhaps this page should be fixed by hand? Choor monster (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I assume that you mean this edit. There were four lines modified there.
  • In the first two, the bot was trying to make sense of the positional parameter |&nbsp; 2:38 pm|. None of the citation templates recognise positional parameters. The "p. m." visible in the References section is due to the |page=m - presumably the bot has decided that pm is short for p.m. and interpreted it as a page identifier. The nonexistent parameter |unused_data= is used by Citation bot to hold anything that it can't place in a recognised parameter, hence |unused_data=&nbsp; 2:38
  • In the third, this was a conversion of an absolute |url=http://www.amazon.com/dp/0060925000 to the relative |asin=0060925000 which is essentially the same thing, but is future-proof: if Amazon change their URL format, we only need to modify one or two templates, not thousands of pages. The |accessdate=2012-10-31 was removed because access dates are only meaningful when there is a URL.
  • In the fourth, this was a substitution of the European guillemet with the English double quote.
This is a good example of GIGO at work. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks. This makes sense. I've been slowly replacing some wikilinks with cite templates, getting the hang of it on other pages. But this page is just one giant mess.
The 2:38 pm doesn't make any sense to me, so I've just finished cleaning up after the bot here. I get the "asin". Is there supposed to be something similar for Google Books? I discovered at some point I was editing down the Google links to just the ID--who cares what the search criterion was that I used to get there? Choor monster (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, there's {{Google books|7ydCAAAAIAAJ|History of the Western Insurrection|page=42}}
This renders as:

History of the Western Insurrection, p. 42, at Google Books
LeadSongDog come howl! 21:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Removing access dates

Removing access dates

Status
{{resolved}}
Reported by
Astros4477 (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sea_World&diff=531689775&oldid=531521290

Discussion

Access dates are only useful for online sources. This ref has no URL, hence it's not online, therefore an access date is meaningless. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems that for this particular source, someone forgot to put in the URL. But in principle, there are on-line sources that are not accessible with a URL. For example, computers in a few government offices that are open to the public, but which must be accessed in person at the government office. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
It looks like it removed the access dates in this edit but this time it had an archived URL.--Astros4477 (talk) 04:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
An |archiveurl= is not the same as a |url=. Although not explicitly stated at Template:Cite web#URL, the indentation there implies that the use of either |accessdate= or |archiveurl= also requires a |url= to be provided. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
There is no implication, it is explicit: see [[Template:Cite web#Syntax "and is ignored if parent is not used". |archiveurl= is a child of |url=.--— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 11:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
So, I think we all agree that the accessdate removal is not a bug but a feature when there is no url AManWithNoPlan (talk) 03:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

ISSN in old "id=" field got deleted

ISSN in old "id=" field got deleted

Status
{{resolved}}
Reported by
Renata (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
SSN got removed instead of added or changed to "issn=xxxx-xxxx" format
Link
[82]

Discussion

Input was a malformed wikitext to begin, with |id=ISSN 0134-3084 rather than |id={{ISSN|0134-3084}} . This is a plausibly common class of error that either this or another bot could address. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Additional space after pmid parameter

Status
{{resolved}}
Reported by
Jack (talk) 09:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
There is an additional space added after the "pmid = " parameter, while every other parameter just has one space.
There should be just one space, not two.
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ACite_doi%2F10.1007.2Fs10329-011-0237-7&diff=549814147&oldid=549812689 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ACite_doi%2F10.1016.2FS1364-6613.2897.2901115-7&diff=549813827&oldid=549812787

Discussion

Not a bug. When parsing the named parameters of templates, the MediaWiki parser doesn't care how many spaces there are between the equals sign and the parameter value. You can put one space or two - or none, or any other number. It doesn't matter. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

New CS1 options reverted by the bot

New CS1 options reverted by the bot

Status
{{resolved}}
Reported by
DePiep (talk) 23:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
I added names to a cite doi page (subpage). The bot deletes all names from "last10=" and higher. Note that this is a legal option since CS1 is upgraded into Lua.
leave the names alone
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cite_doi/10.1021.2Fja9030038&diff=552191625&oldid=552191614
Replication instructions
dunno

Discussion


This is the same problem as #Update_required_to_avoid_deleterious_impact_on_new_Lua-based_citations. Dragons flight (talk) 23:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

It's still doing it: shutting down the bot would be the nuclear option but it's getting frustrating :-( —Phil | Talk 11:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
{{resolved}}; duplicate listed below
signinged: Martin609 [83] c.DePiep (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Cite doi/ 10.1126.2Fscience.141.3578.357

A tag has been placed on Template:Cite doi/ 10.1126.2Fscience.141.3578.357 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Illia Connell (talk) 03:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC) {{resolved}}

Addition of author initials

Duplications of Authors

Status
{{resolved}}
Reported by
75.152.123.238 (talk) 09:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
Red lines in citation.
One kind of name, wherever available.
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cite_pmid/11709512&action=history
Replication instructions
I do not know.

Discussion

This seems to be the intended behaviour. {{resolved}} Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

bot choosing date over name in duplicate author field

bot choosing date over name in duplicate author field

Status
{{wontfix}}
Reported by
Auric talk 14:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
in a cite with two |author= fields, it deleted the one with the name and kept the one with the date
Link
diff
Replication instructions
uncertain

Discussion

In relation to the above, this edit was also necessary as a result of the same bot edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately I no longer have time to handle bugs that arise due to unpredictable human input error. Other users are welcome to suggest code alterations that would resolve this bug. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

progress stats link broken

The link in the function summary section that's supposed to show the progress stats of the bot is broken: http://toolserver.org/~verisimilus/Bot/DOI_bot/progress-doibot.php?date=20091017 Wingman4l7 (talk) 23:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC) Fixed in r439 {{resolved}}

Problem with DOI

Status
can't replicate
Reported by
kashmiri 11:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Type of bug
Actual / expected output
the following DOI does not get expanded after clicking the "jump the queue" link: 10.1002/1531-8249(199911)46:5<770::AID-ANA13>3.0.CO;2-U
DOI should get expanded, at least after clicking the "jump the queue" link.
Link
Roussy–Lévy_syndrome, reference no. 2
Replication instructions
enter this reference and see whether it expands correctly after clicking "jump the queue": Planté-Bordeneuve, V.; Guiochon-Mantel, A.; Lacroix, C.; Lapresle, J.; Said, G. (1999). "The Roussy-Lévy family: from the original description to the gene". Annals of Neurology 46 (5): 770–773. doi:10.1002/1531-8249(199911)46:5<770::AID-ANA13>3.0.CO;2-U. PMID 10553995.  edit
We can't proceed until
Agreement on the best solution
Requested action from maintainer

Discussion

It looks like that's a bad DOI, not a bot problem. Worked around at the article.LeadSongDog come howl! 18:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
DOI is correct (just click the link above to see), the problem is with the bot. Still, thanks for manually entering the reference in the article. kashmiri 21:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
There's something odd, though. The resolver returns: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1531-8249(199911)46:5%3C770::AID-ANA13%3E3.0.CO;2-U/abstract?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+disrupted+on+7+July+from+10%3A00-12%3A00+BST+%2805%3A00-07%3A00+EDT%29+for+essential+maintenance
It may be my firewall had trouble with that ridiculously long url. In any case, it's temporary. Once it passes, we'll see if things work again.LeadSongDog come howl! 05:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
DOI.org resolver returns correct address http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1531-8249(199911)46:5<770::AID-ANA13>3.0.CO;2-U; Wiley Online Library further processess this URL, redirecting it to /abstract and, until 7 July, adding a maintenance message as a query string. Let me stress again that the problem is with the DOI bot which in all probability is unable to correctly resolve two subsequent colons and/or less/greater-than signs. kashmiri 13:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Are there other examples where the double colon presents a problem? LeadSongDog come howl! 13:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Using the anchorencode magicword gives a non-functional result...
*Planté-Bordeneuve, V.; Guiochon-Mantel, A.; Lacroix, C.; Lapresle, J.; Said, G. (1999). "The Roussy-Lévy family: from the original description to the gene". Annals of Neurology 46 (5): 770–773. doi:10.1002/1531-8249(199911)46:5<770::AID-ANA13>3.0.CO;2-U. PMID 10553995.  edit
LeadSongDog come howl! 14:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I do not really feel like investigating whether DOI bot works with anchorencode or not. The DOI is not a very typical one, albeit used regularly by that journal. What I want to point out that both the DOI bot and the Wiki software have problems passing/rendering this string correctly (see my entry above where I had to use nowiki tags around the URL as a workaround). The problem lies not with your firewall or Wiley pages; it is with the bot and Wiki software (just have a look at how the DOI got misformed by the bot). kashmiri 17:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Ok, I think I'm getting somewhere. You're right, it wasn't my firewall, it rather was my local cache that was puking when Wiley forced the redirect. A manual cache purge and reload gets me past that. The cite doi subpage that I (manually) created was at the wrong path, so I've redirected it from
Template:Cite doi/10.1002.2F1531-8249.28199911.2946:53.0.CO.3B2-U
to the correct subpage at
Template:Cite doi/10.1002.2F1531-8249.28199911.2946.3A5.3C770.3A.3AAID-ANA13.3E3.0.CO.3B2-U.

I'm not sure why cite doi names the subpage with anchorencode but generates the url with urlencode, but that's what it seems to do. (While anchorencode uses .3A urlencode uses %3A for the same character.)

There's a similar doi at Template:Cite doi/10.1002.2F1531-8257.28199901.2914:1.3C95::AID-MDS1016.3E3.0.CO.3B2-8 but it seems to have been created just fine without any special handling, even with the double colon in the doi. That was some time ago though, perhaps a more recent change has created a problem, but I still don't see a clear-cut instance.LeadSongDog come howl! 15:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the encoding is all working fine; I suspect that there was a temporary problem with a remote server. Unless there are further reports of similar errors I'll mark this as resolved. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 07:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
The problem is still there with DOIs that contain < and > characters, I had it a few days back, just hold on a day or two pls and I will give more details here. kashmiri 10:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, got it. Try the bot to expand this DOI: 10.1002/1098-2264(2000)9999:9999<::AID-GCC1018>3.0.CO;2-E. kashmiri 10:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
That woud be doi:10.1002/1098-2264(2000)9999:9999<::AID-GCC1018>3.0.CO;2-E. Notice the round parentheses are urlencoded to %28 and %29, and the angle brackets urlencode to %3C and %3E. When I click on that link, I initially get a "malformed request" failure, but on refreshing my cache it comes through as http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1098-2264%282000%299999:9999%3C::AID-GCC1018%3E3.0.CO;2-E/abstract, as expected. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I know what it would be and I definitely know how to encode it manually. But try to get DOI bot generate proper listing for this DOI using the Cite doi template. It does not work for me, and has nothing to do with cache. Try to experiment in your sandbox. kashmiri 22:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Other DOIs from the same issue seem to work, so I can't replicate this. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 12:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC) {{resolved}}

doix

Status
Fixed in r434
Reported by
Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 09:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
doix not dot-decoded
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ACite_doi%2F10.1098.2Frspb.2012.1577&diff=508586916&oldid=508586493

Discussion

Wow, is that karmic? :-) LeadSongDog come howl! 16:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

Apparent failure to complete

Apparent failure to complete

Status
Won't fix - can't replicate.
Reported by
Phil
Actual / expected output
The bot is invoked from the sidebar, and reports that it has "failed to write to the database". Actually the edit has gone through and seems fine.
Replication instructions
Click "Expand Citations" in an article which needs it.

Discussion

{{resolved}}

Citation bot self-reporting bug

Citation bot self-reporting bug

Status
{{resolved}}
Reported by
Urhixidur (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
The bug sends bug reports to the old deprecated page User:DOI_bot/bugs
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cite_pmid/2621533&diff=prev&oldid=523054456

Discussion

It appears that crossref neglected the author's forename. Try http://www.crossref.org/guestquery/ and plug in the DOI 10.1097/00005176-198911000-00026 to see. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The only bad link I can see dates to a 2009 edit summary... am I missing something? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 13:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Butchering Author Names

Butchering Author Names

Status
new bug
Reported by
Urhixidur (talk) 02:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Type of bug
Deleterious
Actual / expected output
For example,
| author = Sandhu BK, Brueton MJ
becomes:
| author = Sandhu Bk | first = B. M.
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cite_pmid/2621533&diff=prev&oldid=523054456
We can't proceed until
A specific edit to the bot's code is requested below.
Requested action from maintainer
Fix algorithm

Discussion

I don't think this is a bug. It's a combination of two things: (1) you wrote the author name in the same format that would be used for a single author whose last name is "Sandhu BK" and whose first names are "Brueton MJ"; how is the bot to tell that's not what you meant? The correct author name format for cite pmid is very strict, and demands a semicolon in place of the comma you used. (2) Because of the strict author formatting in cite pmid, the bot reformats names to be in the "Last, F. M." format rather than the "Last FM" format you used. This is usually a good thing (if you had used a semicolon properly, it would have worked) but interacts badly with part (1). —David Eppstein (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
The problem in this case is that the {{cite pmid}} should not have been transcluded into Johanson–Blizzard syndrome article in the first place since {{cite pmid}} (and citation bot) enforces a style that is incompatible with the predominate citation style used in that article. As I have stated before, the {{cite pmid}} template is so easy to use, it becomes widely misused. Boghog (talk) 08:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Definitely a bug since Citation bot created the template in the first place. Urhixidur (talk) 11:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
The reason the template was created because someone inserted it into the article. The fundamental problem is not this particular instance of this template, but the template itself since it is inflexible and enforces a particular citation format in contradiction to WP:CITEVAR. Boghog (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
The real problem is not with Citation bot, but rather the inflexible {{cite pmid}} template. It appears that help is on the way, but it may be sometime before it is implemented. Boghog (talk) 00:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I concur with Boghog. The kind of name mangling reported here has occurred in several other occasions, always because of commas. In this case there was but one, but I've seen others where there was a list of 3+ names, thus 2+ commas. That should have tipped off the bot. Also see the "Jr." bug below (applicable to "Sr.", "IIIrd", and so forth). Urhixidur (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

Changes "Jr." into "J."

Changes "Jr." into "J."

Status
{{wontfix}}
Reported by
Urhixidur (talk) 11:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
The bot changes "Jr." ("Junior") into "J."
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cite_doi/10.1093.2Ftoxsci.2Fkfp266&diff=prev&oldid=524444481

Discussion

'Junior' is a title and should not be incorporated into the name. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 13:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC) {{resolved}}

Cite doi: authors' last names swapped with first names, gibberish in place of umlauts

Cite doi: authors' last names swapped with first names, gibberish in place of umlauts.

Status
GIGO
Reported by
kashmiri 13:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Type of bug
Inconvenience: Humans must occasionally make immediate edits to clean up after the bot
Actual / expected output
first and last names should be tagged correctly, without being swapped; names with umlauts should not produce random characters
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ACite_doi%2F10.1007.2Fs00234-002-0847-2&action=view&diff=524007382
Replication instructions
This bug seems to affect also other articles from the same journal: http://link.springer.com/journal/234/44/11/page/1
We can't proceed until
Requested action from maintainer
Fix the bug

Discussion

There seems to be some problem with Springer's data validation before export to crossref. If you go to that abstract on Springer's site, then click on "export citation" and choose plain text, you get:

Reference Type: Journal Article

Author: Haubrich, C. Haubrich
Author: Krings, T. Krings
Author: Senderek, J. Senderek
Author: Züchner, S. Züchner
Author: Schröder, J. Schröder
Author: Noth, J. Noth
Author: Töpper, R. Töpper
Primary Title: Hypertrophic nerve roots in a case of Roussy-Lévy syndrome
Journal Name: Neuroradiology
Cover Date: 2002-11-01
Publisher: Springer Berlin / Heidelberg
Issn: 0028-3940
Subject: Medicine
Start Page: 933
End Page: 937
Volume: 44
Issue: 11
Url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00234-002-0847-2
Doi: 10.1007/s00234-002-0847-2

Clearly the author names have been mangled, unless one expects "Bond, J. Bond" as the normal form. Still, the handling was incorrect. It is not clear if the cause was the umlauts in the names, or something else, . (As an aside, please note that this paper is a primary source, and so not a wp:MEDRS.) It might be helpful to state the dois for whichever other articles show similar problems. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting observation. It would indicate then that Springer uploads bibliographical data to DOI databases using an automated system and that that system is buggy or misconfigured. As to other DOIs, as I mentioned, others from http://link.springer.com/journal/234/44/11/page/1 do not seem to work. I tried one or two others but don't want to spoil bot tests by getting all the templates created right away. kashmiri 22:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm still not sure where to look for the instances of cite doi that you find to be incorrectly handled. The only one I could find by searching was the single example above. I'll create one without umlats, e.g. n., Morita; m., Harada; k., Yoneda; h., Nishitani; m., Uno (2002). "A characteristic feature of acute haematomas in the brain on echo-planar diffusion-weighted imaging". Neuroradiology 44 (11): 907–911. doi:10.1007/s00234-002-0860-5. PMID 12428124.  edit and another with, e.g. böTefür, I.; Kassubek, J.; Schumacher, M. (2002). "Unusually quick resorption of an intracerebral hemorrhage in congenital afibrinogenemia". Neuroradiology 44 (11): 912–914. doi:10.1007/s00234-002-0829-4. PMID 12428125.  edit to see what happens.LeadSongDog come howl! 20:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Evidently, it's not about the umlauts. GIGO as suspected.LeadSongDog come howl! 22:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
E.g.,
{{cite doi|10.1007/s00234-002-0860-5}}
gives:
n., Morita; m., Harada; k., Yoneda; h., Nishitani; m., Uno (2002). "A characteristic feature of acute haematomas in the brain on echo-planar diffusion-weighted imaging". Neuroradiology 44 (11): 907–911. doi:10.1007/s00234-002-0860-5. PMID 12428124.  edit
– even when downloaded references (both RIS and TXT) are absolutely correct. Just go ahead and try any other article from the table of content that I linked above. kashmiri 00:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

This may be a knockon effect of Springer's recent platform changes. In the mean time, I'd suggest you just don't use cite doi for Springer. LeadSongDog come howl! 23:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The Information is now correct, BUT the first and last names are reversed. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

Use of non-word changint in text output

Use of non-word changint in text output

Status
Fixed in r429
Reported by
Auric 00:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
uses non-word "changint" instead of "changing" (ex Citation assessed in 0 secs. Not changint citation template. )
swap changing for changint
Link
[84]
Replication instructions
Use bot on page with citation refs

Discussion

{{resolved}}

Bot Removed Citations and Text

Bot Removed Citations and Text

Status
{{resolved}}
Reported by
Bensci54 (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
bot would 'clean up' after each edit to James Hales, making bizzare "fixes"
Link
[85]

Discussion

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bensci54 (talkcontribs) 02:32, 5 January 2013‎

Looks like the bot edited the page three times in as many minutes. The first edit was pretty normal for Citation bot (tidying a Google Books URL and altering a hyphen to an en-dash per MOS:ENDASH). The next edit by NinaGreen (talk · contribs) did not alter anything of what Citation bot had done; yet Citation bot immediately reverted NinaGreen's edit. Two minutes later, NinaGreen made a different edit, again not altering any of the bot's first amendment - but this was also reverted by the bot. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
If you look closely at the diff, you'll see mismatched braces on {{harvnb}}. This seems to be what tripped up the bot. Once I fixed the braces, the bot left the wikitext as it was (it made no edit). It seems obvious that catching such mismatches is a basic syntax-check that ought to be happening, perhaps with every edit commit. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Mismatched braces might explain the first revert, but not the second. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Looks like an edit conflict error. Don't know whether this can be fixed. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 16:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Dumb question

I am trying to see what effect the bot has in improving citation for "bare-urls" at Camp Dubois. They seem like bare urls to me but no change is made by the bot. So, I guess I don't understand what a bare-url is, or I don't understand the bot, probably both. Any help in understanding - to make me a better more efficient editor appreciated. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the url= is munging the link recognition. If CBot does not work, then User:Dispenser/Reflinks should after you remove those snippets. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I added the url= after the bot did not make any change to see if that would cause the bot to do something, which it did not. I will let you know how it goes. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
User:Dispenser/Reflinks did do something. Thanks again. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

Update required to avoid deleterious impact on new Lua-based citations

Update required to avoid deleterious impact on new Lua-based citations

Status
Resolved
Reported by
Dragons flight (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Type of bug
Deleterious
Actual / expected output
User input of additional author / editor names is being removed. As part of the transition to Lua based citation templates, handled by Module:Citation/CS1, it is now possible to add an arbitrarily large number of author and editor fields to many of the standard templates rather than the historical 9 author and 4 editor limit. The bot needs to be updated to recognize this. In the example link below, someone added the additional fields and the bot reverted them. In addition, the bot should be modified to import additional author / editor information when possible.
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ACite_doi%2F10.1371.2Fjournal.pgen.1002280&diff=547639531&oldid=547639495
We can't proceed until
Bot operator's feedback on what is feasible
Requested action from maintainer
Fix the bot to handle the additional author / editor fields correctly.

Discussion

Another example. The paper definitely has 12 authors, and authors 10/11/12 on the paper exactly matched those which were in the template prior to the bot edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
The bot just did exactly the same thing again. Please stop, or it will be taken to WP:BON. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Right, that's it, it's WP:BON time. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Another. There were two cases here, in the same paragraph: to find them in the diff, search for |last10= --Redrose64 (talk) 10:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Fixed in r428 I've fixed this bug. Disruption to service could have been avoided if I'd been notified in advance of the planned change to Template:Citation. If there is a similarly urgent need to contact me in future, please feel free to e-mail me through my user page. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

Bot creates and blanks an invalid template

Bot creates and blanks an invalid template

Status
Invalid
Reported by
Illia Connell (talk) 22:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
The bot created a mal-formed template: {{Cite doi/http:.2F.2Fdx.doi.org.2F10.1111.2Fj.1467-8721.2007.00506.x}} and then blanks the template when a speedy delete tag is added.
Link
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cite_doi/http:.2F.2Fdx.doi.org.2F10.1111.2Fj.1467-8721.2007.00506.x&action=history
Replication instructions
revert the last edit shown for this template and then wait a while.

Discussion

A second example of this unexpected behaviour: [86] Illia Connell (talk) 03:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Garbage in, garbage out! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 17:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

Moved from User talk:DOI bot

Is it possible to mechanically convert a BibTeX citation (as generated by Mathematical Reviews), such as

@article {MR0102537,

   AUTHOR = {Grothendieck, Alexander},
    TITLE = {Sur quelques points d'alg\`ebre homologique},
  JOURNAL = {T\^ohoku Math. J. (2)},
 FJOURNAL = {The Tohoku Mathematical Journal. Second Series},
   VOLUME = {9},
     YEAR = {1957},
    PAGES = {119--221},
     ISSN = {0040-8735},
  MRCLASS = {18.00},
 MRNUMBER = {MR0102537 (21 \#1328)},

MRREVIEWER = {D. Buchsbaum}, }

into a format which can be pasted into a Wikipedia article?

ranicki (talk) 06:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Should be able to just use {{cite journal}} with |mr=0102537, then let the bot expand it. Or doesn't that work? LeadSongDog come howl! 16:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I have software that is capable of doing this. For your example, it produces

{{citation
 | last = Grothendieck | first = Alexander
 | journal = The Tohoku Mathematical Journal
 | mr = 0102537
 | pages = 119–221
 | series = Second Series
 | title = Sur quelques points d'algèbre homologique
 | volume = 9
 | year = 1957}}

which renders as

  • Grothendieck, Alexander (1957), "Sur quelques points d'algèbre homologique", The Tohoku Mathematical Journal, Second Series 9: 119–221, MR 0102537 .

It can also go the other way, from Wikipedia citation or cite templates to BibTeX. However, it currently only runs on OS X. If you're interested in trying it out, drop me an email. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC) {{resolved}}

"Expand citations" link

"Expand citations" link

Status
new bug
Reported by
Technical 13 (talk) 13:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Type of bug
Inconvenience
Actual / expected output
Using "Expand citations" link in 'p-tb' (toolbox in sidebar) does not open in new tab or return user to page they were on.
We can't proceed until
Agreement on the best solution
Requested action from maintainer

Discussion

Not exactly a bug, but if you'd like to suggest a way to implement this, feel free; the related scripts are all available. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

A {{cite doi}} reversed into error

A {{cite doi}} reversed into error

Status
Fixed in r435
Reported by
DePiep (talk) 12:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
template:Cite doi/10.1021.2Fed044p475: after I manually corrected cs1 error (author name repeated), the bot reversed my edit, back into the error situation.
Never add another parameter for the same ("author" and "last1", e.g.). See Help:CS1_errors#redundant_parameters.
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cite_doi/10.1021.2Fed044p475&diff=551947358&oldid=551947341

Discussion

{{resolved}}

unused_data

The detection of invalid parameters and the move to 'unused_data' is now obsolete for the Lua versions of the citation templates. These templates now detect invalid parameter names and fields without parameters and immediately show an error and add a category. --  Gadget850 talk 12:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Fixed in r437 {{resolved}}

New parameter name changed into wrong name

New parameter name changed into wrong name

Status
{{Resolved}}
Reported by
DePiep (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
I added manually param "displayauthors=9" (new CS1 citation option). The bot changes it into "display-authors=9". This is not an existing parameter name, so the ref shows an error.
Leave it alone? It should not write an illegal name in the first place.
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cite_doi/10.1103.2FPhysRevLett.31.647&diff=552193337&oldid=552193321

Discussion


What error? Both |displayauthors= and |display-authors= should be supported as synonyms of each other. There is no reason for the bot to be converting one into the other, but it doesn't seem harmful or generate an error as far as I can see. Dragons flight (talk) 23:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

You are right. This was not one of the reappearing errors, and I missed the synonym thing. Changed level of severity for the useless edit. Or withdraw? -DePiep (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to add new parameters to User:Citation bot/parameters. The bot will then recognize them as valid parameters. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Bot adds incorrect (and implausibly large page value)

Bot adds incorrect (and implausibly large page value)

Status
{{wontfix}}
Reported by
RP88 (talk) 11:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
For doi 10.1056/NEJMoa1304617 Citation Bot wants to add an incorrect (and implausibly large) page value of "130424140638006". This bizarre page value is actually in the source DOI metadata (shame on you New England Journal of Medicine!)
Link
See history of Template:Cite doi/10.1056.2FNEJMoa1304617. In particular first Citation bot edit and second Citation bot edit (which re-added invalid pages value).

Discussion

Feel free to suggest a sanity check in PHP; I'd be happy to add this to the source code. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

On the assumption that such a sanity check is non-trivial (or at least beyond the ability of the submitter), I'm closing this bug. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 11:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

Bot assumes that pipe is part of URL

Bot assumes that pipe is part of URL

Status
Reported by
Redrose64 (talk) 12:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
A pipe correctly used as a parameter separator within {{cite web}} i.e. |url=http://benoitpoirierdambreville.com/about/|accessed 30 April 2013 was altered to %7C which made it and the following word become part of the preceding URL, i.e. http://benoitpoirierdambreville.com/about/%7Caccessed
Regarding the incorrect construct |accessed 30 April 2013:
  • first preference: alter this to the correct construct |accessdate=30 April 2013
  • second preference: simply insert the missing equals giving |accessed=30 April 2013 which would have thrown the error Unknown parameter |accessed= ignored (|accessdate= suggested) (help) which would have placed the page into Category:Pages with citations using unsupported parameters, and so can be fixed up by other processes later
  • third preference: leave alone
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Inongimke/sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=553373767

Discussion

In most cases that match this syntax, the pipe is part of the URL. I can't see a way for the bot to always get this right; if you can think of an algorithm to improve its guessing, feel free to suggest a change to the code. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Pipe is part of the url syntax? This is {{cite web}}, with still the |accessed=-error, but untouched by the bot:
a. {{cite web|url=http://benoitpoirierdambreville.com/about/|accessed 30 April 2013|title=Some title}}
"Some title".  Text "accessed 30 April 2013" ignored (help)
The url comes out as intended, and the pipe is recognised as para-separator. The error is noted.
This is the same, but with | correct:
b. {{cite web|url=http://benoitpoirierdambreville.com/about/|accessdate=30 April 2013|title=Some title}}
"Some title". Retrieved 30 April 2013. 
The bot need not recognise the pipe as part of the url. My algorithm: if left alone, (for the cite template to handle), it ends fine. -DePiep (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I've moved this back from User talk:Citation bot/Archive1 because it was not resolved. The literal pipe character is not valid in a URL (see rfc:3986), although it may be represented as %7C. There are no templates - not even {{cite web}} - where the literal pipe character is anything other than a separator between parameters. Therefore, the pipe character cannot form part of a URL when that URL is a parameter's value. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Good you retrieved it.
Maybe the bot error cause here is, that the sequence is: url=...|something-not-a-parameter-because-no-=-sign. (which is a rare sequence!). -DePiep (talk) 23:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I can't see any legitimate reason for a trailing pipe in a URL. Another example here of the bot changing it to % encoded form. There's no good reason why the sequence [pipe][whitespace][pipe] or [pipe][pipe] should be left at all in the parameter list, they can always be safely changed to [whitespace][pipe]. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Not just about a trailing pipe. The OP example url above ends up with the pipe, escaped, midstring (the first space is end-of-url separator). citation bot should not be commanded by extra whitespace requirements in a template parameter list. The general question is: is there a situation possible that we have a non-escaped pipe in an url that should stay there (in a {{citation}}; escaped or not)? If yes: does CS1 itself handle it correctly? If no: citation bot should not touch the pipe as url. -DePiep (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
The MediaWiki template parser treats any bare pipe within pairs of double braces as a parameter separator, without exception. The only way that a pipe within pairs of double braces is not so treated is when it is not a bare pipe - it has been further enclosed by some other Wiki markup such as a piped link [[foo|bar]] (including image syntax), a pair of triple braces (as used in template coding as e.g. {{{url|}}}), etc.
To force the MediaWiki parser to treat a pipe within pairs of double braces (but outside of other markup) as a literal character and not as a param separator, it needs to be intentionally encoded in some way: if it is part of a URL, then %7C will do it; elsewhere (such as in a webpage title) the syntax &#x7C; works.
Many people put templates into pages in such a manner that all superfluous whitespace is removed, so a pipe used as a param separator will often be preceded by characters which are not whitespace; it's not unusual for such characters to be the value of a |url= --Redrose64 (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
So if I understand correctly, there is no reason to treat a pipe in any URL as anything other than a parameter separator. Right? LeadSongDog come howl! 01:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, yes... but the pipe isn't in the URL, it separates the URL from whatever comes next. Some users put the pipe directly after the URL; some use a space and then the pipe; some (like this guy use a space and two pipes. But in all cases, the pipe is taken by the MediaWiki parser as a parameter separator, never as part of a parameter's value. --Redrose64 (talk) 06:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
So it is only citation bot that gets this wrong. The bot did not cut off url-before-a-pipe in these two examples. Module:Citation/CS1 and the three of us talking here, agree. One more thing, about the three options Redrose64 wrote in the original bug report. If the bot corrects internally this behaviour (a straight pipe is always a parameter separator), the first two options are not needed (they are editor/bot edits anyway, not bot or CS1 logic). -DePiep (talk) 07:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
It would be very useful if the bot added a single space before each pipe within any cite code that it edits. The code becomes more readable when that is done. Likewise, spaces before or after "equals" signs are rarely necesaary. 212.139.111.187 (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
re Not just off-topic, it is contrary to the topic! (I do accept your good faith contribution). It is not about our reading, it is about the bots reading ability. -DePiep (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
If the bot ensured there is a single space before every pipe within each cite that it touches, adding the space where missing, then it wouldn't misread the URL or any other part of the cite code. 212.139.111.83 (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
You propose to change the template formatting to serve & solve this bot's problem. A. won't happen, and B. why not change the bot to read a template correctly? -DePiep (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Most code examples seemingly show a space before each pipe. Most humans seem to add a space before each pipe when manually creating a reference. Some people also add a space after each pipe. Sure, change the bot so that it recognises that quote, space, pipe or right-curly-brace signifies the end of a parameter value, but please also change the bot so that it adds a space before each pipe when editing a reference. 212.139.111.83 (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
This is getting funny. For the bot to add a space before a (parameter ending) pipe, it would have to recognise a pipe as such. That is what we both want. EOT. -DePiep (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Some URLs contain a pipe. I don't have an example to hand, but say journal.com/?page=auo|ahi&aht. As such, the bot has to guess whether the intended behaviour is a URL with a pipe in it, or a separate parameter. the bot uses an equals sign as a clue: parameters always contain an equals sign. If there's no equals, it guesses that the pipe's part of the URL. A properly-formatted citation (with or without spaces) will never throw a problem. Hence, marking resolved. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 11:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC) {{resolved}}

Bot readding single page

Bot readding single page

Status
new bug
Reported by
Auric talk 13:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Type of bug
Deleterious: Human-input data is deleted or articles are otherwise significantly affected. Many bot edits require undoing.
Actual / expected output
|page=693 was marked as |pages=693. Fixed. Bot added |pages=693–697; discussion 697–700. Rm'd single |page=693. Bot readded |page=693, causing error, x3. Stopped after 4th removal of old |page=.
Link
Template:Cite doi/10.1097.2F01.PRS.0000101502.22727.5D: Revision history beginning
Replication instructions
change pages to page. wait.
We can't proceed until
Requested action from maintainer
ways to stop this from happening

Discussion

Hmmm, all those edits were inside a very short time window, it's not that urgent to correct the errors, why not hang back a few minutes instead of edit warring with a bot? LeadSongDog come howl! 03:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
It's just really frustrating. Seems to have stopped doing it after I rolled it back on another page instead of just editing.--Auric talk 10:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
You might have an idea there: if the bot ignores an undo but respects a rollback as an instruction not to do it again, that might explain why this sequence ceased. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kakkonto may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

Strange wikitext added - what is it?

Strange wikitext added - what is it?

Status
new bug
Reported by
Redrose64 (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Type of bug
Inconvenience: Humans must occasionally make immediate edits to clean up after the bot
Actual / expected output
Some really strange wikitext is added at the bottom of the page. Is it debugging code?
Link
What happened here?
We can't proceed until
Agreement on the best solution
Requested action from maintainer

Discussion

Looks like an edit conflict, cf. [87]. {{resolved}}.

Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 11:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

again

No Lua CS1 conforming

Status
{{resolved}}
Reported by
DePiep (talk) 21:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
[88] [89] (the actual edit)
the bot should follow new CS situation

Discussion

There is no response from bot maintenance to prevent these errors. See Module talk:Citation/CS1. -DePiep (talk) 21:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

FYI Bot introducing an error in the same topic |displayauthors= (though not exactly the same): [90]. -DePiep (talk) 14:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
{{cite journal}} throws |displayauthors= suggested when there are exactly nine authors, and |displayauthors= has not been set. It's a hint that you may either add further authors beyond nine, since we now support many more, or to add an explicit |displayauthors=9 if the paper credits exactly nine authors. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
re Redrose64. This is not just {{cite journal}}, it is basically Module:Citation/CS1 (see it's talk). I say: Citation bot should not introduce (or: re-introduce) this error. (same link again) shows it did (currect ref #7). -DePiep (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh yes, I know about Module:Citation/CS1 - most of the error messages are in its submodule Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration. I used {{cite journal}} as an example, that being the layer used directly in Samarium.
I do agree that the bot shouldn't make these errors; however, I am unable to fix it - it's not my bot - so I blocked it (after notifying WP:BON) because the number of bug reports on this page that are simply being ignored was far too great. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Of course I am aware of your knowledge. I only noted my point, here, to wake up and help the bot master. Also I did not raise a new full bug issue here. Why bother? -DePiep (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • This bug report is unintelligible. I have no idea what "Lua CS1 conforming" means, nor how to find out. Please list concrete requests that I am able to action. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
This refers to the new Module:Citation/CS1 core that replaces {{citation/core}} and is programmed using the Lua language. For this particular error, see Help:CS1 errors#Help:CS1 errors. --  Gadget850 talk 15:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
The bot edit (the actual edit, mentioned in the bot report) introduces two redtext errors in the reference list: [91]. The cause is explained in the CS1 help page, I won't repeat here. As Redrose64 explained another way using the red error text, this is because of the new Module:Citation/CS1. Strange that you claim to have solved the errors, but do not have a clue when someone writes "CS1". -DePiep (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I couldn't see any red-text errors, so am marking this report as resolved. Please file a new bug report if there's anything outstanding, with a detailed explaination of the required action. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 10:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Valid accessdate removed

[92]: a valid |accessdate= removed by the bot. -DePiep (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, no, that was not a valid accessdate. Accessdates should be used for sources that are changeable, which is not the case for a print source. The bot's action was correct. Check the hidden cats of this page, after your incorrect reversal of the bot, it is now in Category:Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL, awaiting cleanup... --Randykitty (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
The reference uses {{cite web}}, so not print. Or, how would the bot have concluded it were print? -DePiep (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Like the cat says: accessdate but no URL. --Randykitty (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Then possible conclusions: 1. It was print → change {{cite web}} into a more apropriate template. 2. url can be recovered and added: accessdate can stay. 3. No url available: rm accessdate, rm |url=. The bot concluded one, while it would require user-intervention to get the right conclusion & solution. -DePiep (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't see how a mere bot could ever decide whether this should be a cite journal, cite news, or any other citation template instead of cite web. I don't know whether the bot tries to recover URLs through Google, but it does add URLs (if needed) if it has something to go by (like a PMID; in the present case, even a human editor may not be able to readily see what the editor who added the reference actually intended: to me it seems like a journal article, but without Googling it and finding something online, I can't be certain). As it is, the citation template itself signals an error (by adding the hidden cat) and the simplest fix is to remove the accessdate (which indeed doesn't make sense in the absence of an URL). If that is the incorrect action, then it is the responsibility of the editor triggering the bot to check and correct where necessary. It's a tool and, unfortunately, at this point an imperfect one, but it still is extremely helpful to complete citations that miss info (like dois, PMIDs, title, etc, etc). It's an enormous timesaver if you can simply insert {{cite journal |PMID=1234567}} and then have the bot fill in the nitty-gritty details. --Randykitty (talk) 08:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Automated botreporter reinstalled. It was not removed by the bot maintainer. -DePiep (talk) 08:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
(Wrong section -- movedto #Blocked) -DePiep (talk) 08:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Randykitty, if the bot can't decide it should leave the citation alone. No mishandling the error situation. End of story. There was a extensive and inconclusive discussion on how to handle exactly these situations at VP/P. It clearly did not conclude one can delete such a lone accessdate without checks. So the bot should follow. And the invoking editor is not responsible for a bots automated action. -DePiep (talk) 08:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
This citation has a date, thus the access date is not required. --  Gadget850 talk 23:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
See also User talk:CitationCleanerBot#Accessdates. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

set displayauthors=9 when exactly 9 authors

cite doi page created with error. Bot should know that when there are 9 authors, set |displayauthors=9. See Help:CS1_errors#displayauthors. -DePiep (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

* 2: creation with error. 3: [93] 4: [94]. -DePiep (talk) 09:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Another solution for the same problem: if there are more authors than listed (say there are 12 authors and 4 are listed in the reference here), one should always write |displayauthors=3 (4 - 1 = 3) which produces "et al." correctly. This same is valid for situation: "9 listed, unknown number --> |displayauthor=8". -DePiep (talk) 09:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
The simple, general answer, which should always work, is to set the default to |displayauthors=1, then let editors change it if they prefer something else. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I am such an editor, and I would not like to have a bot say "1" when I took time to descibe more authors. -DePiep (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
So set it to the value you prefer. It's trivial to do. Or perhaps you simply want every article to default to your preference to show all authors? That won't wash, it has been discussed many times. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
The behavior of the CS1 templates is to show all authors that someone has taken the time to enter, unless the editor filling in the template also chooses to add a |displayauthors= setting in order to force truncation. If 33 authors are entered then 33 are shown. One can think of this as a default setting of infinite for displayauthors, though that is still restrained by the willingness of editors to actually type in a long author list. As far as I know there is no requirement anywhere that an editor has to enter every author. I also don't know of any broad policy that specifies any particular level of truncation as required or preferred. Which suggests that the only controlling issue is WP:CITEVAR, i.e. that citations should generally be consistent within individual articles.
The only exception to the above rule is that if an editor enters exactly 9 authors, then we presently treat that as if |displayauthors=8 were set because that matches the historical behavior of the templates prior to Lua, i.e. entering exactly nine authors resulted in eight authors being display followed by an "et al.". Dragons flight (talk) 05:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
It is a good idea to fill in as many authors as are credited on the paper, even if it is desired to display fewer - this is so that the COinS metadata is populated properly.
Here is the documentation for |displayauthors= - that's from {{cite journal}} but it's the same for {{citation}} and all the others based upon Module:citation/CS1. Pre-Lua, if |displayauthors= were not set explicitly, these templates would behave as if |displayauthors=8 had been set. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Good catch. So unless we find consensus on changing the behaviour, the post-Lua templates should continue to treat display-authors=8 as the implicit default value. Otherwise we substantially change a huge number of articles without the consent of their editors. If they want some different behaviour they can say so by specifying an explicit value for display-authors. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Preferred CS1 behaviour is not exactly the topic here (this page). The primary issue is that when the bot adds exactly 9 authors, CS1 produces the error message (see the pre-Lua behaviour noted above). A bot introducing an error message is seriously at fault. This specific situation should be covered (prevented) by the bot.
Now the bot can arrive at 9 authors for 2 reasons:
  • For historical reason, the bot never looks further than 9. If so, the bot should add |displayauthosrs=8 (produces et al., correct).
  • There are exactly 9 authors in the source. If the bot knows this, it should add |displayauthors=9. (No et al. will be added, correct).
Bot action should not require manual action afterwards to remove the error message. -DePiep (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm marking this resolved; please file a bug report using a link at the top if there is any outstanding action required of me. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 10:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC) {{resolved}}

The bot is trying to add an f word with every edit

Status
Fixed in r431
Reported by
Materialscientist (talk) 13:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
The bot adds letter f in the beginning of the article, at least when called manually using the "citation" button.
Replication instructions
Try any article

Discussion

  • I've looked at several of the user-activated edits that the bot made in the last few hours and I don't see a single instance of this. Can you give an example? --Randykitty (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Me too... Then I did this:
  1. Open a page with refs to edit, say [95]
  2. Hit the "Citation" button (with me, it is in the row with the ""Save page", "Show preview" buttons: below the editbox)
  3. After bot processing (maybe some seconds), very first character now is "f".
Clearly, no much editors did save this. -DePiep (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I see it now, it only occurs if you run the bot while editing. I have a link in my toolbox, which processes an article in a sort of batch mode. Just tried that on The New England Journal of Medicine and then it doesn't happen. My guess is that this is a simple typo introduced by the modifications made to the bot yesterday. Correcting it should be fairly trivial for somebody who knows bots. Unfortunately, I can program in PASCAL, but not much more (and to show my age: I can read FORTRAN and have heard of COBOL... :-). --Randykitty (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
So, a bug it is. -DePiep (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Difflinks please. No need to send others on hunting expeditions through your contribs looking for edits.LeadSongDog come howl! 21:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
[96]. -DePiep (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
and btw, the bot master is not interested. Why who how spend time? -DePiep (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
also, I get the smell that LeadSongDog is related to the bot owner. -DePiep (talk) 22:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
In the sense that I've long made use of this bot on WP, yes. In the sense that I've tried to help others use it and improve it, yes. On a couple of occasions I've given him an email prod when things seemed to be deteriorating here. But I wouldn't know him if I passed him on the street. Is there some reason for hurling accusations around? Have you been having an unpleasant day? In any case, I am quite sure you've failed to read the history here. The bot owner has for many years undertaken the support of an unending stream of whimsical changes in the stylistic requirements the bot needs to support, largely without complaint. I see no reason you should heap vitriol upon him in this fashion. Now if you had volunteered to undertake support of the bot and been rebuffed, that might be a different matter... LeadSongDog come howl! 22:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
hurling accusations around I do not. I point to failings in the bot. If the bot is this important, we should not be dependent on a personal behaviour. And I maitain that the recent (June 2nd) edits by botowner do not show a grasping of the changes. Looking for CS1 would prevent ignorance. -DePiep (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Your "smell" implication that I was somehow inappropriately connected to Smith609 was indeed a wp:SOCK accusation, and unfounded to boot. "Looking for CS1 would prevent ignorance" is a statement free of useful content. You'll need to actually say what you mean if you wish to have it understood and acted upon. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────So it is [97]. -DePiep (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

This is clearly a simple typo in rev428 to the bot. I'm sure that it'll be readily remedied.LeadSongDog come howl! 21:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I am seeing the same problem. In fact, I added a report below (not knowing this discussion was underway. (It's nice to know that I'm not the only editor experiencing the problem.) So it has not been fixed. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

error into Darmstadtium

About Darmstadtium.

Bot edit: [98]

Before bot action: [99]: no error (check ref #15)

After bot action: [100]: error (at ref #15)

Citation bot introduced an error. -DePiep (talk) 22:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Look closer. The before version had many different values for |last2=. Garbage in, garbage out. If you look at the recommended citation on the e-journal it reads "Ginter, T.N.; Gregorich, K.E.; Loveland, W.; Lee, D.M.; Kirbach, U.W.; Sudowe, R.; et al.(2002). Confirmation of production of element 110 by the (208)Pb(64-Ni,n)reaction. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Retrieved from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/8pr676mb" which is to say, only six authors displayed. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
many different values for |last2=??? Which input error do you point at? What is the garbage in? If there were multiple entrances for the same |last2= or its synonyms like |author2=, there would have been an error message. The before-input had no errors and was in line with the documentation. -DePiep (talk) 09:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Before code: {{cite journal|doi=10.1103/PhysRevC.67.064609|title=Confirmation of production of element 110 by the <sup>208</sup>Pb(<sup>64</sup>Ni,n) reaction|year=2003|author=Ginter, T. N.|journal=Physical Review C|volume=67|page=064609 |last2=Gregorich|first2=K.|last3=Loveland|first3=W.|last4=Lee|first4=D.|last5=Kirbach|first5=U.|last6=Sudowe|first6=R.|last7=Folden|first7=C.|last8=Patin|first8=J.|last9=Seward|first9=N.|first10=P. |last10=Wilk|first11=P. |last11=Zielinski|first12=K. |last12=Aleklett|first13=R. |last13=Eichler|first14=H. |last14=Nitsche|first15=D. |last15=Hoffman |bibcode = 2003PhRvC..67f4609G|issue=6 }}
Ginter, T. N.; Gregorich, K.; Loveland, W.; Lee, D.; Kirbach, U.; Sudowe, R.; Folden, C.; Patin, J.; Seward, N.; Wilk, P.; Zielinski, P.; Aleklett, K.; Eichler, R.; Nitsche, H.; Hoffman, D. (2003). "Confirmation of production of element 110 by the 208Pb(64Ni,n) reaction". Physical Review C 67 (6): 064609. Bibcode:2003PhRvC..67f4609G. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.67.064609. 
Again: what is the error? And, of course, why did the bot not remove that "error"? Instead, it introduced one. -DePiep (talk) 10:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, my previous comment pointed at the wrong changed para: You had this for ref name="267Ds"

{{cite journal|doi=10.1103/PhysRevC.51.R2293|title=Evidence for the possible synthesis of element 110 produced by the <sup>59</sup>Co+<sup>209</sup>Bi reaction|year=1995|author=Ghiorso, A.|journal=Physical Review C|volume=51|pages=R2293|last2=Lee|first2=D.|last3=Somerville|first3=L.|last4=Loveland|first4=W.|last5=Nitschke|first5=J.|last6=Ghiorso|first6=W.|last7=Seaborg|first7=G.|last8=Wilmarth|first8=P.|last9=Leres|first9=R.|first10=A. |last10=Wydler|first11=M. |last11=Nurmia|first12=K. |last12=Gregorich|first13=K. |last13=Czerwinski|first14=R. |last14=Gaylord|first15=T. |last15=Hamilton|first16=N. J. |last16=Hannink|first17=D. C. |last17=Hoffman|first18=C. |last18=Jarzynski|first19=C. |last19=Kacher|first20=B. |last2=Kadkhodayan|first21=S. |last2=Kreek|first22=M. |last2=Lane|first23=A. |last2=Lyon|first24=M. A. |last2=McMahan|first25=M. |last2=Neu|first26=T. |last2=Sikkeland|first27=W. J. |last2=Swiatecki|first28=A. |last2=Türler|first29=J. T. |last2=Walton|first30=S. |last2=Yashita|bibcode = 1995PhRvC..51.2293G|issue=5 }}

which renders as

Ghiorso, A.; Yashita, D.; Somerville, L.; Loveland, W.; Nitschke, J.; Ghiorso, W.; Seaborg, G.; Wilmarth, P.; Leres, R.; Wydler, A.; Nurmia, M.; Gregorich, K.; Czerwinski, K.; Gaylord, R.; Hamilton, T.; Hannink, N. J.; Hoffman, D. C.; Jarzynski, C.; Kacher, C. (1995). "Evidence for the possible synthesis of element 110 produced by the 59Co+209Bi reaction". Physical Review C 51 (5): R2293. Bibcode:1995PhRvC..51.2293G. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.51.R2293. 

before the edit which you linked above as [26]. Please note that it showed |last2=(twelve different values: Lee, Kadkhodayan, Kreek, Lane, Lyon, McMahan, Neu, Sikkeland, Swiatecki, Türler, Walton, Yashita) until I fixed it for you. The bot had attempted to fix it, by using the last value provided (Yashita), but of course that was incorrect. This is why human oversight is needed when using this bot, but it certainly reduced the number of errors in that wikitext (from eleven to one), which most readers would consider a good thing.LeadSongDog come howl! 15:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Clarify this first: you are about a different reference as I am (two are edited in the diff). In the opening diffs, I am pointing to #15, which is by author Ginter et al. The bot removed authors 10 and up, thereby introducing the |displayauthors= error note. That is the error I pointed to, and the only error present.
I can note that the bot did this before too [101], on May 26.
The first erroneous removal was on May 26, twenty days after I added them. I did not use the bot, it self-started ("user-activated" is a weird word the bot writes in the es). Then [102] user:Materialscientist cleaned up later on May 26. Next action: on June 3 you invoked the bot, I understand (it redid the error, you obviously missed that in the check). Conclusion: the first time the bot operated on itself, not by me.
About the reference you point to: clearly the repeated |last2= input did not produce an error (guess I did that input, manually).

-DePiep (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Right. In any case, we are discussing actions long before Smith609 changed the bot code two days ago. Unfortunately, that code edit introduced the "f" bug you discuss above, clearly a simple typo at the very first character of the code. No doubt that will be remedied quickly on his next opportunity. I'm not entirely sure from reading it that the 10th author bug has been eliminated, rather than converted to a 100th author bug, but that should be a much rarer usecase. My php skills are pretty limited. If you like, try some sandbox tests and see what happens. The missing error message isn't a bot issue, it is a template issue. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, the main issue is that botowner did not grasp the CS1 change at all. Also, botowner says like "mail me when something changes", while there is something big is going on right now on his own bot talkpage. Your Sure it will be allright believe is not mine. And I maintain: the current version (June 2) still introduces an error: this post is about, diffs atop. -DePiep (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
What is it you think he didn't grasp? Anyhow, I just emailed him for you. Next time, please do so yourself, as he requested. Wikipedia is wp:NOTMANDATORY, if he doesn't want to log in every hour of every day, that's his privilege. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
If he doesn't want to maintain his bot, that's his privilege too, but the privilege should not extend to continuing to allow the unmaintained bot to keep running when it's had deleterious bugs for months that have no sign of ever being fixed. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
You might want to scroll to the top of this talkpage and read what he says there. Perhaps you'd like to step up? LeadSongDog come howl! 01:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── From my OP here: citation bot edit, June 2. That is after "all clear sign" by botowner.

The bot introduced an error on the same Darmstadtium page. Second time. -DePiep (talk) 23:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Given the interest from multiple editors in keeping the bot running and addressing some of the definite issues, has anybody asked Martin for commit access to the source on Google code, and understood how the source is deployed to the toolserver? Rjwilmsi 10:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Has this been {{resolved}}? If not, please file a bug report using the link at the top of the page. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 10:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Redundant parameter added when alias was already present

Redundant parameter added when alias was already present

Status
Fixed in r436
Reported by
Redrose64 (talk) 00:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
The bot added |journal=International Railway Journal when |work=International Railway Journal was already present. One is the alias of the other, and the presence of both causes the error More than one of |work= and |journal= specified (help) to be thrown.
Leave it alone
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eurostar&curid=10093&diff=559121102&oldid=557379279

Discussion

Howdy. I noticed that the bot did this again on June 27 here. I fixed it. Is there any kind of update when this bug might be fixed?--Rockfang (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

In this case the bot saw an instance of {{cite journal}} without |journal= but with |work=Behav Ecol. What it should have done is change para work to para journal while keeping the value, to have |journal=Behav Ecol. Instead it simply added |journal=Behav Ecol. The old template tolerated this redundancy, but the new one (post-Lua) does not, creating a problem. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

First author left alone when adding extra authors makes citation worse

Status
{{resolved}}
Reported by
Quietbritishjim (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
"A et al" is changed to "A et al, B, C, D", and "A, B, C" (in one author field" is changed to "A, B, C, B, C"
Link
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_evolution&curid=10326&diff=559874112&oldid=559046540

Discussion

It seems to be impossible to guard against this type of problem, because the root cause is that the citation template parameters were not filled in properly. But this shouldn't be dismissed; if citations were always filled out perfectly then this bot would never be needed! I'm not sure if this was an automated change since the end of the edit summary seems to be cut off. If it was manually triggered by an editor than obviously that's that editor's fault for not checking the preview properly. In that case please let us know how to find out who the user is so that they can be informed. If it was an automatic change then I think the bot should be disabled for all such changes, especially if the maintainer is no longer active. Quietbritishjim (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Reinstating erroneous data

Reinstating erroneous data

Status
new bug
Reported by
Gareth Jones (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Type of bug
Inconvenience: Humans must occasionally make immediate edits to clean up after the bot
Actual / expected output
Erroneous parameters are reinstated. DOI query evidently returning the wrong values, so I edited manually. Bot is reinstating erroneous " last2 = Atiyah
No edit was required, the bot should not reinstate erroneous data.
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ACite_doi%2F10.1017.2FS0305004100036094&diff=549715824&oldid=549714894
We can't proceed until
Agreement on the best solution
Requested action from maintainer

Discussion

I've now blanked the parameters and hope this will stop a further automated edit. I wasn't expecting the citation bot to revisit the page, perhaps the bot should not re-edit pages it has already touched once? Gareth Jones (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, OCLC 4668945893 and Bibcode1961PCPS...57..902K both show that second author, which metadata the ADS attributes to CROSSREF. If they are in error, the bot should ignore |last2=<!-- leave blank to exclude bad data --> I'm not sure about leaving the parameter undefined. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Then OCLC and Bibcode both have bad data. The article is by Kingman (only), "Communicated by M. F. Atiyah" meaning I believe that Atiyah is acting as journal editor. The pdf that one gets from the publisher says "How to cite this article: J. F. C. Kingman (1961). The single server queue in heavy traffic. Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 57, pp 902­904 doi:10.1017/S0305004100036094". So I believe this is not a Citation bot bug. But is there some way to tell the bot not to touch this field, other than locking it out of the citation altogether? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

A correction request has been submitted to the ADS, we'll see if they correct their record. Meanwhile, something's odd about what happened with this, but it should work with this. I'll see if I can determine why they're treated differently.LeadSongDog come howl! 06:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC) {{resolved}}

Cite wikisource

Blanked {{Cite wikisource}}

Status
One-off
Reported by
 Gadget850 talk 13:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Type of bug
Deleterious: Human-input data is deleted or articles are otherwise significantly affected. Many bot edits require undoing.
Actual / expected output
Link
Old revision of Cite wikisource
We can't proceed until
Agreement on the best solution
Requested action from maintainer

Discussion

Can't replicate. Looks like a one-off data glitch. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 16:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC){{Resolved}}

Can't find citation

Can't find citation

Status
{{wontfix}}
Reported by
Wikfr (talk) 23:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
Trys, but can't find anything
Provider: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

Content:text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

TY - JOUR AU - Milius, Susan TI - Botany under the mistletoe: Twisters, spitters, and other flowery thoughts for romantic moments JO - Science News JA - Sci News VL - 158 IS - 26-27 PB - Society for Science & the Public SN - 1943-0930 UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/4018592 DO - 10.2307/4018592 SP - 411 EP - 413 PY - 2000 ER -

Link
http://toolserver.org/~verisimilus/Bot/DOI_bot/doibot.php?doi=10.2307%2F4018592

Discussion

This is a database error. JSTOR - to where this DOI links - sometimes provides duplicate dois. Try using the DOi from Wiley & Son. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 16:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Bot makes changes resulting in unbalanced braces

Bot makes change resulting in unbalanced braces

Status
Invalid
Reported by
EEng (talk) 02:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
{{thinsp}} manually entered by human here [103], turned by bot into {{T.} (complete with unbalanced braces as shown here)
Link
[104]

Discussion


Look, I'm sure I'll get an earful about why the hell I even bothered to add {{thinsp}} ( thinsp is a "thin space"). But whether or not that was a good idea, the bot certainly shouldn't do what it did -- no doubt this wanders into an unanticipated corner case in some regex.

Interesting. The xml from pubmed for that cited source shows:

<ArticleTitle>"No longer Gage": frontal lobe dysfunction and emotional changes.</ArticleTitle>

That should give |title="No longer Gage": frontal lobe dysfunction and emotional changes. as the value to be automagically inserted by the bot. Your version substituted  &squot; for the leading ", presumably to improve legibility, but breaking the automatic check against published metadata. I note that of the published works citing that paper, many mangle the quotation marks in even stranger ways. This may be a special-enough case to be worth avoiding cite journal entirely, manually writing the cite doi subpage instead. The problem only arises when the title properly begins with a double quotation mark, invoking the substitution of the single... LeadSongDog come howl! 22:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think you're understanding the problem -- nothing to do with the title field. I put {{thinsp}} in 4 fields [105] -- last1, last2, last3, title; also, in title I changed double quotes to single quotes. The bot came in after me and, er, adjusted [106]. In last1, 2, 3 it turned {{thinsp}} into {{T.} (with only one brace on the right!), but it left the {{thinsp}} in the title field alone.
Later [107] I tried using &thinsp; instead of {{thinsp}} and the bot left that alone. So there's something about the {{thinsp}} which is confusing it -- except in the title field!
But your comments raise some interesting points:
1. Surely there are plenty of times that a title contains double-quotes; since the bot knows that the title itself will be enclosed in double-quotes by the cite template, it ought to be made smart enough to change the doubles to singles, and even (as I did manually) add a thinsp at left or right or both as needed. (Whether you want to detect nested quotes in the title and handle them, I leave to you. This well illustrates why the British system of single-inner, double-outer really is better -- under it, to embed a quote within a quote doesn't require "toggling" -- or 'toggling' -- all the inside quotes.)
2. You mentioned "manually writing the cite doi subpage instead". Sure that's fine for some situations, but how to keep the bot from coming in after and fooling with what the human's done? I expected there to be some magic bot_hands_off parameter I could add to the doi cite, but there doesn't seem to be such a thing. (Perhaps in the presence of such a keyword the bot might add, as a <!- -> comment, what it would have put in that field, so a human can judge for himself.)
3. Or, just the fact that a human edited at all might act as an implicit instruction to the bot to keep hands off. In this case, again, the bot might still come in and add a <!- -> comment at the end of fields it "disagrees" with.
4. I realize that (3) above may raise some issues when the source databases the bot is working from update their records i.e. I can imagine that, right now, if an external database makes a spelling correction in a bibliographic record, the bot might propagate that to the doi cite -- if any human intervention blocks the bot permanently, then that cite would never get updated. One way to handle this is the following: any time there's a human edit, the bot comes in and adds a <!- comment to the effect, "Live value is human-supplied. I would have supplied value X." Later, if there's a database update changing one of the field values, the bot looks at that field in the doi cite. If there's no <!- such as I just described, the bot can assume the field was bot-supplied, and therefore it updates the field with the new value from the external database. But if there's a <!- comment, then bot keeps its hands off. Of course, a not-uncommon special case might be that the new value from the external database matches the human-supplied value, because the human knew early that the value was wrong and corrected it. This might actually be worth detecting so the comment can be changed in that case to "Database value finally reflects human-supplied value".)
OK, enough commentary! EEng (talk) 23:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
No, I understood that problem in the forenames, I just couldn't identify its source. I've looked at the code, but I can't claim to have much understanding of it. It seems to be buried several layers down in unicode conversions, and PHP isn't my bag. With regards the toggling issue, it strikes me that the proper place for that functionality is in the templates. If that can't be done, then such failing should be documented so that all editors, human or bot, know that they have to pre-toggle the title quotation marks and in what fashion to do so in order to match the template's expectations.
To have the bot keep "hands off", see User:Citation_bot#Stopping the bot from editing. It's pretty simple. However, there's some merit in saying "for cite doi subpages, leave completed templates untouched if they have been human-edited following the bot's initial filling-out". My personal perspective is rather more drastic: eliminate cite doi template subpages entirely. Just subst them. They are a cute-but-bad idea. That seems, however, not to be a widely-held view and I do not really wish to beat a wp:DEADHORSE. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing me to this other documentation (and see #Pointing_user_to_various_documentation_source. But I'm puzzled. At User:Citation_bot#Stopping_the_bot_from_editing it says
If the bot is erroneously adding a DOI, author, etc to a citation, and you want to stop it adding the data again, you need to put a comment in place of the appropriate parameter – because the bot will not overwrite existing data.
Well, clearly the bot will overwrite existing data -- maybe it should read will not overwrite a value that contains a comment??? I'm gonna try that experiment.
EEng (talk) 22:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


FYI: Any HTML entity is currently rendered without parsing in the COinS metadata:

<span class="citation journal">Stuss, D.&thinsp;T.; Gow, C.&thinsp;A.; Hetherington, C.&thinsp;R. (1992). "&thinsp;'No longer gage': Frontal lobe dysfunction and emotional changes". ''Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology'' <b>60</b> (3): 349–359. [[Digital object identifier|doi]]:[http://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-006X.60.3.349 10.1037/0022-006X.60.3.349]. [[PubMed Identifier|PMID]]&nbsp;[//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1619089 1619089].</span><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AUser+talk%3ACitation+bot%2FArchive1&rft.atitle=%26thinsp%3B%27No+longer+gage%27%3A+Frontal+lobe+dysfunction+and+emotional+changes&rft.aufirst=D.%26thinsp%3BT.&rft.au=Gow%2C+C.%26thinsp%3BA.&rft.au=Hetherington%2C+C.%26thinsp%3BR.&rft.aulast=Stuss&rft.au=Stuss%2C+D.%26thinsp%3BT.&rft.date=1992&rft.genre=article&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1037%2F0022-006X.60.3.349&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F1619089&rft.issue=3&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Consulting+and+Clinical+Psychology&rft.pages=349-359&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.volume=60" class="Z3988"><span style="display:none;">&nbsp;</span></span> --  Gadget850 talk 15:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

For those of us not steeped in this corner of WP: what is the significance of that? What is this metadata fed to? Is it different if a template e.g. { { thinsp } } is used instead? EEng (talk) 22:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • {{thinsp}} is inconsistent with the Cite Doi formatting requirements. If you wish to use this template, then unfortunatly you won't be able to use Cite Doi - using Cite Journal in an article will be fine, and the bot won't alter the forename punctuation. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 17:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

Pointing user to various documentation sources

It's not easy for a novice to find the relevant documentation. It could be better integrated but I lack the time and skill. As a stopgap I suggest that something like the following be added as hatnotes (or whatever) to Template:Cite doi/subpage

For further information on using the bot, adjusting its output, and so on, see User:Citation bot and Template:Cite doi.

EEng (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

DoneMr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 16:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

citation bot added " |last=Schwartz" when the correct " |last13=Schwartz" already existed

in Cancer and nausea, citation bot incorrectly added " |last=Schwartz" (diff). This creates the somewhat confusing error message "More than one of |last1= and |last= specified".  —Chris Capoccia TC 01:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Manually corrected. The entries for authors 13 and 14. Not sure what was confusing about the error message, it seems to have fingered the problem.LeadSongDog come howl! 13:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
manual correction is always possible, but the fact is that authors from bibcodes are still being incorrectly listed with the last name of the first author as author1 and the last name of the last author as last. then citation bot must be giving up and not trying to do any of the rest of the authors. expand any citation from just the bibcode, and you should get the same result.  —Chris Capoccia TC 04:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I encountered a similar issue, where 'last' entries were being added when numbered last names (last1, last2 etc.) were already in use. diff. I had to manually revert. Modest Genius talk 19:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

Unable to handle JSTOR 10.2307?

I've found a couple of pages that have a {{cite doi|10.2307/number}} that the citebot doesn't seem to be able to handle. 10.2307 is JSTOR. OTOH, if I change that to {{cite jstor|number}} it seems to be able to find the appropriate information and create the template. Any ideas? At least as of right now, Vetigastropoda is an example. I could change it to {{cite jstor|1306561}}, but I'm going to leave it there as an example for the moment.Naraht (talk) 13:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Seems that doi is not resolved by Crossref, and searching JSTOR for the number doesn't find the article either, even though it does find it as the first hit when searched for "Vetagastropoda". Perhaps still in the process of registration? LeadSongDog come howl! 13:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree it isn't caught by Crossref, how did you search JSTOR? The search in google that comes up if you search for JSTOR does find for 1306561. This article is from 1997, so it doesn't seem that it is too recent. Is it proper to change it to a cite jstor?Naraht (talk) 21:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I plugged in "Vetagastropoda" to the search box at jstor.org, and it found the article. LeadSongDog come howl! 03:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

Fields do not autofill from URL, ISBN, DOI, etc.

Fields do not autofill from URL, ISBN, DOI, etc.

Status
Not a Citation Bot bug. Reporter was having trouble with RefToolbar. {{resolved}}
Reported by
Brainy J ~~ (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Type of bug
Inconvenience
Actual / expected output
I click the arrows and nothing happens except this RefToolbar spinning throbber.gif
Should autofill at least some of the other fields
Replication instructions
Fill in any field with green arrows next to it and click arrows.
We can't proceed until
Bot operator's feedback on what is feasible
Requested action from maintainer

Discussion

Your bug report didn't say where you saw this problem, making it difficult for others to duplicate and diagnose. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I see it everywhere. Every page of Wikipedia. I have tried Firefox and Chrome so it is not my browser, and I have tried two different computers on different IP addresses, so it isn't my computer. (And there is no field for "location of problem" so how am I supposed to know that's needed?) There should be no problem duplicating it. Just click that "cite" button and try it.-- Brainy J ~~ (talk) 13:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I think you may be misunderstanding how Citation Bot works. Citation bot operates on existing citations, as far as I know. For example, if you create a template like {{cite doi|10.4035/foo.bar.20130915}} in an article and then Preview or Save your article, Citation Bot will come along in a short while and fill in that template for you using the citation information that exists at the web page of that doi. Citation Bot can sometimes also expand existing citations in articles using the "Expand Citations" Gadget, which you can add to your left-side Toolbox by enabling it in Preferences. I have not had much luck with expanding citations using this Gadget on articles, but it works very well for me on cite doi templates. Citation Bot does not just swoop in and fill in partial citations in articles after you have edited them.
Citation Bot is intended to work as described in User:Citation_bot#Function, though I think that some of those functions do not work right (JSTOR doi values, for example, are problematic because of a problem that appears to reside on the JSTOR end of things). I don't think Citation Bot can expand citations based only on a URL, as you hope it will. I've never tried it with an ISBN.
And one last note: where is this "Cite" button that you are clicking? Editors work in many different ways. I don't see or use a "Cite" button in my editing interface. Sorry to be obtuse and blind, but I just add citations by hand. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm guessing BrainyJ's using Wikipedia:RefToolbar/2.0, since the throbber is from File:RefToolbar spinning throbber.gif. It's enabled for all editors by default, and does have a "Cite" button, but that doesn't use this bot. Perhaps BJ's has javascript blocked? LeadSongDog come howl! 03:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Nope, but thanks for linking that since I now know that it's Wikipedia:RefToolbar/1.0 that is bugging out on me. It's not easy to figure out what the names of all these things are. -- Brainy J ~~ (talk) 13:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Speech disfluency

Please send your bot over there. I created a small problem. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen () 00:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. In the future, the best thing to do is to copy and paste the DOI from the article or its web page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

ID vs ISBN

ID vs ISBN

Status
{{resolved}}
Reported by
(tJosve05a (c) 22:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
It changed | id = ISBN 88-85957 - 36 to | id = - 36 | isbn = 88-85957
It should have changed it to | isbn = 88-85957-36
Link
[108]
Replication instructions
undo my edits on this page and try it yourself.

Discussion

I think that part of the problem is that 88-85957 - 36 is not a valid ISBN no matter how you hyphenate or space it: there are only nine digits. Even making it up to 10 or 13 by putting 0- or 978-0- at the start does not make it valid (ISBN 0-88-85957-36 ISBN 978-0-88-85957-36); but if we assume that it's the last digit that's missing, the only possibility that would make a valid ISBN is a 6, i.e. ISBN 88-85957-36-6 --Redrose64 (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
That looks correct, as per OCLC 43082665. I note that it's also available in an English edition as OCLC 51769082. However, it is clearly wrong for the bot to insert an invalid isbn, even if it is just reformatting another invalid isbn. If it can't verify it, it should flag it as invalid. LeadSongDog come howl! 23:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
There will soon be code in the CS1 module that checks ISBNs for characters other than 0-9, hyphen, and X. ISBNs with extraneous characters in CS1 citations will be flagged as erroneous. Citation bot might be able to fix some of these errors, but simply stripping out spaces and other characters may not result in a valid ISBN; a common invalid ISBN entered by editors lists both the 10- and 13-digit ISBNs, like this: Title. ISBN 0-521-45834-X, 9780521458344 Check |isbn= value (help). 
The bot will need to be clever. If the bot can't create a valid ISBN, it should leave it alone (it will already be flagged as an error by the CS1 module). – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Extraneous spaces or misplaced hyphens in ISBNs do not render them invalid: for example, as demonstrated above, ISBN 88-85957-36-6 is valid - but so are ISBN 8885957366 ISBN 8-8-8-5-9-5-7-3-6-6 ISBN 88-85957 36-6 ISBN 88 85957-36 6 ISBN 88 85957 36 6 which are all parsed as exactly the same valid ISBN - it is only the digits themselves which are significant to an ISBN parser. However, ISBN 88-85957 - 36-6 is technically valid (because the ten digits taken together are valid), but the MediaWiki parser chokes on spaces occurring adjacent to hyphens and so won't mark it up as an ISBN. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
The good news, I suppose, is that the bot drew human attention to an error which had been in place for six years, since this edit initially added the reference to the article. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like this is resolved; unmark if not. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 18:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Bogus page numbers

replaces good pages numbers with wrong ones

Status
{{wontfix}}
Reported by
AManWithNoPlan (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
changes page number to wrong things
Replication instructions
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ACite_doi%2F10.1063.2F1.1954771&diff=585457601&oldid=585457583

Discussion

The ADS database record seems rather bizarre at Bibcode2005JChPh.123c4103G, showing "pp. 034103-034103-7" for a 7 page article. Crossref just shows it as page 034103.LeadSongDog come howl! 18:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

GIGO? {{Resolved}} Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 18:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Bad DOI characters

Status
{{resolved}}
Reported by
Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
the bot fails to create the citation template for doi 10.1161.2F​CIR.0b013e318214914f
it is pulling the correct citation, but for some reason fails to make the template
Link
doi:10.1161.2F​CIR.0b013e318214914f
This citation will be automatically completed in the next few minutes. You can jump the queue or expand by hand
Replication instructions
try to generate citation for 10.1161.2F​CIR.0b013e318214914f

Discussion

This is user error. The DOI includes bogus hidden characters right before the / Try this: Jaff, M. R.; McMurtry, M. S.; Archer, S. L.; Cushman, M.; Goldenberg, N.; Goldhaber, S. Z.; Jenkins, J. S.; Kline, J. A.; Michaels, A. D.; Thistlethwaite, P.; Vedantham, S.; White, R. J.; Zierler, B. K. (2011). "Management of Massive and Submassive Pulmonary Embolism, Iliofemoral Deep Vein Thrombosis, and Chronic Thromboembolic Pulmonary Hypertension: A Scientific Statement from the American Heart Association". Circulation 123 (16): 1788–1830. doi:10.1161/CIR.0b013e318214914f. PMID 21422387.  edit

Ah, thank you. I see what I did incorrectly. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Reverted a removal of vandalism

Reverted a removal of vandalism

Status
{{resolved}}
Reported by
(tJosve05a (c) 11:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
I first remove vandalism from this page, then when I clicked expand citations in my tols meny, the bot "undid my edit. (my first edit, the bot's edit and my second edit)

Discussion

Looks like a race condition (a.k.a. wp:edit conflict). All four edits were inside a 4 minute window, and that is a large, extensively referenced article which takes quite a while to process. The bot didn't exactly undo your revert, it simply started from the same (vandalized) version as you did, and by the time it committed, you had jumped in with your quick revert. It's rare but it does happen. Unfortunately, it happens disproportionately often on these massive articles.LeadSongDog come howl! 13:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Changes all times to 01.01

Chnages all times to 01.01

Status
{{wontfix}}
Reported by
(tJosve05a (c) 18:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
See this edit

Discussion

Looks like a race condition. nondeleterious. Don't think there's anything to be done. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 18:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Smith609, I belive this is the same error as #Bot pointlessly changed commented-out access dates, made them all the same above, but I might be misstaken. (tJosve05a (c) 18:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

raw PMC link replaced with broken links

raw PMC link replaced with broken links

Status
{{Resolved}}
Reported by
Elvey (talk) 01:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
raw PMC link replaced with broken links
link improvement
Link
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Specific_absorption_rate&diff=prev&oldid=587166865
Replication instructions
run it again on the current page.

Discussion

I suppose the bug is arguably with the citation template?--Elvey (talk) 01:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know much about templates, but it appears that the underlying {{PMC}} template does not like it when spaces are included in the parameter value. In the above example, spaces were added before and after the PMC ID, resulting in something that looks like item C below:
If the bot inserted the spaces in the curly brackets, it should probably stop doing so. I suppose someone with template programming knowledge could also change {{PMC}} so that it was more tolerant of white space. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done, see here --Redrose64 (talk) 16:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Jonesey95 and Redrose64 !--Elvey (talk) 02:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Link to blocked editor

I have a question about the edit summary of this edit by the bot: [109]. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the edit itself, and I'm not objecting to it in any way. However, the edit summary refers to an editor who is currently blocked, and so I have a question as to what the link to the username indicates. Does this mean that someone who is blocked can, nonetheless, activate the bot to make an edit? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group#Question about bot access by blocked editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

{{Resolved}}

Username spoofing

Username spoofing

Status
{{resolved}}
Reported by
Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
The bot currently allows trolls to spoof usernames and make abusive edits via edit summary vandalism. It was just used to fake my username as if I activated it on Niggers in the White House.
Link
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Niggers_in_the_White_House&diff=573201348&oldid=573180524
Replication instructions
Go to the control panel and insert a fake username or a disruptive message you would like to appear anywhere.

Discussion

Another possible change, if the maintainer is unwilling to add this feature: Add a note like "(username not verified)" when the bot is not run by a logged-in user. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The 'bot has no means to know if the user is logged into Wikipedia. For all we know, this guy could be editing the white house article just to disrupt Wikipedia. K7L (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Following the discussion that I started above at #Link to blocked editor, I find it significant that other editors are now raising what has ended up being a very closely related issue. I really wish that there were more interest amongst bot developers in finding solutions to it, because I think that it is an issue that will not go away. It's probably the case that most bot developers just don't believe that it's a significant enough problem to devote time and effort to, but I believe that I am not alone in the community in wishing that a solution would be found. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Let's reach consensus: What's better: to allow users to associate themselves with a bot's edit, so that genuine questions can be addressed to them, or to force the user that triggers a bot run to remain anonymous, so that the only way of leaving unusual edit summaries is to make an edit one's self? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 07:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
    • There are issues both ways. On one side, the requesting name can be falsified, which could give the appearance that banned editors are editing articles by bot-proxy. Or the falsified name could be used to tie an editor to an article they've never edited for embarrassment reasons. On the other hand, by not linking any name, we have no idea who's requesting the bot edits. The way to fix this is simple: the request page needs to be on a Wikimedia site that uses the Single User Login system so that the request can be tied to an account or an IP for public listing in the edit summary. That can't be done at the moment though. Imzadi 1979  07:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
    • To the question of which is better, I see a contradiction. On the one hand, there is the argument that bots, by definition, only make constructive edits, never disruptive ones, so a bot edit cannot do harm, no matter who triggers it. On the other hand, the question here indicates that other editors might have questions about a bot edit, where they would want to ask something to the editor who triggered the bot. Why would anyone want to question an edit that cannot, by definition, ever do any harm? You can't have it both ways. If it doesn't matter who triggered the bot, why do we need to identify who did it? If we need to identify who did it, why does it not matter if we identify them correctly? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
      • While the bot can't determine if a user is logged in, it could conceivably check that his latest contribution was recent (one day, perhaps). It also could advise users that it has made edits in their name so that they can repudiate spoofed ones. A spoofed user could respond reasonably, as by excluding the bot from that target page. It is also conceivable to provide a way for the user to tell the bot not to edit on his behalf (e.g. in prefs or on the userpage).LeadSongDog come howl! 22:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
        • Those are very good ideas – for any bot. The more I think about, the more I think it's just a matter of time until, following some contentious arbitration case, an editor who was topic-banned by the arbs will be accused of making a bot edit in the area of the topic ban, with drama to follow. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

"Expand citations" gadget in toolbox linked to old version?

"Expand citations" gadget in toolbox linked to old version?

Status
{{resolved}}
Reported by
Jonesey95 (talk) 23:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
Clicking on Toolbox -> Expand citations (the "Citation expander gadget" in Preferences -> Gadgets) results in edits by version 442 of the bot, even though version 458 is current.
The gadget should use v458 (I believe)
Link
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cite_doi/10.1152.2Fajprenal.00006.2008&action=history
Replication instructions
Create a cite doi template, let the bot auto-fill it (it uses v458), then remove some parameters and re-fill it using the Citation Expander gadget in your left-side toolbox.

Discussion

I think this is what's happening, anyway, based on the Version History of Template:Cite doi/10.1152.2Fajprenal.00006.2008. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

{{resolved}} Fixed with move to new server. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

removal of authors

Inappropriate removal of authors

Status
{{wontfix}}
Reported by
Randykitty (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
Bot deletes some authors
Link
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Behavioural_genetics&curid=24235330&diff=593008350&oldid=590755060

Discussion

The author parameter was not specified according to the template documentation. Garbage in, garbage out. It'd be nice to handle this error more gracefully, but this isn't something I can do at the moment. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 21:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I have fixed the above citations and a few others in the same article. Randykitty: for future reference, wikilinks should not be used in author parameters. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that, Jonesey95! I know that we have the parameter "authorlink" for these cases. However, I suspect that there will be many, many cases where editors have used wikilinks in author parameters. That means that all those references will be "garbage out" after citationbot cleans an article up. The syntax may have been wrong, but at least the references were correct, so the "garbage in" part was, IMHO, less serious than the "garbage out" part, rendering correct syntax but incorrect references. Smith609, I immensely appreciate the good work you are doing with this bot, but I think your dismissal of this error is a bit too fast. I don't know zilch about bot programming myself, so I have no clue how much work this is, but perhaps the bot could leave citations that have wikilinks in the authorfields alone and tag them for human attention? Or just simply remove the wikilinks first? We would then lose those links, but I think that would be preferable to introducing incorrect references. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 09:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Randykitty, for what it's worth, I have edited many thousands of {{cite doi}} and {{cite journal}} templates with various errors in them, and I have seen astoundingly few author parameters with multiple authors and wikilinks in the same parameter, which is the situation required for this bug to manifest itself. There is an amazing variety of ways in which WP editors have constructed these templates, some of which "work" but are malformed or generate error messages, and others of which do not work. Among this wondrous diversity, I do not recall seeing this particular variety of error before. I'm guess I'm saying "don't worry too much about it."
That said, I will put in a feature request that wikilinks in author parameters generate a hidden category in these citations. That way, editors might be able to fix the problems before they are whacked by Citation bot. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Excellent, glad to hear that this is a rare error, guess I underestimated the "median WP editor", they do an even better job than I thought :-) Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
A separate authorlink parameter is not an adequate substitute for wikilinks in the author field when only part of the author field should be linked (e.g. when it contains names of multiple authors). And separating everything out into firstn lastn authorn-link, while usually the right choice, is also not always an adequate substitute, for instance when some of the authors are institutions rather than people or when the preferred formatting of author names is different than what can be achieved by separating them out. So I object to the claim that having wikilinks within the author field should be disallowed or treated as garbage; it seems a perfectly acceptable use case (if rare) to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
But the 'author' field should not contain multiple authors; |authors= would be much more suitable in these cases. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 10:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Nevertheless, |author= is an alias of |authors= and the underlying template code treats them identically. Like it or not, there are large numbers of citations that contain a single author parameter that were generated for example using Diberri's template filler tool. Other editors have then imbedded wiki links into the author lists. Not everyone likes to use verbose "first1, last1, ..." parameters. Using a single author parameter to store the author list is much more compact and less cluttered. Boghog (talk) 11:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
You don't need to split every author into lastn/firstn pairs; corporate authors can go into authorn parameters quite happily. It is perfectly legitimate to put e.g. |last1=Doe |first1=John |authorlink1=John Doe (biologist) |author2=United Nations Secretariat |author3=Ban Ki-moon |authorlink3=Ban Ki-moon. See also Template talk:Citation#Lastname, Firstname. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Bot is acting funny on Operation Market Garden

Bot is acting funny on Operation Market Garden

Status
{{resolved}}
Reported by
Dianna (talk) 02:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
The bot is removing definitions of named references, thus breaking them.
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Market_Garden&action=submit
Replication instructions
This edit was performed (but not saved) by opening an edit window and clicking on the "Citations" button.

Discussion

Diannaa, your link merely opens the edit window for the article. Looking back through the page history, I see two recent citation bot edits - this and this. Which one is in error; or is it both, or neither? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for not replying sooner. It looks like the first of the two edits is where most of the damage occurred; the bot removed a bunch of citations outright. But both were bad; the second edit totally removed the citation named "notes". User:Pumpkin Sky undid the two edits to restore the lost citations. -- Dianna (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Lots of reference definitions removed

Status
{{resolved}}
Reported by
Mirokado (talk) 11:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
lots of reference definitions removed, both within the article body and the refs definition list
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rambhadracharya&diff=497517082&oldid=497394723
Replication instructions
not sure

Discussion


Reference content removed

Reference content removed

Status
{{resolved}}
Reported by
StarryGrandma (talk) 23:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
A complete reference was changed to a broken reference name. The reference had two urls, an additional url in it for the publishing organization.
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banana_equivalent_dose&diff=495264583&oldid=491818370

Discussion

The bot went wrong by removing the second of two references. The article uses a list of named references in the reference section between reference and /reference. The reference in the text can be referred to by name, but the full reference needs to be in the reference list. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Two different references with the same name seems to confuse the botAManWithNoPlan (talk) 04:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Changing « and »

Changing « and »

Status
{{resolved}}
Reported by
Voxii (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
The bot changes « and » into quotes ("). Sometimes these symbols are used for other reasons (usually in auto-generated web page titles).
While preserving «/» isn't strictly necessary (</>, ‹/›, •, etc. would be fine too), I don't think changing them to quotes makes sense in all cases.
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Avril_Lavigne_discography&diff=next&oldid=501050940

Discussion

It changes them in Russian too. If an article title has « in I would hope that the bot would keep it like that. The English translation doesn't have the offending character in, but the bot shouldn't alter the Russian. Secretlondon (talk) 01:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that this behaviour is in order to comply with style guidelines that recommend the use of straight quotes. Could you consult the WP:MOS and confirm how it suggests that quotes are handled? Thanks. 131.111.184.106 (talk) 07:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dnestr_radar&diff=505189760&oldid=505188214 It should leave « alone in titles that are in language=Russian and only replace if the « is in trans_title Secretlondon (talk) 01:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Deleted apparently fine refs

Status
{{resolved}}
Reported by
bridies (talk) 13:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
Not really sure, it seemed to have a problem with spacing in a few of my refs, and so... nuked them
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nuclear_Strike&diff=506555436&oldid=506549955
Replication instructions
 ???

Discussion

I'm just reporting a one off diff here, haven't looked into it much, but it wasn't pretty. bridies (talk) 13:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't replicate this. Can you? Or has it been fixed in the past year? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 17:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Cite PMC

Cite PMC Bug

Status
{{resolved}}
Reported by
AManWithNoPlan (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
cite pmc template that are invalid redirects are created
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cite_pmc/353042&oldid=512290843
Replication instructions
The bot just does this

Discussion

The Citation bot does all sorts of horrible things with {{cite pmc}}, but we closed those bugs when {{cite pmc}} was deleted. Some one recreated {{cite pmc}} for no good reason. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 02:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you point to some articles that are affected by this behaviour, so that I can investigate? Thanks. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 08:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Many {{cite pmc}}'s point to nothing. see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cite_pmc/1293471&oldid=519153403 The bot regularly creates these bogus redirects. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
That given example is only transcluded one place, in a userspace subpage: Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Cite_pmc/1293471 Perhaps the bot shouldn't be operating on pages outside articlespace (except for the specific areas of templatespace needed)? LeadSongDog come howl! 22:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
The citation bot creates these pages. Very strange. It just keeps insisting that it is right, such as this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cite_pmc/353042&action=history AManWithNoPlan (talk) 22:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
There are several instances of wikilinks to these templates (not transclusions) in user:NTox/CSD log that may be connected. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Example of the bot breaking a good template. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ACite_pmc%2F344826&diff=520120689&oldid=510508922 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Example of bot destroying good stuff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ACite_pmc%2F112890&diff=531588177&oldid=530155864 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Edits examples in citation instruction page

Edits examples in citation instruction page

Status
{{resolved}}
Reported by
Jc3s5h (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
Edits Wikipedia space including instructional pages
confine editing to article space
Link
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReferencing_for_beginners_with_citation_templates&diff=523064308&oldid=506928152

Discussion

Just use template bots | deny = citation bot to exclude the bot from a page. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 15:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Fixes applied to Google Books meta page URL

Fixes applied to Google Books meta page URL

Status
{{resolved}}
Reported by
 — daranzt ] 21:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
Bot wraps a URL to a page about Google Books (ie, not a book on Google Books) in {{cite journal}}
Probably should leave it entirely alone
Link
[110]

Discussion

A very special case. The vast majority of cites to books.google.com will not be to pages about that service. Even then, few will be naked URLs. Fixed the wikitext.LeadSongDog come howl! 22:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree that it's very much an edge case, but it may be worth excluding the bot from the Google Books article (or the topic area), if this gets more annoying.  — daranzt ] 22:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Adds last2 but not first2, and with pre-exisiting co-authors still present, the last2 name is then shown twice.

Status
{{resolved}}
Reported by
212.139.104.161 (talk) 08:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
Existing entry has last1=... , first1=... and coauthors=... . Bot adds last2=... , but not first2=... . The pre-existing co-authors=... part remains, so duplicate surname shows for the "last2" name. Requires manual addition of the first2=... part and manual deletion of the coauthors=... part.
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chebarkul_meteorite&diff=prev&oldid=541282312
Replication instructions
covered above

Discussion

This seems like an ongoing theme. Articles have inconsistent mix of uses between |authors=, |author1=/|author2=..., |last1=/|last2=, and |coauthors=. These mixes do not seem to be consistently resolved, either with the bot or manually. There should be a discussion on this question in a broader forum. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I remember seeing "coauthors (deprecated)" somewhere on my travels. There needs to be a simple way to convert existing coauthors data to whatever is the new way of managing extra names, as well as some sort of error message shown when editors try to use the coauthors element within new citations. -- 212.139.104.161 (talk) 14:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but many editors still use it. Trying to convert multiple names in the coauthors field automatically is not going to be a simple task. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
An easy first step would be getting rid of all the unpopulated instances of |coauthors=| (and variations for whitespace). Then we'd at least know how many substantive instances we have to deal with.LeadSongDog come howl! 17:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
RefToolbar and maybe ProveIT support coauthors. Probably other tools as well. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 19:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Removal of content from table on citation cleanup

Removal of content from table on citation cleanup

Status
{{resolved}}
Reported by
MASEM (t) 16:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
The bot, when processing this article, appears to have removed re-used named citations that were embedded in tables, as well as remove content from those tables. I don't see any immediate logic for why this was the case.
Link
[111]

Discussion

(talk page stalker) - It appears that the bot incorrectly deleted two instances of <ref name="foobar" />...</ref> - GoingBatty (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

User:RoslynSKP/Battle of Sheria

Status
{{resolved}}
Reported by
Rskp (talk) 06:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Actual / expected output

Discussion

Thanks for your interest, but grouping the references is a bit premature as the article is only just starting. Please don't group the references in any of the other articles which I am currently in the process of creating because they are only drafts, at this stage. --Rskp (talk) 06:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

This refers to this edit and this one. The main question is: why is the bot making edits in user space at all? --Redrose64 (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Have undone them, so no probs. But definitely weird. Do you know an editor who can fix the bot? --Rskp (talk) 00:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
It's easy to stop the bot editing a given page using a template (I think ("{Bots| deny=Citation Bot"} will do it). Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

bot does not like invisible characters

bot does not like invisible characters.

Status
Fixed in r515
Reported by
Martin451 (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
Bot cannot lookup doi even though it appears correct to the human eye.
Bot should ignore invisible characters
Link
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AMartin451%2Fsandbox&diff=549399559&oldid=549399492
Replication instructions
copy and paste a DOI from the Journal of experimental biology website. The bot claim the DOI won't work even though it is correct to the human eye. When editing, there seems to be an extra character between the / and jeb, or some kind of unseen markup. Deleting this character and the / then putting the / back in on the second link, and the bot worked, I have left the first doi broken.

Discussion


| status = {{resolved}}

Bot overwrites a redirect, essentially duplicating a moved article at its pre-move name

Bot overwrites a redirect, essentially duplicating a moved article at its pre-move name

Status
{{resolved}}
Reported by
Redrose64 (talk) 09:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Benny Award had been moved to mainspace as Benny Award. The bot then overwrote the redirect that had been created as part of that move. This meant that there were two similar pages (although not identical) where there should only have been one.
Bot should leave redirects alone
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Benny_Award&diff=prev&oldid=553301305

Discussion

Another instance. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Another. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
And another. This one was worse, because it was then taken as an entirely new AFC submission and moved to mainspace as Infectious Diseases In American Prisons even though the same article had already been moved to Infectious diseases within American prisons. Duplicate articlea in mainspace therefore existed. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Looks like a race condition. Not sure how I can resolve? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith609 (talkcontribs)
Would it not be possible to have the bot check the target article history after saving a revision? If edited within the runtime window (plus perhaps 2 minutes) there is a substantial risk of a race, so self-revert and restart.LeadSongDog come howl! 19:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Great idea! Thanks! I'll implement this in the next update. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 06:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Another case. I gave up looking for these some months ago, but it's clearly still happening - here's another. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Valid HTML comment markers are broken

Valid HTML comment markers are broken

Status
Fixed in r437
Reported by
Redrose64 (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
One of the {{cite news}} templates had two of its parameters placed between valid HTML comment markers, i.e. <!--| archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/5nospLAte | archivedate=February 25, 2010--> the bot has taken the open-comment marker <!-- and decided it was "unused data", moved it after the close-comment marker
leave it alone
Link
[112]

Discussion


Two closing braces were removed in error

Two closing braces were removed in error

Status
{{resolved}}
Reported by
Redrose64 (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
Two closing braces were removed in error
Link
[113] [114]

Discussion


Backwards page ranges

Backwards page ranges

Status
Fixed in r436
Reported by
Redrose64 (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
Bot alters a single page to a page range; but the second page number is lower than the first
Link
pages = 87–10 pages = 3–1

Discussion

Does this systematically occur when going from, say, two digits to three? Or could it be that the data the bot is using is from a pre-publication version that has different pagination? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I really don't know. The point is that before the bot edit, the |pages= parameter held a meaningful value, even if, as a single page number, it should actually have been in the |page= parameter; but after the bot edit, it is no longer meaningful, because the number representing the end of the page range is lower than the number representing the start of the range. I have found out that the second example was probably supposed to be |pages=3–11 which suggests that it has been truncated; but using the same method on the first, I came up with |pages=87–96 which cannot become |pages=97–10 by simple truncation. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Creating broken redirects

Creating broken redirects

Status
{{resolved}}
Reported by
:) ·Salvidrim!·  00:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
Creation of at least one broken redirect.
I'm not terribly sure what the intended behaviour is, but creating broken redirects certainly isn't desireable.
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_pmid/20212135

Discussion

Citation Bot 1

Hi there. This bot is blocked and inactive, as a result its bot flag will soon be removed to try and tidy up our list of accounts with bot flags. If you have any problems get in touch with me on my talk page! ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 10:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Why is the bot blocked? I can't work out how to find this out. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

{{Resolved}}

Blocked

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for failure to fix the issues described at #Update required to avoid deleterious impact on new Lua-based citations and other threads on this page. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Redrose64 (talk) 23:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I miss this bot. It helped me every day. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Same here :-( Meodipt (talk) 07:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
What the heck?? This is one of the most useful tools here. Please have this fixed soonest. Not having this tool creates a HUGE amount of extra work. --Randykitty (talk) 09:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
well we've got an editor that wants to list 33 authors in a citation because the new system lets them. meanwhile, other editors use diberri's style which shows 3–5 authors. i remember the diberri crowd getting upset a while back because authors 6–9 were being added. i can't imagine how they'll respond when the size of their articles doubles for all the tertiary authors.  —Chris Capoccia TC 10:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
The essential problem is that the maintainer of this bot hasn't apparently fixed any bugs since August, and hasn't even commented on any bug reports since October. In that time about 40 bug reports have been filed. One of the most frequently recurring is the incompatibility with expanded Lua author lists, where the bot is destructively reverting the efforts of Wikipedians, though that's certainly not the only issue. Essentially, it appears that this bot has been abandoned by its author. If someone else wants to take up the mantle of fixing and maintaining this bot, it appears that the source code is here. Dragons flight (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Went ahead and updated the userpage to reflect the inactivity. RIP Citation bot! --Nathan2055talk - contribs 18:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I just emailed the bot owner and to my bafflement, nobody had tried that yet, so he was blissfully unaware of these issues (apparently having been less active on WP). Unfortunately, he's leaving for a vacation, so he won't be able to help anytime soon. I must say that I find the cavalier way in which this important tool has been blocked and, by blanking the user page, people are apparently simply putting this bot aside, highly disconcerting. I mean, really, this guy is currently less active and people just keep posting notices here and nobody even tries to email him directly? If this were some minor tool, OK, but this is a hugely important bot and its non-functioning is causing broken templates ("will be completed in the next few minutes") all over (I think it also does the cite pmid template, not just the doi one). I realize that people editing articles on manga, computer games, or sports figures will not be inconvenienced, but anybody editing in the sciences will be severely handicapped by the absence of this bot. --Randykitty (talk) 21:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Citation bot (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

see below

Accept reason:

Unblocked. Closedmouth (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.
I believe this issue to be resolved. As such, it should be safe to unblock the bot. Please let me know if any further changes are required. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Are any of the bugs that were causing the bot to be blocked (getting into edit wars with users and removing correct information from citations) fixed? Because "owner is going on vacation and still won't look at anything for a while" sounds like the opposite of resolved to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Bug again [115]: not resolved (note that maintainer does not have a clue about "CS1", while the discussion has multiple links).
Bug [[#A {{cite doi}} reversed into error]] [116] was not a section (misformed when entered). It now is. Still open, and CS1 related: the bot re-introduces a CS1 error.
Clearly the maintainer has not grasped the CS1 effects. They are mentioned multiple times on this page, including the module and help links. Also I find it strange that we are supposed to mail, while this page is automated for bug reports. -DePiep (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Bug #Bot assumes that pipe is part of URL declared "won't fix" after bad reasoning. (probably introduces errors since CS1 is introduced; at least in the example. -DePiep (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Bug #unused_data: no response. It introduces a CS1 error. -DePiep (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── A temporary fix is to add: "{{bots|deny=Citation bot}}" to the article. I strongly agree that full CS1 support needs to be implemented, but at the same time, blocking the bot is causing more problems than it solves. Boghog (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't sound "temporal" to me. Some CS1-issues (introducing errors) are ignored while declared "all fine". The automated bug reporter was removed (by Nathan2055) and not restored [117]. Bot owner now asks to mail for urgent fixes, and asks pre-announcements for lager exterior changes (as was going over to CS1 I assume). Strangely enough, such a "please adapt the bot to the new situation" are many on this page, but were not read as such (even if they were made post-change with diffs). Meanwhile, yesterday some 12 bugreports have been archived [118]. Some have been changed bugstatus yesterday, but without elaborating the discussion with post-CS1 effects. -DePiep (talk) 07:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I would like to note that this bot is user-activated (even when it fills in cite doi templates, because that us triggered by editor an editor adding such a template). I always use the "history" link that is displayed after the bot has run and look at the changes. If I use a bot like this (reflinks is another example), it is my responsibility to check that the bot did not introduce errors. Of course, ultimately the bot should run flawlessly, but at this point, not having it is worse. --Randykitty (talk) 07:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
There are examples in this buglist that the bot came back and re-introduced errors after I corrected them. What you are saying is more like WP:AWB, where you have to click personally to enter a proposed edit. This bot is not like that. You cannot make me responsible for what the bot does automatically, sometimes days after my edit. Also this remark contradicts the advice to enter {{bots|deny=citation bot}}. -DePiep (talk) 08:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Automated botreporter reinstalled. It was not removed by the bot maintainer. [119] -DePiep (talk) 08:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Quite simply: since the bot relies on {{citation}} templates (basically, that was {{citation/core}}, now Module:citation/CS1) it should comply with that one. It should not introduce errors because of this omission. Putting the load and responsibility on the invoking editor for this is incorrect attitude -- that is not why is is a bot. -DePiep (talk) 08:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Citation bot (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

Please also unblock User:Citation bot 1, which was missed when the above unblock request was actioned. This block is stopping me from fixing bugs! Thanks. Martin (Smith609Talk) 09:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Accept reason:

this one unblocked as well Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

{{resolved}}

Removal of table content

Removal of table content

Status
{{resolved}}
Reported by
MASEM (t) 15:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
Bot removed several rows from a table while trying to clean references.
Link
[120]
Replication instructions
n/a

Discussion


Comment mishandling

Bot messing up cite

Status
Fixed in r434
Reported by
Auric talk 12:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
Bot adds interviewee as author, causing error
Link
history
Replication instructions
remove line |author1=C.A.R.. Wait for bot to restore it.

Discussion

I added {{nobots}} to that citation so that at least we can have a correct citation while this bug is open. Once the bug is fixed, bot access to the cite should be restored. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Author mis-numbering

Status
Fixed in r435
Reported by
Bhny (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Actual / expected output

Discussion

It added a large mess of text to the reference here [