User talk:Citation bot: Difference between revisions
→bot choosing date over name in duplicate author field: did you ever pick your feet in Poughkeepsie? |
→again: Blocked |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 1,213: | Line 1,213: | ||
<!-- Discussion starts below this line --> |
<!-- Discussion starts below this line --> |
||
:In relation to the above, {{diff|Sean Patrick Maloney|prev|557182796|this edit}} was also necessary as a result of the same bot edit. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 15:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC) |
:In relation to the above, {{diff|Sean Patrick Maloney|prev|557182796|this edit}} was also necessary as a result of the same bot edit. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 15:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC) |
||
== again == |
|||
{{bot bug |
|||
| title = No Lua CS1 conforming |
|||
| status = new bug |
|||
| reported by = [[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 21:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC) |
|||
| type of bug = Deleterious |
|||
| what happens = [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Darmstadtium&curid=40163&diff=556925900&oldid=556867689] |
|||
<!-- and/or: --> | what should happen = the bot should follow new CS situation |
|||
| 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 --> |
|||
There is no response from bot maintenance to prevent these errors. See [[Module talk:Citation/CS1]]. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 21:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC) |
|||
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> [[Image:Stop x nuvola.svg|40px|left|alt=Stop icon]] You have been '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|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 [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block|appeal this block]] by adding below this notice the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}, but you should read the [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] first. [[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 23:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-block --> |
Revision as of 23:20, 28 May 2013
Please click here to report an error.
This bot is only periodically maintained and new feature requests are no longer being considered. The code is open source and interested parties are invited to assist with the operation and extension of the bot; contact User:Smith609.
Bot is acting funny on Operation Market Garden
- Status
- new bug
- Reported by
- Dianna (talk) 02:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Type of bug
- Deleterious
- What happens
- The bot is removing definitions of named references, thus breaking them.
- Relevant diffs/links
- 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.
- We can't proceed until
- Agreement on the best solution
- Requested action from maintainer
- Spank bot, please.
- 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
- new bug
- Reported by
- Mirokado (talk) 11:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Type of bug
- Inconvenience
- What happens
- lots of reference definitions removed, both within the article body and the refs definition list
- Relevant diffs/links
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rambhadracharya&diff=497517082&oldid=497394723
- Replication instructions
- not sure
- We can't proceed until
- Bot operator's feedback on what is feasible
- Requested action from maintainer
- please check, comment, fix if necessary...
Reference content removed
- Status
- new bug
- Reported by
- StarryGrandma (talk) 23:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Type of bug
- Inconvenience
- What happens
- A complete reference was changed to a broken reference name. The reference had two urls, an additional url in it for the publishing organization.
- Relevant diffs/links
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banana_equivalent_dose&diff=495264583&oldid=491818370
- We can't proceed until
- Bot operator's feedback on what is feasible
- Requested action from maintainer
- Better algorithm for duplicate references or stop removing duplicates.
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)
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)
Problem with DOI
- Status
- new bug
- Reported by
- kashmiri 11:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- What happens
- 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
- What should happen
- DOI should get expanded, at least after clicking the "jump the queue" link.
- Relevant diffs/links
- Roussy–Lévy_syndrome, reference no. 2
- Replication instructions
- enter this reference and see whether it expands correctly after clicking "jump the queue": Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1002/1531-8249(199911)46:5<770::AID-ANA13>3.0.CO;2-U, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with
|doi=10.1002/1531-8249(199911)46:5<770::AID-ANA13>3.0.CO;2-U
instead. - We can't proceed until
- Agreement on the best solution
- 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...
- *Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi: 10.1002/1531-8249(199911)46:53.0.CO;2-U , please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with
|doi= 10.1002/1531-8249(199911)46:53.0.CO;2-U
instead. - 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)
- Are there other examples where the double colon presents a problem? LeadSongDog come howl! 13:22, 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
Changing « and »
- Status
- new bug
- Reported by
- Voxii (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- Type of bug
- Inconvenience
- What happens
- The bot changes « and » into quotes ("). Sometimes these symbols are used for other reasons (usually in auto-generated web page titles).
- What should happen
- While preserving «/» isn't strictly necessary (</>, ‹/›, •, etc. would be fine too), I don't think changing them to quotes makes sense in all cases.
- Relevant diffs/links
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Avril_Lavigne_discography&diff=next&oldid=501050940
- We can't proceed until
- Input from editors
- Requested action from maintainer
- Remove or alter the code to not change «/», or possibly make exceptions for cases as shown in example.
- 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)
- 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)
Addition of incorrect parameters
- Status
- new bug
- Reported by
- GoingBatty (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Type of bug
- Inconvenience
- What happens
- Incorrect addition of
|author1=
and|first1=
- What should happen
- Only add if author is a person's name
- Relevant diffs/links
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Concert_for_Bangladesh_%28album%29&diff=501239147&oldid=501157432
- We can't proceed until
- Input from editors
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)
Deleted apparently fine refs
- Status
- new bug
- Reported by
- bridies (talk) 13:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- Type of bug
- Deleterious: Human-input data is deleted or articles are otherwise significantly affected. Many bot edits require undoing.
- What happens
- Not really sure, it seemed to have a problem with spacing in a few of my refs, and so... nuked them
- Relevant diffs/links
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nuclear_Strike&diff=506555436&oldid=506549955
- We can't proceed until
- Agreement on the best solution
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)
- A related issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wiwaxia&diff=prev&oldid=508587030 Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 09:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
doix
- Status
- confirmed
- Reported by
- Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 09:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- What happens
- doix not dot-decoded
- Relevant diffs/links
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ACite_doi%2F10.1098.2Frspb.2012.1577&diff=508586916&oldid=508586493
- We can't proceed until
- A specific edit to the bot's code is requested below.
- Wow, is that karmic? :-) LeadSongDog come howl! 16:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Cite PMC
- Status
- new bug
- Reported by
- AManWithNoPlan (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Type of bug
- Inconvenience
- What happens
- cite pmc template that are invalid redirects are created
- Relevant diffs/links
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cite_pmc/353042&oldid=512290843
- Replication instructions
- The bot just does this
- We can't proceed until
- Bot operator's feedback on what is feasible
- Requested action from maintainer
- Fix the bot, or perhaps remove support for {{cite pmc}}
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
Apparent failure to complete
- Status
- new bug
- Reported by
- Phil
- Type of bug
- Inconvenience: Humans are given the impression they need to make immediate edits to clean up after the bot but this is untrue…
- What happens
- 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.
- We can't proceed until
- Operator: Bot operator's feedback on what is feasible
- Requested action from maintainer
- Find out what is going wrong ;-)
Edits examples in citation instruction page
- Status
- new bug
- Reported by
- Jc3s5h (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Type of bug
- Deleterious
- What happens
- Edits Wikipedia space including instructional pages
- What should happen
- confine editing to article space
- Relevant diffs/links
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReferencing_for_beginners_with_citation_templates&diff=523064308&oldid=506928152
- We can't proceed until
- Agreement on the best solution
Citation bot self-reporting bug
- Status
- new bug
- Reported by
- Urhixidur (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Type of bug
- Inconvenience
- What happens
- The bug sends bug reports to the old deprecated page User:DOI_bot/bugs
- Relevant diffs/links
- 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 the template's link
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)
Butchering Author Names
- Status
- new bug
- Reported by
- Urhixidur (talk) 02:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Type of bug
- Deleterious
- What happens
- For example,
| author = Sandhu BK, Brueton MJ
becomes:
| author = Sandhu Bk | first = B. M. - Relevant diffs/links
- 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
- 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)
Changes "Jr." into "J."
- Status
- new bug
- Reported by
- Urhixidur (talk) 11:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Type of bug
- Deleterious
- What happens
- The bot changes "Jr." ("Junior") into "J."
- Relevant diffs/links
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cite_doi/10.1093.2Ftoxsci.2Fkfp266&diff=prev&oldid=524444481
- We can't proceed until
- A specific edit to the bot's code is requested below.
- Requested action from maintainer
- Fix algorithm
Cite doi: authors' last names swapped with first names, gibberish in place of umlauts
- Status
- new bug
- 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
- What should happen
- first and last names should be tagged correctly, without being swapped; names with umlauts should not produce random characters
- Relevant diffs/links
- 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
- Maintainer: A specific edit to the bot's code is requested below.
-->
- Requested action from maintainer
- Fix the bug
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. Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1007/s00234-002-0860-5, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with
|doi=10.1007/s00234-002-0860-5
instead. and another with, e.g. Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1007/s00234-002-0829-4, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with|doi=10.1007/s00234-002-0829-4
instead. 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:
- Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1007/s00234-002-0860-5, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with
|doi=10.1007/s00234-002-0860-5
instead.
- Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1007/s00234-002-0860-5, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with
- – 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)
- E.g.,
- Evidently, it's not about the umlauts. GIGO as suspected.LeadSongDog come howl! 22:24, 28 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. Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1007/s00234-002-0860-5, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with
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)
Use of non-word changint in text output
- Status
- new bug
- Reported by
- Auric 00:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- Type of bug
- Improvement: The bot would be much better if ...
- What happens
- uses non-word "changint" instead of "changing" (ex Citation assessed in 0 secs. Not changint citation template. )
- What should happen
- swap changing for changint
- Relevant diffs/links
- [1]
- Replication instructions
- Use bot on page with citation refs
- We can't proceed until
- User: Input from editors
- Requested action from maintainer
- swap changing for changint
Problem in Wonderlic Test
- Status
- Reported by
- Nathan2055talk - contribs 21:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- Type of bug
- Inconvenience
- What happens
- The bot starts working and then stops.
- What should happen
- The bot saves it's edits.
- Replication instructions
- Run the bot on Wonderlic Test
- We can't proceed until
- Agreement on the best solution
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
- new bug
- Reported by
- –Temporal User (Talk) 05:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- Type of bug
- Inconvenience (more like bot fail)
- What happens
- A template for doi:10.2307/461317 isn't created,
- What should happen
- when it should be created.
- Replication instructions
- Place
{{cite doi|10.2307/461317}}
on a page. Then click on the "jump the queue" link. - We can't proceed until
- Agreement on the best solution
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)
- Now that I read this again, I don't see why JSTOR came up. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 02:55, 26 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)
- http://www.crossref.org/guestquery/#bibsearch does return Meta Data for this DOI 10.2307/461317. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 17:21, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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 ?
- Status
- new bug
- Reported by
- Choor monster (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Type of bug
- Inconvenience: Humans must occasionally make immediate edits to clean up after the bot
- What happens
- Stray "p. m." shows up in citations.
- What should happen
- Maybe it should be left alone?
- Relevant diffs/links
- List of longest novels
- Replication instructions
- ??
- We can't proceed until
- information about what the bot is trying to do
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
| 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 thatpm
is short forp.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= 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.
- In the first two, the bot was trying to make sense of the positional parameter
- 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:
- Well, there's {{Google books|7ydCAAAAIAAJ|History of the Western Insurrection|page=42}}
- 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)
History of the Western Insurrection, p. 42, at Google Books
LeadSongDog come howl! 21:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Bot Removed Citations and Text
- Status
- new bug
- Reported by
- Bensci54 (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Type of bug
- Deleterious
- What happens
- bot would 'clean up' after each edit to James Hales, making bizzare "fixes"
- Relevant diffs/links
- [2]
- We can't proceed until
- Agreement on the best solution
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bensci54 (talk • contribs) 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)
- 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)
Removing access dates
- Status
- new bug
- Reported by
- Astros4477 (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Type of bug
- Deleterious
- Relevant diffs/links
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sea_World&diff=531689775&oldid=531521290
- We can't proceed until
- Agreement on the best solution
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)
- There is no implication, it is explicit: see [[Template:Cite web#Syntax "and is ignored if parent is not used".
- An
- 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)
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)
- 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)
Unnecessary capitalization near mid-name ü
- Status
- new bug
- Reported by
- Olli Niemitalo (talk) 11:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Type of bug
- Cosmetic
- What happens
- When using {{cite doi}}, in the author last name, the letter after a mid-word ü gets capitalized. Sometimes also ü itself gets capitalized.
- What should happen
- The capitalization should not be altered in this case.
- Relevant diffs/links
- [3] and [4]
- Replication instructions
- Citing any article by Traunmüller using {{cite doi}} should replicate the bug.
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
ISSN in old "id=" field got deleted
- Status
- new bug
- Reported by
- Renata (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Type of bug
- Inconvenience
- What happens
- SSN got removed instead of added or changed to "issn=xxxx-xxxx" format
- Relevant diffs/links
- [5]
- We can't proceed until
- Agreement on the best solution
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)
Fixes applied to Google Books meta page URL
- Status
- new bug
- Reported by
- — daranz [ t ] 21:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Type of bug
- Inconvenience
- What happens
- Bot wraps a URL to a page about Google Books (ie, not a book on Google Books) in {{cite journal}}
- What should happen
- Probably should leave it entirely alone
- Relevant diffs/links
- [6]
- We can't proceed until
- Bot operator's feedback on what is feasible
- 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. — daranz [ t ] 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
- new bug
- Reported by
- 212.139.104.161 (talk) 08:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- What happens
- 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.
- Relevant diffs/links
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chebarkul_meteorite&diff=prev&oldid=541282312
- Replication instructions
- covered above
- We can't proceed until
- Agreement on the best solution
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Removal of content from table on citation cleanup
- Status
- new bug
- Reported by
- MASEM (t) 16:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Type of bug
- Deleterious
- What happens
- 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.
- Relevant diffs/links
- [7]
- We can't proceed until
- A specific edit to the bot's code is requested below.
- Requested action from maintainer
- Review of what happened here.
(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)
Update required to avoid deleterious impact on new Lua-based citations
- Status
- new bug
- Reported by
- Dragons flight (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Type of bug
- Deleterious
- What happens
- 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.
- Relevant diffs/links
- 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.
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
User:RoslynSKP/Battle of Sheria
- Status
- new bug
- Reported by
- Rskp (talk) 06:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- We can't proceed until
- Agreement on the best solution
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)
Bot creates and blanks an invalid template
- Status
- new bug
- Reported by
- Illia Connell (talk) 22:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- Type of bug
- Inconvenience / Deleterious
- What happens
- 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.
- Relevant diffs/links
- 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.
- We can't proceed until
- Bot operator's feedback on what is feasible
A second example of this unexpected behaviour: [8] Illia Connell (talk) 03:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
bot does not like invisible characters
- Status
- new bug
- Reported by
- Martin451 (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- Type of bug
- Improvement: The bot would be much better if ...
- What happens
- Bot cannot lookup doi even though it appears correct to the human eye.
- What should happen
- Bot should ignore invisible characters
- Relevant diffs/links
- 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.
- We can't proceed until
- Operator: Bot operator's feedback on what is feasible
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)
"Expand citations" link
- Status
- new bug
- Reported by
- Technical 13 (talk) 13:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Type of bug
- Inconvenience
- What happens
- 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
Additional space after pmid parameter
- Status
- new bug
- Reported by
- Jack (talk) 09:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- Type of bug
- Inconvenience
- What happens
- There is an additional space added after the "pmid = " parameter, while every other parameter just has one space.
- What should happen
- There should be just one space, not two.
- Relevant diffs/links
- 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
- We can't proceed until
- Bot operator's feedback on what is feasible
- 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)
A tag has been placed on Template:Cite doi/.5B10.1037.2F0003-066X.54.10.817.5D 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) 06:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Status
- new bug
- Reported by
- DePiep (talk) 12:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- What happens
- 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.
- What should happen
- Never add another parameter for the same ("author" and "last1", e.g.). See Help:CS1_errors#redundant_parameters.
- Relevant diffs/links
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cite_doi/10.1021.2Fed044p475&diff=551947358&oldid=551947341
- We can't proceed until
- Bot operator's feedback on what is feasible
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)
New CS1 options reverted by the bot
- Status
- new bug
- Reported by
- DePiep (talk) 23:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Type of bug
- Deleterious
- What happens
- 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.
- What should happen
- leave the names alone
- Relevant diffs/links
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cite_doi/10.1021.2Fja9030038&diff=552191625&oldid=552191614
- Replication instructions
- dunno
- We can't proceed until
- Agreement on the best solution
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)
New parameter name changed into wrong name
- Status
- new bug
- Reported by
- DePiep (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Type of bug
- Cosmetic
- What happens
- 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. - What should happen
- Leave it alone?
It should not write an illegal name in the first place. - Relevant diffs/links
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cite_doi/10.1103.2FPhysRevLett.31.647&diff=552193337&oldid=552193321
- We can't proceed until
- Agreement on the best solution
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)
Several mutually-exclusive parameters used
- Status
- new bug
- Reported by
- Redrose64 (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- Type of bug
- Inconvenience
- What happens
- Template:Cite doi/10.1038.2Fnchembio.189 was created by, and has only ever been edited by, the Citation bot family. The present version uses
{{Cite journal}}
which has been given several mutually-exclusive parameters:|first1=L.
|last2=Rawat
|author2=Rawat
|first2=M.
|author3=La Clair
|last4=Jothivasan
|last3=La Clair
|last5=Budiarto
|first3=J.
|author4=Jothivasan
|first4=K.
|last7=Claiborne
|author5=Budiarto
|last8=Helmann
|first5=T.
|last1=Newton
|last9=Fahey
|first6=J.
|author7=Claiborne
|last6=Hamilton
|author6=Hamilton
|first7=A.
|author8=Helmann
|first8=D.
|author9=Fahey
|first9=C.
- We can't proceed until
- Agreement on the best solution
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)
Bot adds incorrect (and implausibly large page value)
- Status
- new bug
- Reported by
- —RP88 (talk) 11:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Type of bug
- Inconvenience
- What happens
- 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!)
- Relevant diffs/links
- 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).
- We can't proceed until
- Agreement on the best solution
- Requested action from maintainer
- It would be a good idea if the bot had some basic sanity checking to avoid generating obviously invalid values (i.e. 100 trillion page value could have been rejected by sanity checking).
Bot overwrites a redirect, essentially duplicating a moved article at its pre-move name
- Status
- new bug
- Reported by
- Redrose64 (talk) 09:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- Type of bug
- Inconvenience
- What happens
- 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.
- What should happen
- Bot should leave redirects alone
- Relevant diffs/links
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Benny_Award&diff=prev&oldid=553301305
- We can't proceed until
- Agreement on the best solution
- 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)
Bot assumes that pipe is part of URL
- Status
- new bug
- Reported by
- Redrose64 (talk) 12:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Type of bug
- Inconvenience
- What happens
- 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 - What should happen
- 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
- first preference: alter this to the correct construct
- Relevant diffs/links
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Inongimke/sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=553373767
- We can't proceed until
- Agreement on the best solution
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.
- What happens
|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=
.- Relevant diffs/links
- 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
- User: Input from editors
- Requested action from maintainer
- ways to stop this from happening
- 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)
- 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)
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.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page
|
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
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
- What happens
- Some really strange wikitext is added at the bottom of the page. Is it debugging code?
- Relevant diffs/links
- What happened here?
- We can't proceed until
- Agreement on the best solution
Valid HTML comment markers are broken
- Status
- new bug
- Reported by
- Redrose64 (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Type of bug
- Inconvenience: Humans must occasionally make immediate edits to clean up after the bot
- What happens
- 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 - What should happen
- leave it alone
- Relevant diffs/links
- [9]
- We can't proceed until
- Bot operator's feedback on what is feasible
Two closing braces were removed in error
- Status
- new bug
- Reported by
- Redrose64 (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Type of bug
- Inconvenience: Humans must occasionally make immediate edits to clean up after the bot
- What happens
- Two closing braces were removed in error
- Relevant diffs/links
- [10] [11]
- We can't proceed until
- Agreement on the best solution
Backwards page ranges
- Status
- new bug
- Reported by
- Redrose64 (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- Type of bug
- Inconvenience
- What happens
- Bot alters a single page to a page range; but the second page number is lower than the first
- Relevant diffs/links
- pages = 87–10 pages = 3–1
- We can't proceed until
- Agreement on the best solution
Creating broken redirects
- Status
- new bug
- Reported by
- :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 00:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Type of bug
- Inconvenience
- What happens
- Creation of at least one broken redirect.
- What should happen
- I'm not terribly sure what the intended behaviour is, but creating broken redirects certainly isn't desireable.
- Relevant diffs/links
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_pmid/20212135
- We can't proceed until
- Bot operator's feedback on what is feasible
- Status
- unknown
- Reported by
- 75.152.123.238 (talk) 09:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Type of bug
- Inconvenience: Humans must occasionally make immediate edits to clean up after the bot
- What happens
- Red lines in citation.
- What should happen
- One kind of name, wherever available.
- Relevant diffs/links
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cite_pmid/11709512&action=history
- Replication instructions
- I do not know.
- We can't proceed until
- Nothing
- Requested action from maintainer
- None of my business
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)
bot choosing date over name in duplicate author field
- Status
- new bug
- Reported by
- Auric talk 14:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Type of bug
- Inconvenience: Humans must occasionally make immediate edits to clean up after the bot
- What happens
- in a cite with two
|author=
fields, it deleted the one with the name and kept the one with the date - Relevant diffs/links
- diff
- Replication instructions
- uncertain
- We can't proceed until
- User: Input from editors
- Requested action from maintainer
- be certain bot chooses
|author=
with letter string and not number string
- 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)
again
- Status
- new bug
- Reported by
- DePiep (talk) 21:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Type of bug
- Deleterious
- What happens
- [12]
- What should happen
- the bot should follow new CS situation
- We can't proceed until
- Agreement on the best solution
There is no response from bot maintenance to prevent these errors. See Module talk:Citation/CS1. -DePiep (talk) 21:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Redrose64 (talk) 23:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)