User talk:CitationCleanerBot

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

Did the bot screw something up? Suggestions? Leave a message on this page and I'll get back to you. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Bug at Google[edit]

diff (last change). -- GreenC 23:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see an issue here. What was the bug?Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah sorry I didn't realize there is a CS1|2 argument for |ssrn= , it looked like a deleted URL in the diff. All is good. -- GreenC 23:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

SSRN[edit]

This edit replaced a url with an ssrn. That's fine, but the citation now triggers two error messages: "Missing or empty |url=" and "|access-date= requires |url=".

  • If it's OK for cite web to have an ssrn but no url, please coordinate with the CS1 error checkers so this doesn't trigger the "Missing or empty |url=" error.
  • From my reading of the posts above, it sounds like the access-date should have been removed when the url was. Would you check into why it wasn't?

Thanks. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

citation/core[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=5000&offset=0&profile=default&search=insource%3A%22citation%2Fcore%22&searchToken=9wzievwkg9gsvgm6g8u8jizgm

These articles directly use {{citation/core}}. It seems to me that this would be best to convert to {{cite}}. Do you agree, and are you or someone else the right bot AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

May not be a bot task. These have been on my radar for a while but I haven't yet got round to doing anything about them. It would be best if they were converted to the appropriate cs1|2 template according to the style that exists in rest of the page; not simply bulk converted to {{citation}}. Interestingly, the first few in that list all seem to have something to do with Germany so perhaps these originated at de.wiki.
Trappist the monk (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)There may be formatting differences, in which case WP:CITEVAR may be a concern. In any event, starting with a TFD discussion is probably the right first step.
It may make sense to convert Template:Cite wikisource first, since uses of that template appear to be more than half of the uses of citation/core. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I understand the point you're making. This conversation is about articles that use {{citation/core}} directly like this:
{{citation/core|Title=Stammtafeln des mediatisierten Hauses Stolberg |Year=1887|Date= 1887|language=German}}
so why should {{cite wikisource}} be at issue here?
Trappist the monk (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
It looked like the goal of the OP was to eliminate use of citation/core, and converting cite wikisource seemed like a way to pick some low-hanging fruit. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Kelly–Hopkinsville encounter[edit]

The bot removed an article link url from this citation [1] as redundant with the PMC. I suggest the article link url link be retained, since a vast majority of readers (such as myself) do not realize that PMC is a Pub Med article link. Thanks. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@LuckyLouie: If a link is are redundant with the PMID identifier, and if you don't know that PMID is PubMed, it's not by giving an explicit url to pubmed that will make it link clear to the reader that it links to pubmed. The main issue is that this redundancy serves no purpose, and takes the place of a link to a free version of that article, and discourages editors from seeking one since they'll think "oh there's already a link, don't need to search for one".
However, the diff above is about removing an explicit PMC (not PMID) link to PubMed Central. Citation templates automatically link the title to PubMed Central articles, so the explicit link is not needed. E.g.
  • {{cite journal |last1=Schmaltz |first1=Rodney |last2=Lilienfeld |first2=Scott O. |title=Hauntings, homeopathy, and the Hopkinsville Goblins: using pseudoscience to teach scientific thinking |journal=Frontiers in Psychology |date=17 April 2014 |volume=5 |doi=10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00336 |pmc=4028994}}
    

gives

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

OK thanks, I tried the "cite journal" format. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)