User talk:Trappist the monk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Monkbot)
Jump to: navigation, search
CS1 This user is responsible for those
CS1 error messages (help).
Comments are welcome. If your comments are about my work on a particular article, please make
them at the article's talk page so that everyone who has an interest in the article may participate.

Task 6[edit]

When different language notification methods are mixed, the reference list becomes messy and harder to read. Please stop changing {{xx icon}} into |language=xx in such cases. – Editør (talk) 08:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

If the reference list is 'messy' after task 6 visits a page, the most likely reason is that the article does not have a consistent citation style. This is true of the three pages that you reverted.
Trappist the monk (talk) 11:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
In the article Bert Koenders, the language icons were consistent, but you changed it to two types of icons twice now, for which I can see no reason. – Editør (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
You are both right. The language icon is consistently placed in front of the citations, but the citation style is not consistent. Access date formats vary, and some citations use commas to separate items while others use periods (full stops). Converting all of the references to use {{cite web}} or similar templates would probably be the easiest way to make the citations consistent. I'll be happy to do that for you if you ping me here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Sure, before task 6 edited the page, the icons were consistent. But, the underlying citation style is not. There are 14 citations in that article, of which seven use Citation Style 1. The other seven are whatever style it pleased individual editors to add so there is some stylistic disparity amongst them. The seven that are not CS1 are: 2, 3,9, 11, 12, 13, and 14.
Trappist the monk (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Please stop making the citation style even less consistent in articles that are not only using the cite web template. Also, I am not contesting your edits to the Vondelpark article because there all language notifications had the same form, although I still think the edits are pointless. Jonesey95, Trappist the monk should have done this in the first place or not have changed anything at all. – Editør (talk) 08:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't really know how to respond to this; I can't find anything of substance in your post to which I can reply. Still, I owe you the courtesy of a response of some sort. What I read here is that you want task 6 to not do what it is designed to do because you don't like it showing you that there is a discrepancy in citation style in an article that you care about. I understand that. You state that you think the edits are pointless but offer no evidence to support that position. Please do.
Trappist the monk (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I do not see the purpose of removing the {{xx icon}} at all. Firstly emphasis that the article in reference is far more clearer when it is bolded and not embedded in the cite web template. It gives the English reader a clearer focus that the referenced article will need special attention in understanding. If I had time to write a bot revert your action on your edits, I definitely would. Take notice of other comments that other editors have passed on. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 05:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Taking 2014–15 Ukrainian Premier League as an example, don't you think that the Cyrillic script used in citation titles will alert readers of the English Wikipedia that the source identified by the citation does not use the English language? There is no need to loudly state the obvious.
Trappist the monk (talk) 12:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't. In fact some editors place in the title the transliteration of the title which then makes for an interesting exercises. Also you have to seriously read and concentrate through the whole reference to see the title. If someone is kind enough to give a translation to the title then you can at least evaluate if its worth pursuing the link given. Also some readers may boycott references of other languages - but since you are masking the language with normal font somewhere down the line in the reference I see you plan is to bog down users who would of made up their decision much quicker if they had been alerted right up front, in bold what the language is. I don't think you should be forcing anyone to be using all parameters of the cite web template and they should be considered optional, especially language. Who are you to take this approach ??? Brudder Andrusha (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I think that you are in the minority then. I don't need {{xx icon}} templates to tell me that the Arabic or Japanese or Hebrew or Thai script in |title= or |script-title= is meaningless to me, so I scan right over it until I find something that does have meaning. No serious reading required. I suspect that most readers of English react similarly. I know that when |title= contains Latin-based non-English text, French, Portuguese, Swedish, etc, I still don't need to be loudly told that the language is not English, though because of the alphabet, my brain will try to read it.
If readers are going to boycott references of other languages surely they will do it regardless of the presence of a {{xx icon}} template.
The order of parameters rendered by CS1 citations was established long ago. If you think that it should be changed, the proper forum is Help talk:Citation Style 1.
I have no plan[s] ... to bog down users nor am I forcing anyone to be using all parameters of the cite web template. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it so that I may refute it. With the obvious exception of |title= and |url=, all {{cite web}} parameters are optional, even |language=.
Trappist the monk (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
But you are only thing of yourself. You do not understand the differences in cyrillic scripts. One could start thinking that the article is in Ukrainian and it is in some other cyrillic language. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 21:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
What makes you so sure? I try to avoid Russian articles but sometimes there is only one reference. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 21:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I'll think about it.... Brudder Andrusha (talk) 21:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Then if that is the case you should not be forcing anyone to use it nor should you be inserting it you were not the original editor. 21:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
My solution will be easy. I just wont use {{cite web}} or {{cite news}} when the reference is in language other than English. A pity because the template has good intentions. I'll just use ref /ref and give as little info as necessary and give the reader reason that they better understand what language the article is before selecting that link. Also it will give me reason to reformat all those references your bot has maligned. And it will give you an opportunity which can make you start to thinking of writing some other regressive bot. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 21:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I moved your posts out of my last post; fragmented conversations are more difficult to follow. They are above in the same order. For other readers of this conversation, the I'll think about it.... post refers to my suggestion about the proper place to discuss changes to rendered citation parameter order.
You're right, I can't distinguish between Cyrillic used for Russian and Cyrillic used for Ukrainian or Bosnian or Serbian. I can't distinguish between Arabic script used for Arabic or Persian or Uyghur. I can't distinguish between Chinese or Japanese. Most native English speakers are likely equally encumbered. Given that, there is no benefit to being loudly told what the language is; it is still just a bunch of squiggles on the screen.
I don't understand how your statement: I try to avoid Russian articles but sometimes there is only one reference, rebuts what I said about readers boycotting a reference regardless of the presence of a {{xx icon}} template.
I already said that I'm not forcing anyone to do anything yet still you write that I should not be forcing anyone to use it (I'm not clear here about what the 'it' is that I'm supposedly forcing on people). Your claim: nor should you be inserting it [if] you were not the original editor sounds remarkably like a claim to WP:OWN which you may not do. Except where the community has elected to limit access, anyone may edit any article at any time for any reason.
The choice to use or not to use CS1 is entirely yours, no one, not even I, is forcing CS1 on you. I think it regrettable that in future you have chosen to give readers only minimal information in your citations. I think that that does your readers a disservice.
Trappist the monk (talk) 23:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 22 November[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 23 November[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Altering citation style[edit]

Could you please point me to the guideline page, change, or discussion that explains why MonkBot is altering established citation style on Venezuelan articles? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The changes that led to Monkbot task 6 were to Module:Citation/CS1. The discussions around those changes are here:
These are all small steps on the path to fulfilling a longstanding feature request:
Trappist the monk (talk) 12:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for those discussion links. They all appear to be on little-watched, technical discussions, rather than on guideline pages, and I don't see anything indicating citation style changes to established articles is warranted, so would you mind instructing your bot to cease altering citation style on Venezuelan articles? I prefer, when scanning articles for citation quality, to see the Spanish language sources right up front in the citation, rather than having to read through every citation to identify the Spanish-language sources. Thanks in advance, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Not really possible because, to a bot, a Venezuelan {{es icon}} looks just like an Ecuadoran or Spanish or Mexican {{es icon}}. You can do as I have done for the several articles that you reverted and add a {{bots|Monkbot 6}} template to articles so that task 6 skips them.
Trappist the monk (talk) 00:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

PDFlink removal[edit]

Why remove the PDFlink in edits like this one? I'm not objecting; I just don't understand the technical basis for your edit (not sure what CS1 citations are, or what it means to be COinS safe), and I'd like to understand. Nyttend (talk) 14:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

CS1 citations are those citations that use Citation Style 1 templates. The common CS1 templates are {{cite book}}, {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}}, etc., there are a bunch of them. Certain parameters used in CS1 templates provide their values to the COinS metadata which is used by people who read Wikipedia with specialized referencing software. A COinS safe template is one that when used within a CS1 template doesn't add extraneous text or formatting to the CS1 parameter's value. As an example:
CS1 templates have |date= parameters which are included in the COinS metadata. The date parameter can have date ranges which WP:DATESNO says should be separated with an endash: |date=September–November 2014. Editors may choose, for whatever reason, to write this: |date=September{{endash}}November 2014. {{endash}} is COinS safe because the output of that template is just an endash character.
{{PDFlink}} is not COinS safe because its output includes HTML markup, and external URL, and text that is not part of the cited work's title:
<span class="PDFlink">[ National Register of Historic Places Inventory-Nomination: Beginning Point / Beginning Point of the U.S. Public Land Survey]</span><span style="font-size:smaller;">&nbsp;PDF&nbsp;(511&nbsp;KB)</span>
Did I answer your questions?
Trappist the monk (talk) 15:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, quite well. I'm rather surprised that I've never heard of COinS before. Also, I've heard of "CS1 templates" plenty of times, but never figured out what they are, and I thought "CS1 citations" was some obscure citation style. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 15:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

About a Wikidata property[edit]

Hi Trappist, I took the liberty of cut-and-pasting one of your strong comments as I requested the creation of new metadata property Definition - precisely the one which you indicated that you do not understand. Could you please have a look and

a) indicate if you see its purpose, and
b) indicate if you agree to leave your quote in my justification.

Thks - Laddo (talk) 23:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Trappist the monk (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick feed-back - WD seldom gets input from WP guys and it is highly appreciated. More responses coming soon at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships. Laddo (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Valid cite web parameters?[edit]

Hi Trappist! I see that |chapter-format= is a new {{cite web}} parameter, so I'm submitting a request to the AWB developers to update their list of valid {{cite web}} parameters. Besides the addition of |chapter-format=, do you see anything else that needs to be added or removed in the list below?


Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 20:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Not to {{cite web}} because {{cite web}} no longer supports |chapter= or its aliases. The entire list of the module supported parameters is at Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist. It contains all of the parameters in all of their allowed variations. Valid active parameters are assigned the value true and deprecated parameters are assigned the value false.
What I noticed right away about your list is that a lot of the named identifiers can be either upper-case or lower-case so you'll want to fix that.
Trappist the monk (talk) 20:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I see that Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist includes |chapter=. How can I tell which of these parameters are supported by {{cite web}}? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 21:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
There isn't any simple way and hasn't been since the first version of Module:Citation/CS1. With that fundamental change, parameters that work with one template usually work with all of the others. There are limited cases where certain parameters (like |chapter= and its kin) are not universally applicable but those cases are in the minority.
Trappist the monk (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Could you please add comments in Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist to indicate where those limited cases exist? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 06:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Also, you might want to move script-title to its correct place alphabetically. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I've moved |script-title=. Basic parameters runs from |accessdate= at line 33 to |ZBL= at line 276 – 244 parameters and aliases. I think that I will decline your request for comments in the whitelist because if we do it for {{cite web}} then there is precedence for doing it for {{cite journal}} and {{cite book}} and {{cite ...}}. I could imagine a large table with parameters down the side and CS1 and CS2 templates across the top and intersecting cells identifying what parameter works in a particular template (or perhaps more correctly what parameter doesn't work). But that isn't work I'm interested in pursuing (or maintaining).
Trappist the monk (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I had to look at your contributions to figure out that you moved |script-title= in Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist/sandbox, which I presume will eventually be moved to Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Why was |section= deprecated? It's a useful parameter in many instances, such as when working with old Google newspaper scans or physical microfiche. It helps an editor/reader/researcher locate the exact section of an article, which in older print sources, can be buried in the page. While this may duplicate the page number, sometimes page numbers aren't available or visible. For example, many Google book scans which contain old news articles often don't have a visible page number, even though one may be on record. All of these bad changes is precisely why I stopped using citation templates. Viriditas (talk) 02:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

|section= has not been deprecated. You can see this for yourself at Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist where you will find this:
['section'] = true,
The assignment of the value true indicates to the module that |section= is a valid parameter. When a parameter is deprecated, the assigned value is set to false.
Are you seeing CS1 or CS2 citations where the use of |section= produces the Cite uses deprecated parameters error message?
Trappist the monk (talk) 11:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
@Viriditas, Trappist the monk: I'm interpreting Help:CS1 errors to mean that |section= no longer works in several citation templates. To test this, when I try {{cite web|title=Title|section=Section|url=|publisher=Publisher}} I get the following error:
"Title". Publisher.  |chapter= ignored (help)
This is an example of why I would like the documentation at Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist to have more details. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
User:Trappist the monk/xref is a table of whitelist.basic_arguments parameters vs. templates. It lists all parameters except the identifiers, isbn, doi, zbl, etc and their support parameters asin-tld, embargo, etc. It does not list the enumerated parameters. I have marked all of what are probably the obvious parameter mappings and the deprecated parameters. It is not tested so everything in the table is suspect. This not being my idea of a fun time, I may or may not come back and work on it or finish it. But the structure is there so you and anyone else who would like to improve on it may do so with my blessing (for whatever that is worth).
Trappist the monk (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
The row for "section" is wrong; "section" is (I think) an alias for "chapter", which only seems to work as listed there, i.e. for {{cite book}}, {{cite conference}} and {{cite encyclopedia}}. I can only repeat what I've said elsewhere, that I think this is wrong. It encourages editors to use semantically incorrect parameters to achieve the desired formatting. Thus the visual appearance of a section and a title for a web citation can be produced by:
{{cite web |website=Title|title=Section|url=|publisher=Publisher}}"Section". Title. Publisher. 
but this is really a misuse of the parameters. I think that |section= and its aliases should be allowed everywhere there isn't already a title set in double quote marks. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Correct, |section= is an alias of |chapter= as are |article= and |entry=. I have fixed the table for those three and for |sectionurl= and for |section-url=.
Trappist the monk (talk) 13:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi again! There are several parameters that you don't have marked for {{cite web}} that still seem to work:
  • People. "Title". Dictionary. Version. Institution. Agency. At. 
  • People. "Title". Encyclopedia. Version. Institution. Agency. At. 
Thanks for your work on this! GoingBatty (talk) 15:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I did say that I had marked all of what are probably the obvious parameter mappings, that everything in the table is suspect, that this is not my idea of a fun time and that the structure is there so you [can] improve on it.
Trappist the monk (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Updated the cite web column with the parameters in the examples above. GoingBatty (talk) 17:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


Hi, your bot has been making changes from |language=Slovene to |language=Slovenian so that the text reads "in Slovenian" instead of "in Slovene". The language can be called Slovene, so why the change? Jared Preston (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

It's because Wikimedia doesn't recognize Slovene as a language name. To illustrate this:
{{#language:sl|en}}language magic word with ISO 639-1 language code produces:
So that Module:Citation/CS1 can properly categorize citations that identify foreign language sources, it tests the content of |language= against the list of languages that Wikimedia knows about. Because Slovene is not a language name that Wikimedia recognizes, pages with citations using |language=Slovene are categorized into Category:CS1 maint: Unrecognized language. The official keepers of ISO 639-1 are the Library of Congress and The webiste for Slovenian language codes is here.
Did I answer your question?
Trappist the monk (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and thank you for the fast answer with explanation! Now I'm just feeling confused as to why the name of the article on is at Slovene language and that it isn't a redirect to Slovenian language with all mentions of "Slovene" changed to "Slovenian", when "Slovene" isn't technically recognised. I'm sure there are several other instances and examples of varying English names for foreign languages, but this is one of the mother tongues of the European Union and I have always referred to it as "Slovene". I would like to undo the changes, but that just defeats the point and doesn't get around the error-problem, which is why your bot changed it in the first place. Just strange that both names aren't accepted! Jared Preston (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


Someone with a userid extremely similar to yours is flooding my watchlist by removing redundant |year= parameters. But it is good to see that the year can be picked out of dates like "Autumn 1987", which I think used to cause problems. Keep up the good work! Aymatth2 (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


So if you're a Trappist monk, does that mean you can get me some Chimay Beer? Best Beer there is! Also, thanks for your minor edit to Days of '47 Parade, I created that article 8 years ago, and just visited it again for the first time in years today....kinda sad how little it's grown over the years, given the size of the event...but I digress. Seriously though, about the beer, hard to get in California. :-) War wizard90 (talk) 05:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not so I don't have an in at the monastery brewery. Sorry.
Trappist the monk (talk) 13:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
LOL, that's okay, I wasn't actually expecting anything. War wizard90 (talk) 05:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Multipurpose CS1 parameters[edit]

It seems the "year=" parameter is not duplicative of the "date=" parameter in the case ref=harv is used. Any ideas what can be done in regard fixing the links in this edit? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, there is nothing wrong with that edit. When |ref=harv, Module:Citation/CS1 creates a CITEREF anchor from the first four author surnames and the |year= or the year portion of |date= (if |year= and |date= are in MOS compliant format). When authors produce multiple works in the same year, a lowercase letter character is used for disambiguation. Because both were present in these templates, the module used the value from |year=. After my edit, the module used the year and disambiguator from |date=.
Restore my edit and test it. Cold fusion#CITEREFVoss1999b works now. Does it work after restoration?
All of the above applies to any citation that is processed by Module:Citation/CS1 except when |date= format is year initial numeric (YYYY-MM-DD) where use of a disambiguator is not allowed because it breaks the date format. There are currently five CS1 templates that still use {{citation/core}} so may require |year= when |ref=harv.
Trappist the monk (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I see what you mean. The display "May 21, 1999b" is odd, in a date field, though. It really should display as "May 21, 1999" in a date field, and "1999b" in a Harvard ID field, but I suppose it will do. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Tennessee-class cruiser[edit]

This page has popped up on the ref broken error list, but I can't see any fault with it directly. Hasn't been edited for months. I note that you made a change to module:footnotes very recently, which is on its list. Since I don't speak lua, I've no way of knowing whether what you did had any effect. --Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Thu 18:19, wikitime= 10:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, a dummy edit cleared it, so we'll never know! (as usual). --Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Thu 18:32, wikitime= 10:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Unbuttered Parsnip, that article does have some broken references in it. It uses short footnotes to refer to "Brown", "Roberts", "Conroy's", "Ropp", and "Lambert", none of which I was able to find in the Sources. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)