User talk:Citation bot

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":

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...

*

LeadSongDog come howl! 14:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not really feel like investigating whether DOI bot works with anchorencode or not. The DOI is not a very typical one, albeit used regularly by that journal. What I want to point out that both the DOI bot and the Wiki software have problems passing/rendering this string correctly (see my entry above where I had to use nowiki tags around the URL as a workaround). The problem lies not with your firewall or Wiley pages; it is with the bot and Wiki software (just have a look at how the DOI got misformed by the bot). kashmiri 17:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I think I'm getting somewhere. You're right, it wasn't my firewall, it rather was my local cache that was puking when Wiley forced the redirect. A manual cache purge and reload gets me past that. The cite doi subpage that I (manually) created was at the wrong path, so I've redirected it from

Template:Cite doi/10.1002.2F1531-8249.28199911.2946:53.0.CO.3B2-U
to the correct subpage at
Template:Cite doi/10.1002.2F1531-8249.28199911.2946.3A5.3C770.3A.3AAID-ANA13.3E3.0.CO.3B2-U.

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

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

Looks like the encoding is all working fine; I suspect that there was a temporary problem with a remote server. Unless there are further reports of similar errors I'll mark this as resolved. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 07:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is still there with DOIs that contain < and > characters, I had it a few days back, just hold on a day or two pls and I will give more details here. kashmiri 10:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, got it. Try the bot to expand this DOI: 10.1002/1098-2264(2000)9999:9999<::AID-GCC1018>3.0.CO;2-E. kashmiri 10:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

That woud be doi:10.1002/1098-2264(2000)9999:9999<::AID-GCC1018>3.0.CO;2-E. Notice the round parentheses are urlencoded to %28 and %29, and the angle brackets urlencode to %3C and %3E. When I click on that link, I initially get a "malformed request" failure, but on refreshing my cache it comes through as http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1098-2264%282000%299999:9999%3C::AID-GCC1018%3E3.0.CO;2-E/abstract, as expected. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I know what it would be and I definitely know how to encode it manually. But try to get DOI bot generate proper listing for this DOI using the Cite doi template. It does not work for me, and has nothing to do with cache. Try to experiment in your sandbox. kashmiri 22:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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. and another with, e.g. 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:

– even when downloaded references (both RIS and TXT) are absolutely correct. Just go ahead and try any other article from the table of content that I linked above. kashmiri 00:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Nathan2055^{talk - 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)

10.2307 is JSTOR AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

How do I determine if any DOI, not just 10.2307, is JSTOR or not? (Also, I don't think 10.2307 is JSTOR. doi:10.2307/2998600 links to a non-JSTOR page.) –Temporal User (Talk) 05:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

10.2307/2998600 is a JSTOR DOI, but the journal seems to have taken it over from JSTOR. Off course, it still does not exist in the databases that the bot uses because JSTOR doesn't do what it should do. Of course they aren't the only offenders http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pages_with_inactive_DOIs 15:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

http://www.crossref.org/guestquery/#bibsearch does return Meta Data for this DOI 10.2307/461317. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 17:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The bot needs to remove the special code that accesses the JSTOR databases and switch to the Cross-Ref code (unless it already does that). AManWithNoPlan (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The code does this:

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

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

What's it doing on List of longest novels ?

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 that pm is short for p.m. and interpreted it as a page identifier. The nonexistent parameter |unused_data= is used by Citation bot to hold anything that it can't place in a recognised parameter, hence |unused_data=  2:38
• In the third, this was a conversion of an absolute |url=http://www.amazon.com/dp/0060925000 to the relative |asin=0060925000 which is essentially the same thing, but is future-proof: if Amazon change their URL format, we only need to modify one or two templates, not thousands of pages. The |accessdate=2012-10-31 was removed because access dates are only meaningful when there is a URL.
• In the fourth, this was a substitution of the European guillemet with the English double quote.

This is a good example of GIGO at work. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. This makes sense. I've been slowly replacing some wikilinks with cite templates, getting the hang of it on other pages. But this page is just one giant mess.

The 2:38 pm doesn't make any sense to me, so I've just finished cleaning up after the bot here. I get the "asin". Is there supposed to be something similar for Google Books? I discovered at some point I was editing down the Google links to just the ID--who cares what the search criterion was that I used to get there? Choor monster (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, there's {{Google books|7ydCAAAAIAAJ|History of the Western Insurrection|page=42}}
This renders as:

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

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)

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)

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)

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)