User talk:Citation bot

Note: See also how to prevent the bot from repeating mistakes. See also Help:CS1, and {{cite xxx}} documentation in general.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as User talk:Citation bot/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Note that the bot's maintainer and assistants (Thing 1 and Thing 2), can go weeks without logging in to Wikipedia. The code is open source and interested parties are invited to assist with the operation and extension of the bot. Before reporting a bug, please note: Addition of DUPLICATE_xxx= to citation templates by this bot is a feature. When there are two identical parameters in a citation template, the bot renames one to DUPLICATE_xxx=. The bot is pointing out the problem with the template. The solution is to choose one of the two parameters and remove the other one, or to convert it to an appropriate parameter. A 503 error means that the bot is overloaded and you should try again later – wait at least 15 minutes and then complain here.

Submit a Bug Report

Please click here to report an error.

Or, for a faster response from the maintainers, submit a pull request with appropriate code fix on GitHub, if you can write the needed code.

---

Expand non-templated refs

Would it be possible to expand from non-templated reference <ref>[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5553785/ Bar]</ref>, as long as |title= would be exactly the same (Bar) which already exists for the URL specified as if the bot would try to expand the bare URL (as long as there is no other content in the ref)? Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Example here, I had to remove the brackets and the already provided title prior to running the bot. The outcome provided the exact same title as was already present prior to me doing the removal, causing a lot of manual labor in order to get the bot to attempt to expand the citation. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

How close should the titles have to be? Also, it seems that from my experience, the title is often some mix of the title and journal and authors. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, a first start could be exact "only-title" match inside square brackets (with only a preceding period/dot inside or outside the brackets being the difference). To later build upon with more possibilities... Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Support for Who's Who

Status

new bug

Reported by

Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 01:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

What should happen

Implement support to expand from https://doi.org/10.1093/ww/9780199540884.013.U192476 to {{Who's Who}}
Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Friern_Hospital&diff=prev&oldid=1167644213

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

Alternatively, deny all edits on 10.1093/ww/... doi's. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 01:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Or perhaps the entire 10.1093-prefix of doi's since we don't have support for {{cite ODNB}} either (example). Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:11, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Moving Jstor and Worldcat URLs to parameters

From discussions (1, 2, 3) on stopping useless cruft – for example this useless blank archive of a Jstor article – from semi-automated mass archiving, a number of editors have noted their support for a bot to parse Jstor and Worldcat URLs (eg https://www.jstor.org/stable/24432812) for their respective |jstor=24432812 and |oclc= parameters where relevant and purge URLs, archive URLs, and archive metadata for CS1 templates.

Is this something that can be done with citation bot? I will note that I'm not saying to purge all URLs – they can be useful if the full text is separately hosted elsewhere – just URLs and archives thereof (almost always useless blank pages) that are duplicative of the generated parameter URLs. Tagging GreenC. Ifly6 (talk) 06:19, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

The bot got blocked for doing this (although the person who lead the charge on this themselves eventually got banned). The main arguement was that the users of wikipedia are only capable of clicking on title-links, and numbers after the reference as above their IQ level. Although I would argue that having these as title links is misleading since they they almost never lead to the source, but just a page listing the source. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 13:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

That policy feels like insanity. Is it possible to determine whether the Jstor link leads to a full source and the URL (metadata, archive URL, and archive metadata) only if it does not lead to a full source? Worldcat is easier because it never(?) leads thereto. Ifly6 (talk) 14:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I feel there's a case to remove links that will never host the full text, like PMID, OCLC, etc... because they mislead the reader into thinking there's a full text available at the end. But that would require an RFC. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:34, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Is it really the case that we cannot do anything to change this (to me at least) absurdist combination where the following series of events keep occurring:

• People use Citoid which places Jstor links into {{cite journal}} |url=
• Citation bot comes around and extracts the Jstor ID etc but doesn't remove the URL
• Some NPC hits ARCHIVE EVERYTHING with the IA Bot check box (eg IA Bot) and now we have a massive pile of archive URL cruft (nb the check box does not actually archive anything)
• After this rigmarole an editor can now see the result, which is:
  • A main URL that doesn't give you full text
  • A duplicated parameter which renders an identical URL link (|jstor=24432812)
  • An archive URL which is a literally blank page
  • A mark up reference which is now 70 per cent longer than it needs to be to do the exact same thing

Ifly6 (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The bot used to do this until the argument was made that: our users were too stupid to figure out non-title links, and yet so smart that they needed links to scientific journals, since wikipedia was too simple for them. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Is there really nothing we can do on this without an RFC? Ifly6 (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Getting blocked twice for the same thing is probably an existential risk.

I think Headbomb makes a good point, removing title-links that don't contain full content and that can be replaced with non-title-links. Sometimes JSTOR has the full content sometimes not, sometimes freely accessible (pre-1923), sometimes not. As for archive URLs, this will depend what is cited, if the content is available in the archive URL. It's context sensitive. I would be careful with an RfC, they can be counter-productive with complex matters. An RfC might codify a minority opinion that bots should not be used at all due to "context sensitive" and the "community" will take care of it, which dooms the whole thing to fantasy land due the reality of the scale.

It's possible a bot (this one or another) could start on JSTOR, determine content availability, url-status, and edit accordingly. It might also check archive URLs for possible problems. This is going to be a slow process, and it might run into bot blockers at JSTOR, rate limiting, which further complicates. If true that would leave the "blind" edit option of simply removing all JSTOR links from the title-link as the only viable method, unless someone has another idea how to determine content availability. -- GreenC 20:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Some people have deeper access to JSTOR resources than others, depending on where they are. Surely when a JSTOR resource is cited, no-one is seriously suggesting that only open-access ones may be given? Is anyone suggesting that we deprecate ISBNs because <shudder> some readers might have to buy the actual book? Or have I completely missed the point? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that Jstor should not be cited. The dispute here is whether a link to the Jstor page should be included in the URL parameter. For me this emerges from the really pointless practice of adding the "archive" version of Jstor links so you can get the glory of gazing upon a blank page. Removing the |url= entry would prevent "archive" links from being added. It is a dispute between whether a reference should look like this:

{{Cite journal |last=Steel |first=Catherine |date=2014 |title=The Roman senate and the post-Sullan "res publica" |journal=Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte |volume=63 |issue=3 |pages=323–339 |doi=10.25162/historia-2014-0018 |jstor=24432812 |s2cid=151289863 |issn=0018-2311 }}

Or, by almost inevitable accretion through inaction, like this:

{{Cite journal |last=Steel |first=Catherine |date=2014 |title=The Roman senate and the post-Sullan "res publica" |journal=Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte |volume=63 |issue=3 |pages=323–339 |doi=10.25162/historia-2014-0018 |jstor=24432812 |s2cid=151289863 |issn=0018-2311 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/24432812 |access-date=26 May 2022 |archive-date=26 May 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220526152815/https://www.jstor.org/stable/24432812 |url-status=live }}

The portions at the end after |url= entirely duplicate existing links in the citation and regardless add nothing for the unprivileged reader while clogging up the mark up and making it difficult to do the edit part of "editor". Even if I have Ivy League library access and be able to read all full texts through proxies (eg Penn Libraries), that doesn't mean that linking the proxy page whole (like https://www-jstor-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/) does any good for readers without Penn or Wikipedia library privileges. Ifly6 (talk) 23:37, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The number of Wikipedians who potentially have access to JSTOR sources that are hidden by paywalls may be larger than you think. "Veteran" Wikipedians (I believe the cut-off is 500 life-time edits) can avail themselves of access to JSTOR (and many ohter sources barred to the hoi polloi) via the Wikipedia library. So I think for these relatively "privileged" people giving a link to a page that contains a doi is till useful. I have no problem doing it, also for sources like Cambridge U.P and the like. Ereunetes (talk) 23:37, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

If the purpose of adding |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/24432812 is for the "average" reader this link does nothing because they will not have a Jstor subscription. If adding it is to help the "average" university student, the link also does nothing because they will have to go through their university proxy. If it is to help the privileged editor with WP:LIBRARY access, it also does nothing because we have to go through a proxy too. The only people it supports are those few who have direct access to Jstor (which ironically includes me via the Federal Reserve). Ifly6 (talk) 23:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean "the link does nothing"? If someone has access to JSTOR, via WP:LIBRARY, their local public library, an academic library, or whatever, seeing that there is anything in the |jstor= parameter lets them know that the article is on JSTOR and they will likely have access to it, and once they click on the link they can easily log in via whatever gives them access via whatever proxy, or if they're physically at their library just click the link and access it. The JSTOR link also provides metabibliographic information, a first page preview, and abstract. Plus JSTOR allows independent researchers 100 free articles each month, and if someone so chooses they have the option to buy it à la carte. Anything which helps a reader access a source is useful, and quite often JSTOR is the electronic place of record for a journal. [Edit: sorry I'm following more closely now, I still think it should be in |jstor= -- that's why we have that parameter; it does not also belong in |url=.] Umimmak (talk) 23:49, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean "the link does nothing"? The link to the native Jstor website in |url= is not the proper one and will not yield the full text unless you have direct Jstor access. If you access it through a proxy, you would have to copy the Jstor ID and paste it in after ../static/. Putting the direct URL in |url= is not very useful and largely facilitates WP:MEATBOTs crufting up articles with unnecessary mark up pointing to blank archive pages. Ifly6 (talk) 01:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

OK. Forgive my ignorance; I didn't know about the "jstor=" parameter and will use it in future if the case applies, instead of the "url=" parameter. Would it be possible to enable the Citation bot to change "url=" to "jstor=" if that would be appropriate? Or am I stupid again? Ereunetes (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion we are in is whether citation bot should extract Jstor URLs and put them into |jstor=. Apparently there was an RFD, ban, or something of the sort which has led the maintainer(s) of the bot not being willing to re-enable that previously-present functionality. Ifly6 (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

The RFC you are looking for is this one.

Perhaps the maintainers of the bots should put together an FAQ somewhere about why the bot does some things that it does and some things that it does not with links to appropriate major discussions. Izno (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it might be possible to effect a change like this if we take it slowly. If we can start with getting consensus that archives of paywall landing pages (like Jstor) should be removed, and |access-date= in {{cite book}} and {{cite journal}} (and maybe others) should be removed, we'll have solved almost the entire problem of these kinds of URLs without needing to determine whether or not readers / editors will understand the alternative stable identifiers. Folly Mox (talk) 04:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

While I agree that those two should be done, it doesn't appear to me to solve the problem of someone driving by to blindly hit the check box and add those archives back in. Ifly6 (talk) 23:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Right, the prevention is more difficult than the cure, but if we have consensus to remove archives to paywall landing pages, we could get a bot to do it, and getting consensus to remove would be a step towards consensus against adding. I don't think this is a one-step recipe. Folly Mox (talk) 00:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

And there's no way to prevent the URLs and prefer custom stable identifiers. Citoid guarantees a valid URL in its output, and works across multiple projects, most of which don't implement custom stable identifiers. We'd have to get every maintainer of every automated referencing script, including VisualEditor, to build in functionality to reach our end goal here, which it's unclear if there's even consensus for in all facets. Folly Mox (talk) 00:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Well that issue is why we're here at Citation bot. Do you think it's actually impossible to get a decision for Citation bot to remove those URLs? A bot to remove those archives would produce even more watchlist events, which people in the discussion below seem to be adamantly against, while also probably being impossible to implement per GreenC's comment above. Ifly6 (talk) 19:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what venue should generate the consensus, but we do need the theoretical underpinnings of a discussion reaching consensus regarding archives of paywall landing pages before a Bot request or BRFA for a new task could be submitted. I wouldn't necessarily frame it as something that Citation bot in particular needs to handle, instead of some other bot, and I wouldn't want it to take place in absence of other constructive edits even though it doesn't violate COSMETICBOT.

So, I'd try to frame this bit of the discussion as "archives to paywall landing pages are useless cruft: they don't archive the content and you can't use them to navigate to the content", not "proposal for a one-time bot run to have User:Citation bot remove archives to paywall landing pages in 1,700,000 articles".

So no, I don't think it's actually impossible, and I think setting jstor.org to permalive for IABot is also a reasonable first step. Folly Mox (talk) 22:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

And I do appreciate that the discussion you opened on Wikipedia talk:Link rot#Mass additions of archive links for live sites is essentially a superset of the discussion I just proposed. Folly Mox (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before, but just wanted to note that resources in JSTOR: Global Plants have URLS of the form plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.person.bm000000658, and that if a bot naively took any |url= including a "jstor.org/stable/XXXXX" to turn it into a JSTOR 10.5555/al.ap.person.bm000000658 this would not work; occasionally JSTOR the website gets cited instead of a book/article it is hosting so just bots should be aware of this. Umimmak (talk) 21:20, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Proxy cleanup?

Status

new bug

Reported by

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

What should happen

[1] + more?

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

Changing every citation of a publisher's webpage to Cite book

I have remained silent on this issue even though it has irritated me for a while now. And now that there is discussion above about the widespread useless cosmetic edits this bot continues to waste everyone's time with, I'll raise it: Why must every citation of a publisher's webpage be changed to to Cite book? I can only speak for myself, but every time I cite such book webpages I am not citing the book itself. I am specifically referencing the information published on the webpage. So of course I do not want the citation to be changed to Cite book with a bunch of parameters of the book itself (ISBN, date, etc) added. So I inevitably stop the bot or replace the reference with a third-party source. I realise the defense will be "It doesn't hurt" or that some users are actually citing the book. And I realise this is not the most pressing issue, but why must the bot come to its own conclusion of the editor's intent? I see another user complained of this issue last year. Οἶδα (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

This may be the kind of situation where it's safest to explicitly tell citation bot not to muck with the citation. It's hard to automatically judge whether the human editor actually wanted "cite web" or "cite book". (There are many examples of people using "cite web" to cite resources that should actually be books, journal articles, etc.) –jacobolus (t) 01:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I understand. But it still feels like an another unnecessary task for this bot to insert itself into every article it can possibly find. For example, this edit is completely useless and actually corrupts my intention of the citation. Call me crazy but I don't want or need a bot telling me what I am citing (and actively altering my citations accordingly). Οἶδα (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

When I've quoted publisher blurbs in the past, I usually set |type=publisher's blurb for clarity. In the specific case you've linked just above, another option would be not to cite the publisher's landing page at all, and add the book to a "Selected works" subsection or something. Indeed, the altered citation is sequential to another one, and so seems a bit superfluous. Or, alternatively, use "Citation bot bypass" somewhere in your citation as suggested by jacobolus above.

Given the overall lazy referencing culture of less experienced editors, it's likely that in the majority of cases, people who drop a link to a publisher landing page are probably trying to cite the book itself, so this behaviour of assuming that's the case is net beneficial. Folly Mox (talk) 22:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I cannot personally maintain that the majority of users citing a publisher's webpage are lazily intending to cite the book itself. My experience suggests otherwise which is why I have taken issue, but I realise my editing purview might be skewed. However, if that is observably true then I will resign to accepting this as a forgivable externality. Οἶδα (talk) 06:35, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

In fairness to your point, I haven't looked into the data about how frequently this sort of change is appropriate; it could be the case that my own perspective is the skewed one. Folly Mox (talk) 08:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Redaction

Add redaction information. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 01:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

web > book template bug

Status

new bug

Reported by

Spinixster (chat!) 12:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

What happens

template type altered from web to book

What should happen

not that, since it generates an error and it's also not a book

Relevant diffs/links

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shoto_Todoroki&diff=prev&oldid=1177916086

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

Spinixster (chat!) 12:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Treating a release date for content on a webpage as the publication date for that webpage

Status

new bug

Reported by

AKiwiDeerPin (talk) 11:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

What happens

Uses metadata for media the webpage is about as metadata for the page itself (specifically, release/publication date). There are two comments on this page from within the last month, and several older comments, saying the bot changes web citations for pages about books to book citations; it seems to have problems handling webpages about other types of media.

What should happen

Don't know exactly where it got the date from, but adding dates to web citations seems tricky to properly automate, so maybe it shouldn't try to do that? It probably shouldn't act like citations for a webpage about a work are equivalent to citations for that work.

Relevant diffs/links

Diff here

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

Bot is not respecting Template:inuse

Status

new bug

Reported by

―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

What happens

Bot is not respecting {{inuse}}

What should happen

Just stop.

Relevant diffs/links

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Rest_%28EP%29&diff=1179644470&oldid=1179642372

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

The bot never respected {{in use}} because very often people who use {{in use}} will also use the bot to expand citations. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Then they can remove the tag and then run the bot. The bot should not cause edit conflicts by interfering when articles have this tag on them. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The tag is often put to tell others to not edit the article so the bot can make its edits. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

That's not how it should work: all bots should respect the tag. Other bots do and one should expect it to not edit with the tag on an article. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Michael Metcalf

From my discussion page: Hi, I see that you have used citation bot to add dates to references to numismatics.org.uk webpages here. I am not familiar with the bot, so could you explain what the dates mean? The pages seem to be updated regularly.

I think the bot is wrong. Grimes2 (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Something (probably upstream in the Zotero libraries) is using meta property="article:published_time" instead of meta property="article: modified_time". Folly Mox (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Grimes2 No.bot 49.237.203.59 (talk) 06:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Publisher removed from cite book

Status

new bug

Reported by

Umimmak (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

What happens

Publisher removed from cite book, not realizing that ProQuest was in fact the correct publisher (see copyright page [2])

What should happen

Publisher should not be removed from book citation

Relevant diffs/links

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lustrum_(journal)&curid=72440503&diff=1180192312&oldid=1176169375

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

Strip underscore from authorlinks

Status

new bug

Reported by

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

What should happen

[3]

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

And similar wikilink parameters. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Authors incorrectly added

Status

new bug

Reported by

Kline • talk to me! • contribs 01:21, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

What happens

citation bot picks up authors from other articles and adds them to the citation

What should happen

the author of the article should only be added

Relevant diffs/links

revision

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

Semantic scholar links continue to mostly consist of spam

Can Citation bot please stop littering every s2cid it can find wherever it can possibly fit? The vast majority of these links contain zero useful information beyond a (redundant) link to the publisher's website (typically paywalled), and putting them on every citation in Wikipedia is more or less spam. It's a distracting waste of space with no redeeming benefits.

The easiest solution here would be to deprecate the s2cid parameter from the citation templates, hide them from the output, and just be done with it.

Next best, probably my personal recommendation, would be that only humans should ever add s2cid links (and ideally the ones which were added by a bot in the past should be removed), or barring that that a human should manually review any s2cid that gets added by any bot. At the very very least, the bot should try to check them for meaningful content and skip the vast majority of totally useless ones going forward. –jacobolus (t) 18:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

• Agree totally; please stop the s2cid spam. Esculenta (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed as well! They only got added because of someone who works for Semantic Scholar (Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 66#Request to add Semantic Scholar IDs to the citation template). If there is truly a consensus among editors working on a page that it would improve the citation to include an |s2cid= … fine I guess, but a vast majority of the time someone who has never edited a given article runs the prompt and the bot clutters up all the citations with a spammy parameter without any human editors actively wanting it there. Umimmak (talk) 18:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I would also be supportive of "deprecate the s2cid parameter from the citation templates, hide them from the output, and just be done with it", along with stopping the bot from adding them. Unlike most of the other codes we use, I cannot remember ever seeing a case where these were useful. Stopping the bot is on-topic here but the other stuff should probably be discussed on Help talk:Citation Style 1, which is the centralized discussion point for all the citation and cite templates. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Finna and Elonet are not book refs

[4] 2001:14BA:9CE5:8400:20AB:2C62:7318:4F88 (talk) 04:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

This is the third thread about this behaviour visible on this talkpage, and I'm beginning to wonder why, when editors cite a source to establish the existence of a book it is ever less preferable to include the full publication information of the book, even when the route chosen to establish the book's existence is a website somewhere.

I think the root solution here might be additional guidance about writing about books. Like, in an article about a book, just have a section in the appendix called Publication information. For articles about authors, put their books in Selected bibliography. I don't think this is the right kind of information for inside a citation template inside a pair of ref tags. Folly Mox (talk) 05:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Folly Mox. If the purpose of the citation is to establish the existence of a book, full publication information should always be preferred to a website which says the exact same thing. If I need to establish that Erich S Gruen wrote Last generation of the Roman republic surely the best way to do that would be to give you all the information you would need to find that book in a library and confirm on the cover, title page, and verso for yourself. Ifly6 (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

And some more:

• edit 1 (a Finna web page about an image)
• edit 2 (a Elonet web page about a film)
• edit 3 (a Finna web page about an image)
• edit 4 (a Finna database entry about different versions of a book)

Probably some more can be found among these causing ref errors, e.g. [5], [6]

2001:14BA:9CE5:8400:8CDE:6F36:A6DA:6CE6 (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, not just elonet.finna.fi but also elonet.fi it seems: [7], [8] (probably some more). Please stop the bot from changing the citation templates of elonet.fi and finna.fi from "cite web" to "cite book", thank you. 2001:14BA:9CE5:8400:79D9:9129:F234:CDFA (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Bot adding articles to Category:CS1 errors: missing periodical

At the Kenny Clarke article in the oral history ref, the bot changes "Cite web" to "Cite journal" without changing any other parameters, causing this error message. While checking hidden categories on that page, I discovered that the bot did this in June 2022 and I reproduced the problem just now. Graham87 (talk) 06:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)