User talk:Citation bot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:DBUG)
Jump to: navigation, search


Note that the bot's maintainer can go weeks without logging in to Wikipedia and can no longer devote extensive time to bot maintenance. If a major bug arises and goes unnoticed, it may go unnoticed; as such, important matters may warrant an e-mail. Breaking changes to templates maintained by the bot will be more readily addressed if advance notice can be given.

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.


Contents

Odd whitespace characters[edit]

Whitespace characters as produced by e.g. reference in Exaptation are dot-encoded by cite jstor

Status
Not a bug
Reported by
Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 09:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
...
Link
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Co-option_%28biology%29&diff=571755892&oldid=567921155

Discussion

This really isn't a bot problem that if you include an invisible character AFTER the number that is not handled by {{cite pmid}} or {{cite jstor}}. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 03:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

although it would be cool if the bot fixed these. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 03:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Bot should add more than four editors and add displayeditors=29 if there are exactly 4 editors[edit]

Bot should add more than four editors and add displayeditors=29 if there are exactly 4 editors

Status
new bug / feature request (two related features in one request)
Reported by
Jonesey95 (talk) 23:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Type of bug
Improvement
Actual / expected output
Bot limits editors to four first names and four last names.
Bot should retrieve all editors and add "displayeditors=29" parameter if there are exactly four editors.
Replication instructions
Run the citation expander on a citation that has four editors listed but more than four editors in the original work. Here's one example: Template:Cite_doi/10.1007.2F978-0-387-78705-3 (revert the citation to four editors and then run the bot on it).
We can't proceed until
Bot operator's feedback on what is feasible
Requested action from maintainer
Remove four-editor limit from bot code and add "displayeditors=29" to citations with exactly four authors.

Discussion

The bot should add "displayeditors=29" if there are exactly four editors to avoid the Lua error described for exactly 9 authors above. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Citation bot dev532 did not convert first names to initials in cite doi template[edit]

Citation bot dev532 did not convert first names to initials in cite doi template

Status
Resolved
Reported by
Jonesey95 (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
Bot adds full first names.
Bot should add initials only, consistent with documentation and past practice.
Link
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ACite_doi%2F10.1038.2F35020000&diff=593973611&oldid=593973575

Discussion

Complete disagreement. A sizable fraction of the Wiki community believes strongly that first names should not be abbreviated in the citation data, but rather in the rendering template if so desired (e.g., {{Cite web}}, {{Cite journal}}, etc.). Sometimes, a lot of detective work goes into finding out what an author's full first name is (nobody wants the sad story of Laurent Cassegrain to be repeated), and the bot should not increase entropy by abbreviating the citation data. Until this behaviour is removed (and note that it is not part of the bot's documented function), editors will be forced to add bot-denial instructions to the citations needing protection. Urhixidur (talk) 14:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
The formatting of author names in the {{cite doi}} template is documented at Template:Cite_doi#Formatting. The bot should fill in the {{cite doi}} template in accordance with the documentation. This bug report does not address the formatting of {{cite journal}} or other similar templates that the bot might work on within articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Just don't use cite doi. It's a **BAD** idea, highly vulnerable to typos, linkrot, and trivial vandalism. Make a full cite journal entry and be done with it. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
In some fields you are only supposed to use initials so that you do not know if the author is male or female or black or white or jewish, etc. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Turns Wikilink for author into broken brackets[edit]

Turns Wikilink for author into broken brackets.

Status
new bug
Reported by
Bgwhite (talk) 06:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Type of bug
Inconvenience
Actual / expected output
Turns |author=[[Stacy Mintzer Herlihy|Herlihy, Stacy Mintzer]], [[E. Allison Hagood|Hagood, E. Allison]], [[Paul A. Offit|Offit, Paul A.]] --> |author-separator=,|author1 = Herlihy|author2 = Stacy Mintzer]]|author3=Hagood|author4=E. Allison]]|author5=Offit|author6=Paul A.]]
Link
Diff. Look at the bottom. This is the 6th time today I've come across this. I don't remember seeing this before, so it must in recent changes of the code. Update: Here's another example.
We can't proceed until
Bot operator's feedback on what is feasible
Requested action from maintainer

Discussion

For
|author=[[Stacy Mintzer Herlihy|Herlihy, Stacy Mintzer]], [[E. Allison Hagood|Hagood, E. Allison]], [[Paul A. Offit|Offit, Paul A.]]
the expected output from the bot would be
|authorlink1=Stacy Mintzer Herlihy |last1=Herlihy |first1=Stacy Mintzer |authorlink2=E. Allison Hagood |last2=Hagood |first2=E. Allison |authorlink3=Paul A. Offit |last3=Offit |first3=Paul A.
The Graphene example is not the same problem: the ref had an unbalanced ]] and the bot simply removed that without altering the rest of the ref. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Redrose64, Graphene is the same problem as there was no unbalanced bracket in the reference.
Original ref
|author = Wang, X.; Li, X.; Zhang, L.; Yoon, Y.; Weber, P. K.; Wang, H.; Guo, J.; [[Hongjie Dai|Dai, H.]]
After Citation bot:
|author-separator = ; |author1 = Wang |first1 = X. |last2 = Li |first2 = X. |last3 = Zhang |first3 = L. |last4 = Yoon |first4 = Y. |last5 = Weber |first5 = P. K. |last6 = Wang |first6 = H. |last7 = Guo |first7 = J. |last8 = Dai |first8 = H.]] |authorlink8 = Hongjie Dai
Bgwhite (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Ah yes: I had assumed that since your first link (Vaccine controversies) was to the problem edit, the second link (Graphene) would also be to the problem edit. Instead, it seems that it's a link to your fix for the previous edit to that page. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Before the bot edit, most of the cite journal templates in the Graphene article used a single author parameter to store the authors. Furthermore the wikilinks were fully functional before the bot edit. The bot is inserting a ridiculous number of new parameters in these templates in an attempt to produce clean metadata that no one will use. It would be better to leave the author parameters in these templates untouched. Boghog (talk) 07:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Using |author= (singular) to store multiple names doesn't seem like a good idea. Before Citation Bot got to work, Revision 600716072 contained stuff like this:

  • <ref name="Saito92">{{Cite journal |author =Saito, R. ''et al.'' |title = Electronic structure of graphene tubules based on C60|doi=10.1103/PhysRevB.46.1804 |journal = Physical Review B | volume = 46 | page = 1804 |year =1992|bibcode = 1992PhRvB..46.1804S |issue =3 |first2 =Mitsutaka |first3 =G. |first4 =M. }}</ref> - with a name and "et al" in "author" and then a load of first, but not last, names later in the list.
  • <ref name=SiCplusH2>{{Cite journal |author = Riedl C., Coletti C., Iwasaki T., Zakharov A.A., Starke U. |year = 2009 |title = Quasi-Free-Standing Epitaxial Graphene on SiC Obtained by Hydrogen Intercalation |journal = Physical Review Letters |volume = 103 |page = 246804 |doi = 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.246804 |pmid=20366220 |bibcode=2009PhRvL.103x6804R |issue = 24|arxiv = 0911.1953 }}</ref> - with multiple names in "author" separated by commas.
  • <ref>{{Cite journal |laysummary = http://news.ufl.edu/2009/05/07/graphene/ |author = Wang, X.; Li, X.; Zhang, L.; Yoon, Y.; Weber, P. K.; Wang, H.; Guo, J.; [[Hongjie Dai|Dai, H.]] |journal = Science |volume = 324 |issue = 5928 |year = 2009 |pmid = 19423822 | doi = 10.1126/science.1170335 |title = N-Doping of Graphene Through Electrothermal Reactions with Ammonia |bibcode = 2009Sci...324..768W |pages = 768–71 }}</ref> - with multiple names in "author" separated by semi-colons.
  • <ref>{{cite journal|author=[[Peter Debye|Debije P]], Scherrer P|year = 1916|title=Interferenz an regellos orientierten Teilchen im Röntgenlicht I|journal=Physikalische Zeitschrift|volume=17|page=277}}</ref> - lists of names in "author" with some of the names wikilinked.

I prefer using "last"/"first" for persons and "author" for committees, departments and organisations. Using "authorlink" is more robust and this works with both the "last"/"first" and "author" parameters.

Citation bot made a bit of a mess in the Graphene article.

Why did it do this to the patent?

  • {{citation|patent|US|6667100}} ->
  • {{Cite document|patent|US|6667100|ref = harv|postscript = <!-- Bot inserted parameter. Either remove it; or change its value to "." for the cite to end in a ".", as necessary. -->{{inconsistent citations}}}}

Why does the "last2" parameter get added at the end of the list of names instead of at the beginning? Why is "et al" not cleared from "author"? Why is "author" not changed to "last"/"first" to match the rest?

  • <ref name=K>{{Cite journal | author = Chen, J. H. ''et al.'' |title = Charged Impurity Scattering in Graphene |doi=10.1038/nphys935 |journal = Nature Physics | volume = 4 | pages = 377–381 |year = 2008 |bibcode = 2008NatPh...4..377C | issue=5 | first2 = C. | first3 = S. | first4 = M. S. | first5 = E. D. | first6 = M.|arxiv = 0708.2408 }}</ref> ->
  • <ref name=K>{{Cite journal | author = Chen, J. H. ''et al.'' |title = Charged Impurity Scattering in Graphene |doi=10.1038/nphys935 |journal = Nature Physics | volume = 4 | pages = 377–381 |year = 2008 |bibcode = 2008NatPh...4..377C | issue=5 | first2 = C. |last3 = Adam | first3 = S. |last4 = Fuhrer | first4 = M. S. |last5 = Williams | first5 = E. D. |last6 = Ishigami | first6 = M.|arxiv = 0708.2408 |last2 = Jang }}</ref>

Why did the bot duplicate the name found in "last2"/"first2" into "last3"/"first3"?

  • <ref>{{cite journal |journal=Rev. Mod. Phys. |year=2002 |volume=74 |page=601 |doi=10.1103/RevModPhys.74.601 |bibcode=2002RvMP...74..601O |title=Electronic excitations: Density-functional versus many-body Green's-function approaches |last1=Onida |first1=Giovanni |last2=Rubio |first2=Angel |issue=2}}</ref> ->
  • <ref>{{cite journal |journal=Rev. Mod. Phys. |year=2002 |volume=74 |page=601 |doi=10.1103/RevModPhys.74.601 |bibcode=2002RvMP...74..601O |title=Electronic excitations: Density-functional versus many-body Green's-function approaches |last1=Onida |first1=Giovanni |last2=Rubio |first2=Angel |last3=Rubio |first3=Angel |issue=2}}</ref>

Why are only "last2" to "last6" created and not "first2" to "first6"? Why is the "author" parameter with six names in it left untouched? This causes duplication in display.

  • <ref name=nmscrolling>{{Cite journal |author = S. Braga, V. R. Coluci, S. B. Legoas, R. Giro, D. S. Galvão, R. H. Baughman |year = 2004 |title = Structure and Dynamics of Carbon Nanoscrolls |journal = Nano Letters |volume = 4 |page = 881 |doi=10.1021/nl0497272 |bibcode = 2004NanoL...4..881B |issue = 5 }}</ref> ->
  • <ref name=nmscrolling>{{Cite journal |author = S. Braga, V. R. Coluci, S. B. Legoas, R. Giro, D. S. Galvão, R. H. Baughman |year = 2004 |title = Structure and Dynamics of Carbon Nanoscrolls |journal = Nano Letters |volume = 4 |page = 881 |doi=10.1021/nl0497272 |bibcode = 2004NanoL...4..881B |issue = 5 |last2 = Coluci |last3 = Legoas |last4 = Giro |last5 = Galvão |last6 = Baughman }}</ref>

Why was the working Wiley URL changed to a DOI attribute and then immediately marked as "dead"?

  • <ref>{{cite web|url=http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adma.200904383/abstract |title=Graphene-On-Silicon Schottky Junction Solar Cells |date= APR,9,2010}}</ref> ->
  • <ref>{{cite web|doi=10.1002/adma.200904383/abstract |title=Graphene-On-Silicon Schottky Junction Solar Cells |date= APR,9,2010|doi_brokendate=2014-03-24 }}</ref>

I have manually fixed those and very many other errors. Although the parameter names are now the same for all references, there is very little consistency in the format of some of the data in the parameters. I have fixed all the dates, but "first names" are a mixture of either first name or initials, the latter found both with or without periods. -- 79.67.241.76 (talk) 00:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Another article today, Delimiter. It messed up three refs. Bgwhite (talk) 06:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
"Using |author= (singular) to store multiple names doesn't seem like a good idea." – Why not? Using a single parameter to store multiple authors produces more compact templates that don't overwhelm the surrounding wikitext. The only down side is that is doesn't produce clean author metadata. However how many consumers of Wikipedia citation metadata are there? I suspect not very many. I agree that it is perhaps more logical to store multiple authors in |authors= (plural). Nevertheless, per consensus and long established usage and consistent with the current {{cite journal}} documentation, full author lists can be stored in a single field called either "authors" or "author" without need for additional numbered author parameters. Boghog (talk) 07:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── With a free form input using "authors", there will be no consistency of display. Before Citation Bot got to work, the Graphene article contained the following names in references:

There were also references that would not display because the reference name had been duplicated, four or five different date formats including dates like "SEP,03,2013" with Chinese characters in them and many other issues. Half the "et al." were in italics and half were not.

By changing to separate parameters for names, all names display in "last, first" order with the same separators throughout. The only variation is whether the first name is stated in full or is initials, and whether there are periods after initials or not. A bot can fix those entries to be consistent. If "et al." is specified it is currently in |authorn+1= where n is the highest numbered "lastn"/"firstn" parameter. The number of authors to display can also be set using the |display-authors= parameter. -- 79.67.241.76 (talk) 11:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The format of the author names could just as easily been standardized using a single author parameter which would have avoided all the parameter bloat. There is no "house style" for citations, hence there is no single "right way" to format citations. A single author parameter was the predominate style before your edits. Per WP:CITEVAR, if you want to change this style, you should have obtained consensus for this change on the article talk page before your edits. Boghog (talk) 12:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
If you want to list more than one author in a parameter, then use |authors=. If you want to use a single author, use |author=. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 11:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

"Molecular and cellular biology" instead of "Molecular and Cellular Biology"[edit]

Capitalization

Status
feature request
Reported by
Saimondo (talk) 16:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Type of bug
Inconvenience: Humans must occasionally make immediate edits to clean up after the bot
Actual / expected output
Bot writes for example "Molecular and cellular biology" instead of "Molecular and Cellular Biology" by autofilling with PMID 9858585
Link
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ACite_pmid%2F9858585&diff=619550325&oldid=604044373
Replication instructions
autocomplete with PMID 9858585
We can't proceed until
Agreement on the best solution
Requested action from maintainer

Discussion

Data on NCBI seems to be ok: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC83919/ where the Journal is written as "Mol Cell Biol." on the webpage and as "MOLECULAR AND CELLULAR BIOLOGY" in the full text pdf.

What to do in those cases? Include "Molecular and Cellular Biology" in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Citation_bot/capitalisation_exclusions in sush cases?

The same with

-"The Journal of biological chemistry" e.g. PMID 9858585

-"The Journal of cell biology" e.g. PMID 9763423

an other cases seen in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Cite_doi_templates ? Thanks--Saimondo (talk) 16:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually PubMed lists the journal as "Molecular and cellular biology" in the webpage meta data. A very minor case of GIGO. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 02:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps its worth quoting the University of Chicago Manual of Style (14th ed.) on this matter:
"In regular title capitalization, also known as headline style, the first and last words and all nouns, pronouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs, and subordinating conjunctions (if, because, as, that, etc.) are capitalized. Articles (a, an, the), coordinating conjunctions (and, but, or, for, nor), and prepositions, regardless of length are lowercased unless they are the first or last word of the title or subtitle. The to in infinitives is also lowercased."
On the other hand, it is common in library cataloging following MARC format to capitalize only the initial word, proper nouns, and, if the title begins with an article, that article and the following noun.
Wikipedia citations should follow citation style, rather than library cataloging style. In this case, the appropriate form would be "Molecular and Cellular Biology". The Wikipedia Manual of Style provides much the same advice on the capitalization of titles. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I am not very familiar with PHP (the language that Citation Bot is coded in), but it would appear that there is a mb_convert_case function:
 $str = mb_convert_case($str, MB_CASE_TITLE, "UTF-8");
that can transform a string into title case (i.e., capitalize the first and last words of the title and all nouns, pronouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs, and subordinating conjunctions). This function would probably work well for most journal names. Boghog (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
This should be easy to implement, but I anticipate that some time down the line it will upset someone. Before I implement it, could we establish consensus and file a bot approval request if necessary? Thanks. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 08:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
How about your implement it for adding journal titles, but don't implement it for changing existing entries. Eventually, the list of titles that violate the rules will be built up, and then you can make it is a fix for existing journal titles. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 01:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

You are of course right, it´s no error it´s the catalog style NCBI is using. I don´t have the complete overview what capitalization format is obtained by the doi or issn vs pmid queries. But if you use the cite-> templates-> cite journal option here in the edit window and use autofill with the doi:10.1128/MCB.00698-14 you get "Molecular and Cellular Biology" if you use the same publications PMID 25022755 with autofill you get "Molecular and cellular biology". If capitalization means also harmonization I think few wikipedians would be against it.

Furthermore, as far as I understand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Titles_of_works the capitalization format like above should be ok (I have the impression that most journals use capitalization for their own names on their homepages/pdfs). Should we ask on the Manual of style talk page to see if there´s a consensus for capitalization? In case someone is interested, here is a recent reply of an email I (re-)sent to NCBI some time ago:

"...Standard cataloging requires that the first word in the full journal title begins with an upper case letter and remaining words (except for proper nouns) begin with lower case. Journal title abbreviations begin with all upper-case letters. I checked the XML data for several journals and found that each of the title listed in this manner. You can see several examples at the bottom of this document:

Fact Sheet: Construction of the National Library of Medicine Title Abbreviations http://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/constructitle.html Sincerely, Ellen M. L. ...

-Original Message-

Dear NCBI Team, in the xml data of a specific article https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9858585?dopt=Abstract&report=xml&format=text the journal name is written "Molecular and cellular biology" and the abbreviation is "Mol Cell Biol.". I think the correct journal name should be "Molecular and Cellular Biology" as written on the journal homepage http://mcb.asm.org/content/19/1/612.long ." Saimondo (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Display authors in citewatch[edit]

Not a bug https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ACite_pmid%2F14623081&diff=622774160&oldid=622720893 (Full details to follow) Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 11:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Issue & Number[edit]

Bot adds Issue to Cite journal if it already has Number present

Status
new bug
Reported by
It Is Me Here t / c 11:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Type of bug
Inconvenience: Humans must occasionally make immediate edits to clean up after the bot
Actual / expected output
If an instance of {{cite journal}} has no |issue=φ, the Bot adds it, even if the {{cite journal}} already has |number=φ, throwing up a red error in read mode.
It should do nothing (bypass {{cite journal}}s with |number=φ).
Link
[1]
We can't proceed until
Agreement on the best solution
Requested action from maintainer

Discussion

Here's another one, done by citation bot 579. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Bot v579 added only last names, not first names[edit]

Status
new bug
Reported by
Jonesey95 (talk) 05:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Type of bug
Inconvenience
Actual / expected output
Bot adds only last names to a citation
Bot should add first initials as well
Link
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Altai-Sayan_region&diff=prev&oldid=624114302
Replication instructions
Run the bot on the previous version of the article linked above
We can't proceed until
Bot operator's feedback on what is feasible
Requested action from maintainer

Discussion

Is this because it already had authors= present AManWithNoPlan (talk) 04:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Umlaut[edit]

Won't fix Seems the bot doesn't recognise Umlaut (linguistics), or was I just unlucky?[2] FunkMonk (talk) 10:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

This looks like a problem in the source database that the bot draws the data from. Sorry that nothing can be done! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 06:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
If the source database used was PubMed, then it appears that the problem is not with the source database (see PMID: 12712314). Boghog (talk) 06:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
it appears the bot relied on the Crossref entry. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Edits to Arthur Gould (rugby union)[edit]

Status
Not a bug
Reported by
Shudde talk 02:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
Changed the "coauthors" parameter to "author2" in a {{cite book}} template and this caused an error with the harvard referencing (citation style used {{sfn}}) used within the article.
Any changes shouldn't break the article's referencing system, regardless of whether the parameters are considered redundant.
Link
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arthur_Gould_%28rugby_union%29&diff=628995767&oldid=625746379

Discussion

Just another note, while I appreciate the work done by the operator of this bot, maybe in the future if changes are made to an article on the main page (such as the WP:TFA in this case), it may be best to have any bot edits checked manually. Especially as any errors will be so visible. -- Shudde talk 02:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Harvard references are brittle, unless an explicit Harvard reference name is given in the {{cite journal}} template. You never know when another reference is going to be added that has the same author and year or when a typo in a name or date is going to be fixed. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
This was not caused by another book being added to the bibliography, and it wasn't caused by any of your examples of the "brittle[ness]" of the harv style. It was caused by the bot changing a parameter. Hence my bug report. Had the bot not made any changes, there would not have been a problem. -- Shudde talk 02:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
The bot should probably change the ref=harv to be the full version. ref=harv is prone to breakage, since it can break when things are fixed. That would fix the problem long-term. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── That would be a solution. But as I don't maintain the bot, or code them, I can't say what the best solution is. The bot just came through and made the same buggy edits ([3] -- which I've reverted). Why is this bot running if it's not being maintained, or at least some eye being kept on this page? -- Shudde talk 02:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I just reverted some buggy edits. References that list the names of authors now include all the last names following the first entry of their names. I am One of Many (talk) 05:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

author= converted to authors= and author=[edit]

author= converted to authors= and author= (redundant parameters)

Status
new bug
Reported by
Jonesey95 (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Type of bug
Inconvenience: Humans must occasionally make immediate edits to clean up after the bot
Actual / expected output
author= converted to authors= and author= (redundant parameters)
Bot should choose either |author= or |authors=
Link
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palm_oil&diff=629440195&oldid=628916065
We can't proceed until
Requested action from maintainer

Discussion

See the diff. The bot converted author=Vega-López, Sonia et al. to authors=Vega-López, Sonia | author=Vega-López, Sonia|displayauthors=1|author2=and others.

There is a similar problem here, where |author= was left in place while |last1= etc. were added. The bot should choose one or the other. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

This edit is similar, but it also added "author2=et al." instead of the author's actual name. Setting |displayauthors= to 1 generates "et al." automatically. If someone manually removes |displayauthors=, the author names will be wrong. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
This bug is still present. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
As shown here the bot hasn't been edited since 1 September. Still needs a relief operator. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Bot Cat579 added unsupported |eprint=, which was supposedly fixed in r572[edit]

Bot Cat579 added unsupported |eprint=, which was supposedly fixed in r572

Status
new bug
Reported by
Jonesey95 (talk) 06:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Type of bug
Inconvenience
Actual / expected output
Bot adds |eprint=, which is not a valid parameter in {{cite journal}}
Bot should not add |eprint=
Link
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HR_8799_c&diff=630333538&oldid=608523277
We can't proceed until
Bot operator's feedback on what is feasible
Requested action from maintainer

Discussion

It looks like the bug that was fixed in r572 was the removal of a valid URL for citations sourced in the arXiv database. The bot is still adding |eprint=, however, which I believe is valid in {{cite arxiv}} but not in {{cite journal}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Bot unnecessarily adding last2, last3, last4, ... parameters[edit]

... to citations that already contain a complete author list

Status
unresolved ongoing bug
Reported by
Boghog (talk) 19:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Type of bug
Deleterious
Actual / expected output
When the full author list is stored in |author=, the bot adds |last2=, |last3=, |last4=, ... without the corresponding |first2=, |first3=, |first4=, ...
If |author= contains the full author list, then the bot should not add |last2=, |last3=, |last4=, ... parameters
Link
diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, ...
We can't proceed until
Bot operator's feedback on what is feasible
Requested action from maintainer
If |author= contains a complete author list, do not unnecessarily add |last2=, |last3=, |last4=, ...

Discussion

This is essentially the same bug that was previously reported here but it still occurring. Boghog (talk) 19:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

 Not a bug. Or perhaps, only to the extent that you consider the "lastn" (etc.) parameters to be errors.
 There have been several discussions on stuffing "full author lists" into the [c]author[s] parameters (e.g.: Module_talk:Citation/CS1/Archive_9#Coauthors_2). That is certainly a dubious practice, and perhaps it is time to deprecate it. But this is not the place for that. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely a bug. It is redundant and unnecessary to add lastn parameters to these citations. Even if one wanted such parameters, the bot has done this incorrectly by not also adding the corresponding firstn parameters and removing the author parameter. Furthermore this "correct" behavior would be in clear violation of WP:CITEVAR. The use of a single author parameter to store full Vancouver formatted author lists is widely used and has long been accepted. The bot should not make changes to citations that were not asked for. What is dubious practice is firstn, lastn nonsense that clutters up Wikitext to generate meta data that no one uses or should use. Wikipedia is not a reliable source and this extends to citations. Boghog (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
There is no redundancy in separating a list of authors into individual authors, or splitting an author's last name (which is the basis for alphabetizing) from the rest. And if you think that the "lastn" and "firstn" parameters are "nonsense that clutters up Wikitext" you probably aren't happy using citation templates in the first place, so perhaps you should just use straight text, manually formatted. Except, of course, where use of templates has already been established. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Please look carefully at the diffs above. What citation bot has done is add lastn parameters and left the existing author parameter in place. As a consequence, author last names are now listed twice, once in the author parameter and again in lastn parameters. That is redundancy. You probably aren't happy using citation templates in the first place – nothing could be further from the truth. I quite often convert non-templated citations to {{cite journal}} templated citations (see this diff, there are thousands of similar examples in my edit history). Furthermore I maintain this template filling tool that generates {{cite journal}} formatted citations. Spliting author data between firstn, lastn parameters is an excessive level of data granularity that becomes unwieldy if there are a large number of authors. The Vancouver system provides a compact comma delimited list that unambiguously defines authors' first and last names. Boghog (talk) 05:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Any use of any of the citation templates in the wikitext — i.e., within <ref>...</ref> tags — introduces clutter, so it is inconsistent for you object to "clutter" only in regard of author parameters. (As a side note: I find all bibliographic details clutter the text, which is why I put them into a separate section.) If your complaint is that, after adding "lastn" parameters, the bot failed to remove the corresponding "author" parameters, then I would concur that is a bug. But that is just what you are asking for: to retain the questionable "author" parameters. As to splitting the author names: that is not a bug, that is the intended result. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Good, we now both agree that there is a bug, but your solution is a clear violation of WP:CITEVAR. Storing full author lists in a single author parameter has not been deprecated and you have not explained why this use is questionable. Quite to the contrary, the use of "firstn, lastn" parameters becomes ridiculous if there are a large number of authors. Furthermore it is completely unnecessary if the author list follows the Vancouver system. The reason to use templates is so that the data can easily be parsed to provide a consistent rendering of the citations, wiki links, maintained by bots, etc. The Vancouver system author format can easily be parsed without the need for verbose firstn, lastn parameters. It just that the maintainers of Module:Citation/CS1 have resisted doing so. ({{vcite2 journal}} provides a possible way forward if functionality were added to this template to parse the author parameter to internally generate firstn, lastn parameters). I also occasionally use list defined references, but some editors object to these because it splits the text from the supporting sources. Regardless of whether these lists are a good idea or not, most articles don't use these. Finally, templates should be concise containing no more overhead than is necessary to do its job. I see the value of separate parameters for title, journal name, date, etc. but splitting author data into firstn, lastn parameters is an excessive and unnecessary degree of data granularity. So I disagree that I am being inconsistent. Boghog (talk) 03:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Neither is deprecated. The right behaviour is to standardize on the predominant type, or failing that, leave the existing form. The bot is doing neither, but that is not the egregious part. The bot is populating the same author in both ways, creating the appearance of two authors of the same name! LeadSongDog come howl! 03:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
This is ridiculous, the bot needs to be halted until this issue is fixed. The bot shouldn't add lastn, firstn, author, authors and similar unless none of the above is specified already, that's it, I don't get why it's even a matter of discussion. Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
No, we don't agree. Or rather: I will agree there is a bug if you agree that it is in retention of misused "author" parameters. But obviously you don't. If you want to argue about apppropriate "data granularity" or "clutter", fine, but those aren't bugs, so this is the wrong place. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
But yes, we do agree :-). We just need to replace |author= with |vauthors= and convince the maintainers of Module:Citation/CS1 to parse the later to internally create firstn, lastn parameters. Agreed? A brilliant idea that should make everyone happy. With this solution, we can reduce the clutter while still generating clean metadata and fully supporting |authorlinkn=, |display-authors=, etc. We can also introduce error checking to make sure the content of |vauthors= is compliant with the Vancouver system. Boghog (talk) 20:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, still no. The core issue is "data granularity" (as you call it), and particularly whether multiple authors ("author lists") should be allowed in a single parameter. (And possibly including whether authors' names should be split into first/last.) Whether the parameter involved is |author=, |authors=, |coauthor=, |coauthors=, |vauthors=, or any other parameter, is immaterial. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
It appears that you have taken the position that is self evident that that authors names must be split into different parameters with out providing a shred of evidence that this is true. The only rational reason for maintaining such a position is that is essential for parsing and error checking the data, and as I have explained above, neither is true. The Vancouver system provides an unambiguous method for parsing author data. When the data is formatted in this style, explicit firstn, lastn parameters become superfluous. These parameters can be generated internally on-the-fly. Boghog (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
No, but the issue of whether to split or not is deep enough it should be split off from the specifics of this bot's behavior. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
You still have not explained why splitting is essentiall, but I would agree this is not the place to have this discussion. Boghog (talk) 07:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
@Boghog: "Just parse it automatically" is a bad idea. See http://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-believe-about-names/ for why. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I totally agree. That is precisely the reason for proposing |vauthors= so that this type of parsing is only done when this specific parameter is specified. Boghog (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Another essential part of the proposal is error checking. The string would only be parsed if it conforms to the Vancouver system. If it does not conform, an error is thrown. Boghog (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
It's not a matter of agreeing or not agreeing: the page is fine here [4], then the bot intervenes and the templates are throwing errors [5]. So it is a bug. Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
edit: I took that as an example but the examples boghog linked are better suited. My example just proves that this bot has a history of messing with authors parameters and the devs just won't (or can't) fix its behavior. Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Ihaveacatonmydesk. I didn't realize that some of the bot edits resulted in throwing errors. The problem is worse than I thought. This needs to be fixed immediately. Boghog (talk) 20:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
That was an old version of the bot, that particular issue might have been fixed. Still, I consider the issues it creates now as dire as those I linked. A bot should never need this amount of babysitting. Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 21:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I would agree that this bot has been troublesome, which is why I tend to block it from pages I work on. I would also favor blocking it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe that the bug described here is a duplicate of one described above. I have found that e-mailing the bot's maintainer is more effective than posting here at eliciting a response to requests perceived as urgent. In the meantime, the undo link is always available to you, and there are instructions for blocking the bot from specific articles displayed on the bot's user page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not the bot that's been troublesome, so much as that needed behaviour of the bot keeps being shifted by changes to the template code. That said, the bot hasn't made an edit since 25 October, so there's no panic needed. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Even if the addition of lastn was not a bug (and it clearly is), firstn should be added. (And it's still happening.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello! Anyone there??? Boghog (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Workaround based on {{vcite2 journal}}[edit]

As a follow-up to the above discussion, a new {{vcite2 journal}} template with an optional |vauthors= parameter has been recently created. This close variant of {{cite journal}} supports assignment of multiple authors in Vancouver format (a comma separated list containing no semi colons or periods) to a single |vauthors= parameter that generates clean author metadata. In all other respects, {{vcite2 journal}} is identical to {{cite journal}}. Hence I would request that instead of adding last2, last3, last4, ... parameters to citations with Vancouver style author format that the bot instead replace {{cite journal | author}} with {{vcite2 journal | vauthors}}. Boghog (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments cause trouble[edit]

Bot changed |publisher= to |DUPLICATE_publisher= in the absence of a duplicate publisher parameter

Status
new bug
Reported by
Jonesey95 (talk) 02:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Type of bug
Inconvenience: Humans must occasionally make immediate edits to clean up after the bot
Actual / expected output
Bot changed |publisher= to |DUPLICATE_publisher= in the absence of a duplicate publisher parameter
Bot should not do that.
Link
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fathima_Beevi&diff=629715024&oldid=610463414
We can't proceed until
Bot operator's feedback on what is feasible
Requested action from maintainer

Discussion

As far as I can tell, there were no duplicated parameters when the bot did its edit. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

How did you get this? The bot is not currently working.--Auric talk 13:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
The edit is date-stamped 15 October 2014. I just discovered it yesterday while going through Category:Pages with citations using unsupported parameters. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Here's another similar one, adding DUPLICATE to |archiveurl= and |archivedate=. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
This looks like it related to comments in the references in all cases. This appears to be a common thread in bot bugs on this page. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 04:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Adding bogus |year= https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wealden_Line&diff=629805699&oldid=629545497

This doesn't expand: typical.{{ref doi|10.1111/j.1096-3642.1950.tb01699.x}} listed [http://www.iucnredlist.org/ List<!-- Bot -->]

DUPLICATE_ added: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=509th_Composite_Group&diff=636859536&oldid=636220208

DUPLICATE_ added: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shapley%E2%80%93Folkman_lemma&diff=655089982&oldid=651991293


Bot added |first1= when |first= was already present[edit]

Bot added |first1= when |first= was already present

Status
new bug
Reported by
Jonesey95 (talk) 01:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Type of bug
Inconvenience
Actual / expected output
Bot added |first1= when |first= was already present
Bot should avoid creating redundant parameters
Link
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ACite_pmid%2F17504652&diff=633165136&oldid=587566456
We can't proceed until
Bot operator's feedback on what is feasible
Requested action from maintainer

Discussion


issue vs. volume confusion for journals with no volumes[edit]

Status
new bug
Reported by
All the best: Rich Farmbrough01:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC).
Type of bug
Inconvenience
Actual / expected output
for the journal ZookKeys changes the issue number to a volume number.
Should understand that this number is an issue number with this particular journal
Link
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aegista_diversifamilia&diff=630393100&oldid=629974617 - see discussion here
Replication instructions
A similar ZooKeys doi template
We can't proceed until
Bot operator's feedback on what is feasible
Requested action from maintainer
Build in specific knowledge of this journal's numbering scheme. Possibly a list of one, unless and until other similar items are found.

Discussion


Bot found |first9=LH et al. and added |author10=and others and |displayauthors=9[edit]

Bot found |first9=LH et al. and added |author10=and others and |displayauthors=9

Status
new bug
Reported by
Jonesey95 (talk) 05:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Type of bug
Inconvenience
Actual / expected output
Bot found |first9=LH et al. and added |author10= and |displayauthors=9 without modifying |first9=, leaving the citation displaying "et al. et al." after the ninth author's first name.
Bot should remove "et al." from |first9=.
Link
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plasmodium_species_infecting_primates&diff=next&oldid=633522375
We can't proceed until
Bot operator's feedback on what is feasible
Requested action from maintainer

Discussion


Duplicate detection is redundant[edit]

Duplicate detection

Status
new bug
Reported by
 Gadget850 talk 00:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Type of bug
Inconvenience: Humans must occasionally make immediate edits to clean up after the bot
Actual / expected output
mw:MediaWiki 1.25/wmf4 added detection for duplicate parameters; these pages are now placed in a tracking category. Thus, duplicate detection by the bot is now redundant.
Link
[6]
We can't proceed until
Requested action from maintainer

Discussion

For what it's worth, the bot locates and tags the duplicate citation parameters, causing the citations in question to emit red error messages. Until the duplicate template parameter errors emit their own error messages (which is in the works, apparently), the bot's tagging makes it a lot easier to locate these otherwise hidden errors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I have an AWB script that is removing {{PDFlink}} from CS1 citations. Most times {{PDFlink}} is used as the value in |title= but occasionally, editors have used it in |url= so when the external link portion of {{PDFlink}} is disassembled into |url= and |title=, there are now two titles. Initially, I simply commented out the title portion of the {{PDFlink}} parameter but that draws no attention. So, on consideration I have adopted Citation bot's |DUPLICATE_title= so that the change can be noticed and fixed.
Trappist the monk (talk) 14:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
For info, as it took time to find, said new tracking category is Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls Rjwilmsi 15:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistency on adding second names[edit]

Diffs on my corrections on what the bot just did. When adding a second name, adding "Author2" instead of "last 2" and "first2" threw the Harv Ref into error mode. Also, on the Time Inc. article, there was no author, as writers don't always get a byline. The bot decided the publisher was also the author. — Maile (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The Time citation edit was clearly wrong. Perhaps though, the better fix is |author=Staff writer instead of |author=Staff |first=writer so that the citation renders without an extraneous comma between Staff and writer. Alternately, it is common to do this: |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.-->
Trappist the monk (talk) 19:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I've taken your suggestion. Good information to have. — Maile (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
GIGO from google Books. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 03:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Not a bug

Bot used "author4=and others" in place of real author #4 on a 7-author reference.[edit]

Bot used "author4=and others" in place of real author #4 on a 7-author reference.

Status
new bug
Reported by
Srleffler (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Type of bug
Inconvenience
Actual / expected output
The article cited has seven authors. Human-entered reference listed two and "last3=et al.". The bot expanded the list to seven with "displayauthors=3", but made "author4=and others" in place of the real author4's name. Author 4 was omitted completely from the list.
Link
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dispersion_polymerization&diff=637280081&oldid=637163057
We can't proceed until
Bot operator's feedback on what is feasible
Requested action from maintainer

Discussion


duplicated last name[edit]

last name duplications

Status
Reported by
TomS TDotO (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Type of bug
Actual / expected output
In three different citations which seem to be well-formed, the bot added on parameter last2 (last 3, etc.) for some of the authors. I am leaving the change as is for the moment, for it should only cause inconvenience (temporary confusion) to the reader. So you can see for yourself what happened - see "Yamada", for example. But, of course, someone else may revert the changes (as I will after a while)
Link
Evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles
We can't proceed until
Agreement on the best solution
Requested action from maintainer
None. Just thought that you should know.

Discussion


Bot 579 added doi-broken-date when doi-inactive-date was already present[edit]

Bot 579 added doi-broken-date when doi-inactive-date was already present

Status
new bug
Reported by
Jonesey95 (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Type of bug
Inconvenience: Humans must occasionally make immediate edits to clean up after the bot
Actual / expected output
Bot 579 added doi-broken-date when doi-inactive-date was already present, creating a redundant parameter error.
Bot should either detect doi-inactive-date and ignore it or convert it to doi-broken-date.
Link
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creatine_supplements&diff=642045347&oldid=641463809
We can't proceed until
Bot operator's feedback on what is feasible
Requested action from maintainer

Discussion


Adding doi_broken when doi is functional[edit]

Adding doi_broken when doi is functional

Status
new bug
Reported by
DrKiernan (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Type of bug
Improvement
Actual / expected output
adds "doi_brokendate" when doi is not broken
Link
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cutthroat_trout&diff=642205196&oldid=637824534
Replication instructions
Have a doi that is not in CrossRef database, but still resolves to a url using dx.doi.org
We can't proceed until
A specific edit to the bot's code is requested below.
Requested action from maintainer
Add code to check if doi works using dx.doi.org before marking as bad, even if crossref does not have doi in it.

Discussion

Each of those DOIs works fine. I don't know why the bot would have marked these DOIs as broken. Looks like a bug, maybe a timeout value that is too short? – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Clearly a timeout problem or a throttle problem on the other end. Running the bot again made them go away on another page. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
That sounds re-assuring, thanks. DrKiernan (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Re-running does not repair the broken_doi errors (with me). Blocked to avoid potential damage, hoping this will be fixed/resolved soon. Materialscientist (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Unblocked - seems like the problem is gone. Materialscientist (talk) 04:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
The problem persists [7]. Materialscientist (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
That doi is not in the crossref database. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 02:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Suggestion: before marking a doi as inactive, the bot could verify it at dx.doi.org/[doi number] rather than the crossref database. Materialscientist (talk) 07:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

This is still happening. Here Ealdgyth - Talk 12:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I verified that crossref and doi.org were both up and then tried again. Still messed up. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
It's STILL doing it. diff. Can we fix this or stop doing a task or something... it's pretty annoying. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
the problem is that while the DOI does resolve to a webpage, there is no metadata. http://www.crossref.org/guestquery/ Shows no info when you query. This DOI is half-broken. See http://search.crossref.org/?q=10.1484/J.VIATOR.2.300762 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Pre-filled bug report feature is pretty awful[edit]

Won't fix Hi. I just filed a bug here and the pre-filled form is really rough. We should either dramatically improve the wiki bug reporting or we should switch to somewhere else (such as Phabricator). Pre-filling the editing text area with {{bot bug}} and then mixing obscure template markup with HTML comments in a single blob really isn't acceptable. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

This is the wiki standard way of doing things. Discuss the bot on the bot page. Also, many so-called bugs are not bugs. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 20:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Substitute instead of transcluding new {{cite pmid}} templates[edit]

Status
new feature request
Reported by
Boghog (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Type of bug
Improvement: The bot should substitute {{cite pmid}}, {{cite doi}}, and {{cite isbn}} templates instead of transcluding citation data from template space.
Actual / expected output
We can't proceed until
Agreement on the best solution
Requested action from maintainer

Discussion

Per this consensus, a request should be made that the function of Citation Bot be changed so that {{cite pmid}}, {{cite doi}}, and {{cite isbn}} are substituted instead of transcluded. There is also this consensus that existing {{cite pmid}}, etc. templates should be substituted in all WP:MED articles. I am planning to submit a WP:BRFA for a new bot to carry out this task. However before doing that, it would be important that Citation Bot stop creating new transcluded templates and instead substitute them. Boghog (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget to fix {{cite hdl}} and {{cite jstor}} and any {{cite pmc}} that might exist. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder. {{cite hdl}} – 41 transclusions, {{cite jstor}} – 819 transclusions. The {{cite pmc}} template doesn't exist. Boghog (talk) 06:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Cite pmc became cite pmid per Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_21#Template:Cite_pmc. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Butchered author names[edit]

butchered author names

Status
new bug
Reported by
Smuckola(talk) 22:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Type of bug
Actual / expected output
butchered author names
Link
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mach_(kernel)&diff=next&oldid=652183542
We can't proceed until
Agreement on the best solution
Requested action from maintainer

Discussion


By the way, how can you justify leaving an unmaintained bot in service?

Deprecated parameter |author-separator= added[edit]

Deprecated parameter |author-separator= added

Status
new bug
Reported by
Jonesey95 (talk) 23:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Type of bug
Inconvenience
Actual / expected output
Deprecated parameter |author-separator= added
Link
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mach_(kernel)&diff=next&oldid=652183542
We can't proceed until
Bot operator's feedback on what is feasible
Requested action from maintainer

Discussion


|display-authors=9 no longer necessary for exactly nine authors[edit]

|display-authors=9 no longer necessary for exactly nine authors

Status
new bug
Reported by
Jonesey95 (talk) 01:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Type of bug
Improvement
Actual / expected output
The bot adds |display-authors=9 when there are exactly nine authors.
The bot should not add |display-authors=9 when there are exactly nine authors.
We can't proceed until
Bot operator's feedback on what is feasible
Requested action from maintainer
Remove code that adds |display-authors=9 when there are exactly nine authors. See Category:CS1 maint: display-authors

Discussion


Bot creates CS1 errors when attempting to parse authors= parameter containing many names[edit]

Bot creates CS1 errors when attempting to parse authors= parameter containing many names

Status
new bug
Reported by
Stamptrader (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Type of bug
Deleterious
Actual / expected output
Bot keeps only the first names and loses all of the last names but one
lastn= must be populated as well, not only firstn=
Link
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Numerical_weather_prediction&diff=657129174&oldid=653604525
We can't proceed until
Agreement on the best solution
Requested action from maintainer
either fix so it no longer creates errors or disable this function

Discussion


Creating spurious fields for last name of editors[edit]

Creating spurious fields for last name of editors

Status
new bug
Reported by
AxelBoldt (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Type of bug
Deleterious: Human-input data is deleted or articles are otherwise significantly affected. Many bot edits require undoing.
Actual / expected output
If the bot finds an author-field containing several names, it creates last-fields for all but the first of these authors without modifying the author-field, resulting in author duplication in the reference.
Link
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_blood_cell&diff=641670942&oldid=628344854
We can't proceed until
Agreement on the best solution
Requested action from maintainer

Discussion

Removes accessdate for no-URL citations inside of nowiki tags[edit]

Removes accessdate for no-URL citations inside of nowiki tags

Status
new bug
Reported by
Izno (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Type of bug
Inconvenience
Actual / expected output
The bot removed an accessdate from a citation without a URL (correctly) where the citation was used an example (and in this case happened to be wrapped in <nowiki>...</nowiki>.
I'm not sure, but I think my suggestion is that the bot should not touch citations inside <nowiki>...</nowiki>.
Link
//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help_talk:Citation_Style_1&curid=34112310&diff=659936244&oldid=659925010
We can't proceed until
Agreement on the best solution
Requested action from maintainer

Discussion


Edit of talk page[edit]

Edit of talk page

Status
new bug
Reported by
Jc3s5h (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Type of bug
Actual / expected output
Edits a talk page, which often discuss citation errors and contain intentional errors.
There should be no edits to talk space.
Link
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help_talk%3ACitation_Style_1&type=revision&diff=659936244&oldid=659925010
Replication instructions
Put a citation in a talk page and wait.
We can't proceed until
Bot operator's feedback on what is feasible
Requested action from maintainer

Discussion


Missing page numbers?[edit]

I'm not sure if this is a bug or just me misunderstanding something, but pretty much every time I use the cite DOI template, the full page ranges are not given, only the first number, and I have to change it manually, as in here: [8] FunkMonk (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

do you see this if you do cite journal with doi= in it? Cite doi is going away by the way. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I'll try next time. What do you mean by going away? Will it be replaced? It is an extremely helpful tool, one I use the most. FunkMonk (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
It is being eliminated. Transcluding citations directly into the article is what will be done. They want the bot here to start converting cite doi without a template into cite journal's. Soon a bot will transclude all existing cite doi/pmid/jstor/isbn/hdl. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Ouch, what will happen if the cite doi is used after that, will it continue to be converted, or will it just not work? And where is this discussed? FunkMonk (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
at some point it will be gone or it will be bot expanded in place. Content in templates does violate Wikipedia policy, etc. cite ISBN was worse since ISBN are not very unique in practice. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 20:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Didn't work when I tried with =[9] FunkMonk (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Never mind, seems that DOI didn't work at all... FunkMonk (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
{{cite journal|doi=10.XXXXX}} AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
now it does work AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
@AManWithNoPlan, when will it start doing so? Can you point me to the relevant discussion, please? Thanks.--RoadTrain (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Seems to depend upon the quality of the metadata. Many have full range. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC) Not a bug

access dates[edit]

Removing access date

Status
new bug
Reported by
The Haz talk 22:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Type of bug
Inconvenience
Actual / expected output
The bot is removing access dates from sources that are wikilinked (obviously to Wikis other than Wikipedia) when it probably shouldn't be
We can't proceed until
Bot operator's feedback on what is feasible
Requested action from maintainer
Check for wikilink in the source before removing access date parameter

Discussion

Can you provide an example of an edit? AManWithNoPlan (talk) 22:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

400 Bad Request[edit]

Status
new bug
Reported by
— Maile (talk) 15:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Type of bug
Improvement
Actual / expected output
Clicking "Citations" in edit window returns 400 Bad Request
It should function when Citations is clicked
Link
https://tools.wmflabs.org/citations/text.php
Replication instructions
Click on Citations in any edit window
We can't proceed until
Agreement on the best solution
Requested action from maintainer

Discussion

I can confirm, encountered this today.--RoadTrain (talk) 10:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Hyphens to dashes problem[edit]

Replaces hyphens with dashes in reference names, causing problems

Status
new bug
Reported by
StarryGrandma (talk) 18:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Type of bug
Deleterious: Human-input data is deleted or articles are otherwise significantly affected. Many bot edits require undoing.
Actual / expected output
At Stolen Childhood CitationBOT replaced <ref name=BIP-1995/> with <ref name=BIP–1995/> and so forth.
The bot doesn't change all the reference names, producing broken references. Since a hyphen is one of the allowed characters in a reference name but a dash requires quotes around the name, even changing all the hyphens can lead to problems. Best if the bot stays out of reference names altogether.
Link
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stolen_Childhood&diff=prev&oldid=645231901]
We can't proceed until
Bot operator's feedback on what is feasible
Requested action from maintainer

Discussion


Still adding redundant author parameters[edit]

This bug has already been reported in #Butchered author names, #duplicated last name, #Creating spurious fields for last name of editors, yet it is still happening.[10][11] Please disable the bot until it is fixed. It should be easy to check for commas or semicolons in the author parameter. KateWishing (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Also reported here: #Bot_unnecessarily_adding_last2.2C_last3.2C_last4.2C_..._parameters. Support for a new |vauthors= parameter will soon be added to {{cite journal}} (see discussion). If an author list contains only commas as punctuation, it is likely to be formatted in the Vancouver system. In these cases, it would be appropriate for the bot to rename |author= to |vauthors= instead of adding redundant author parameters. One of the arguments for not supporting multiple authors in a single author parameter in {{cite journal}} was that it was not documented. |vauthors= will soon be documented hence there are no more excuses for not fixing this bug. The problem of course is that this bot is no longer supported. Boghog (talk) 03:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I added a caution alerting editors to the unfixed bugs in this edit. Boghog (talk) 03:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Book review[edit]

Book review

Status
Won't fix
Reported by
Nikkimaria (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
In citations to book reviews, bot adds authors/editors/translators of reviewed book as authors of book review, which is incorrect.
Only the author of the source being cited should be listed as an author.
Link
[12]

Discussion

This is a case of garbage in, garbage out. These "authors" are listed at crossref.org, which is where citation bot is pulling its data from, I believe. This is a crossref.org bug, not a citation bot bug, unfortunately. I sent an e-mail to crossref on the off chance that they can fix it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

"Removed accessdate with no specified URL"[edit]

In this edit the bot has removed accessdate= from a number of citations with the edit note "[579]Removed accessdate with no specified URL". Whilst the citations altered do not have url= parameters, they do have external links formed using doi=. Should the bot, therefore, be removing access dates in these situations?--DavidCane (talk) 11:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes. |access-date= applies to ephemeral urls and only when those urls are identified in |url= or |chapter-url= and its aliases. External links created by identifiers like |doi=, |pmc=, |pmid=, etc. are considered permanent so |access-date= is not needed. And, when there is more than one of these permanent identifiers in a cs1|2 template, as is often the case, to which identifier would |access-date= apply if it did apply to these identifier parameters?
Trappist the monk (talk) 11:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
See also User_talk:CitationCleanerBot#Accessdates and User_talk:CitationCleanerBot#Question Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Not a bug

Remove display-authors=etal when inserting all the remaining authors[edit]

Re: this edit to Supernova. Thanks!   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  12:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

What the bot should probably do is to set display-authors to the number of authors which were in the article prior to "filling in the rest", in keeping with WP:CITEVAR. --Izno (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

dead link in format parameter[edit]

Status
Resolved
Reported by
Ricky81682 (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Actual / expected output
I don't know if this has been fixed but citation bot used to add Template:dead link into the format parameter of Template:citation like here which would cause an error in the capitalization of the categories it put things in.
The dead link reference should not be in the format category but after the citation and before the ref tag closes.
Link
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azelnidipine&diff=284127396&oldid=223709275

Discussion

I've added a section header.

Editor Ricky81682 wrote: However, if the update to Module:Citation/CS1 has happened, there is no bug at all. This is false. {{dead link}} should not be placed in |format=. That is not a function of Module:Citation/CS1 but is or was a function of Citation bot. An update to the module will have no effect on the bot.

Trappist the monk (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The diff linked above is from 2009. The bot does not do this anymore. I copied the citation in question to my sandbox, deliberately broke the URL, and ran the bot on the page. No "dead link" template was added. I am marking this one as "fixed". – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)