User talk:Citation bot/Archive 21
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Citation bot. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
Setting pages parameter for first page
- Status
- {{fixed}}
- Reported by
- Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- What happens
- Set parameter pages=N
- What should happen
- Set parameter page=N or at=N as not a range
- Relevant diffs/links
- [1]
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
Thank you for the feature request https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/2856 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 20:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Sir I Say You About Thakur Shivam Singh Page Please Review
One Person Can Be Deletion on any Unnecessary way please save for deletion sir thanks Saurabhgurgaon (talk) 07:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- {{notabug}} I think you posted this on the wrong page. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 11:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Better url/archive-url interactions
- What should happen
- [2]
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/2859 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Add "The" to "New York Times" in work and newspaper parameters
- Status
- {{notabug}}
- Reported by
- Grimes2 (talk) 12:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- What should happen
- Add "The" to "New York Times" in work and newspaper parameters
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
- This is a legitimate stylistic variation, and shouldn't be done by bots. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- While I completely agree with adding “the”, I certainly would not want to be within ten feet of a bot that did this. {{notabug}} AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Is there a reason there's no footer on the page with results after running on a category?
- Status
- {{fixed}}
- Reported by
- RayScript (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- What happens
- When you run the tool on a page at the bottom there's a footer that says "another page" and is handy. However, when you run the tool on a category there is no footer. Is there a reason for this?
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
Generally, for really large categories, the bot connection to the web browser dies before it is done so people often don’t even have a chance to see this. I should note that usually the bot keeps running and running anyway. This once deployed will add the link: https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/2858 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Looks great! Thanks for update RayScript (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Cron task to reboot Zotero
Needs done. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 11:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Done, needs verification that cron is running successfully. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 15:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Appears to be working. {{fixed}} AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
renames |s2cid-access= to |osti-access=
- Status
- {{fixed}} and deployed
- Reported by
- Trappist the monk (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- What happens
- renames
|s2cid-access=to|osti-access= - Relevant diffs/links
- diff
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
I am investigating this. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 11:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Having a parmeter with a fixed number in it is a new thing. Code is expecting
|a#cid-access=not|a2cid-access=. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 12:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)- https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/2861 and a test to prevent this in the future. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 12:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Umm, it should be looking for
|s2cid-access=not|a2cid-access=. - —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thankfully the bot types better than I do. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 13:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- waiting for GitHub to raise from the dead. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thankfully the bot types better than I do. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 13:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Fails to remove accessdate
Pretty sure this will fix it once deployed. https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/2876 Code coverage checks revealed unused code, and I thought of this report. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
adds |isbn13= when |isbn= already present
- Status
- {{fixed}}
- Reported by
- Trappist the monk (talk) 11:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- What should happen
- because
|isbn2=is not a valid parameter, delete it and its value; when|isbn=is not present, rename the parameter - Relevant diffs/links
- diff
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/2887 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Look at code coverage again and TODOs
Needs done before bugs creep into the code. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 11:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
{{fixed}} done it AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Replacing proxied links
Many libraries (I'm coming at this from the perspective of The Wikipedia Library (TWL), see T240124) use a web proxy to enable access to publisher resources. When a Wikipedia editor uses such a proxy to find a citation for a Wikipedia article, they may inadvertently copy the full proxied URL, instead of the widely accessible one. For example, someone accessing Rock's Backpages through The Wikipedia Library might add a citation to https://www-rocksbackpages-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/Library/Article/camel-over-the-moon when the original URL was https://www.rocksbackpages.com/Library/Article/camel-over-the-moon. The former link will be inaccessible to anyone who doesn't have a Library Card account. Citation bot could fix this proxied links with their non-proxied version. Libraries use different kinds of web proxies, but these are all the existing links that use an OCLC EZProxy URL pattern. Sam Walton (talk) 12:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- Citation bot already fixes them when possible. However, wouldn't it be better to instruct users to disconnect from their VPNs and proxies and use only the Unpaywall extension, to make sure they're adding the most valuable links? Nemo 12:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, great! Yes, instructions are helpful but are only so useful, editors will still add these links accidentally. Sam Walton (talk) 12:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- We remove a lot of them. The problem is that we hand-code to popular ones that we are aware of. We add more as we have time. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 12:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- That's great to hear @AManWithNoPlan: - would the Wikipedia Library example above be fixed? Do you have a viewable file or similar that shows the hand-coded definitions? Sam Walton (talk) 13:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- This pull should do some once deployed. Will work on generalization. https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/2877 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- Please send more our way. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 12:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- This pull should do some once deployed. Will work on generalization. https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/2877 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- That's great to hear @AManWithNoPlan: - would the Wikipedia Library example above be fixed? Do you have a viewable file or similar that shows the hand-coded definitions? Sam Walton (talk) 13:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- We remove a lot of them. The problem is that we hand-code to popular ones that we are aware of. We add more as we have time. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 12:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, great! Yes, instructions are helpful but are only so useful, editors will still add these links accidentally. Sam Walton (talk) 12:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
{{fixed}} for now. Just created new item for more. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
More PMC url cleanup
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/2892 (will not fix the one with a semi-invalid PMC) AManWithNoPlan (talk) 12:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
More pubmed url cleanup
- What should happen
- [7]
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/2892 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 12:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Incorrectly adds the authors of a reviewed work as the authors of an anonymous review of that work
- Status
- {{fixed}}
- Reported by
- David Eppstein (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- What happens
- In Special:Diff/958247412 the bot added Cox and Snell as the authors of the review in [8]. They are not the authors of this review. They are the authors of the book being reviewed. The review itself appears to be anonymous, although it's in a section entitled "brief reports by the editors".
- What should happen
- Not that
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
- Another one. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- I will fix it. JSTOR is sending bad meta-data to CrossRef. https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/2891 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
CiteSeerX
Why is Citation bot adding CiteSeerX links again? What safeguards is it taking, if any, that the added links come from author or publisher copies of the papers? I thought it was settled that this was a sufficiently bad idea to make this behavior worthy of blocking the bot. (Note: the link added in this example is ok. It's the general practice of automatically adding these links, without verifying appropriate provenance, that is not.) —David Eppstein (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- An update: this one is unambiguously bad. The CiteSeerX provenance goes to three different course reading lists, none of which is an author or publisher of the paper. The fact that the url parameter was one of those bad reading-list links is no excuse; it should be removed as well. Can you provide a reason why the bot's resumption of this bad behavior should not lead to an immediate block? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- Seems like it adds citeseerx links if there's a url match in the sources? If so, it's exposing a problem more than it's creating one. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- There was no matching url in Special:Diff/958264730. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- That one is an author, year, publication and title match. And it's GIGO. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- You write GIGO as if it's an unavoidable error to take garbage from a site containing garbage and dump it onto our citations here. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- As write GIGO as if it's not that big a deal until there's a widespread issue with the database under those conditions of having such a high degree of a match. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- I am going to have to track down where the link is being added from. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- As write GIGO as if it's not that big a deal until there's a widespread issue with the database under those conditions of having such a high degree of a match. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- You write GIGO as if it's an unavoidable error to take garbage from a site containing garbage and dump it onto our citations here. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- That one is an author, year, publication and title match. And it's GIGO. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- There was no matching url in Special:Diff/958264730. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- Seems like it adds citeseerx links if there's a url match in the sources? If so, it's exposing a problem more than it's creating one. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
The adding based on the DOI, not the meta-data. We would never match their meta-data. This will stop the CiteSeerX once deployed. https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/2890 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
{{fixed}} AManWithNoPlan (talk) 12:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Adds incorrect citeseerx based on partial match of metadata
- Status
- {{fixed}}
- Reported by
- David Eppstein (talk) 21:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- What happens
- In this diff the bot adds a CiteSeerX link, to a reference to a paper by Erdős and Turán, "On some sequences of integers", in 1936, in the Journal of the London Mathematical Society. The CiteSeerX link [9] claims to be about a paper by Erdős and Lewin, in 1936, by the same title in the same journal. Following its download link shows that it is actually about a paper by Erdős and Lewin, in 1996, with a different title "d-complete sequences of integers", in Mathematics of Computation. I think this example shows the quality we can expect of CiteSeerX and the likely effects on the quality of our own metadata if we allow bots to blindly import CiteSeerX garbage here. But because the authors were already not matching in the CiteSeerX metadata, the bot should not have assumed that this was a match.
- What should happen
- Not that.
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
The adding based on the DOI, not the meta-data. We would never match their meta-data. This will stop the CiteSeerX once deployed. https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/2890 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
{{fixed}} AManWithNoPlan (talk) 12:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Citation to web site of journal, using cite web, incorrectly changed to cite journal as if it were to a publication within the journal
- Status
- {{wontfix}}
- Reported by
- David Eppstein (talk) 00:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- What happens
- In Special:Diff/958286529 a {{cite web}} to the web site listing the editorial board of a journal is changed erroneously to {{cite journal}}, which should only be for publications within (rather than about) the journal. I'm sure we've discussed this before so I'm dismayed to see the bot still making little messes of this type. It is extremely tiresome having to follow around after it and pick them all up. The bot should be saving human editors work and instead it is doing the opposite. Possibly the correct fix would have been to use work=(journal name) instead of journal=(journal name)? But the citation was better before than it was after.
- What should happen
- Not that
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
The bot trusts that humans provided correct input on some level. The citation says that it is a journal, not a website. Fixed data https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matthew_Kapstein&type=revision&diff=958369224&oldid=958292492 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 12:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Removes journal = SSRN Electronic Journal and breaks citation
- Status
- {{notabug}} SSRN is an archive of things, not a publisher of anything. Editors need to track down the real source.
- Reported by
- David Eppstein (talk) 00:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- What happens
- In Special:Diff/958291725 the bot removes "journal = SSRN Electronic Journal" from a citation that had no other publication information beyond its author and doi. Because the citation happened to use the form "title = none", it was left with no title and no journal name to use as a title, and displayed the "none" as a visible part of the citation. That is, the bot removed useful (albeit perhaps improvable) information about where the citation came from, left nothing in its place, and broke the template in doing so.
- What should happen
- Not that.
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
Because "SSRN Electronic Journal and breaks citation" is wrong. I prefer an empty citation to wrong information, and so does the bot. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- I prefer a non-broken citation to a broken citation. And the citation comes from SSRN so it should say that it comes from SSRN. If there is a better place to say that it comes from, replace it, don't just remove it. And if your priorities are otherwise, they are wrong. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- The solution is to convert to a {{cite ssrn}}. However, removing a wrong journal from a
|journal=parameter is not a malfunction. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)- {{cite ssrn}} is Citation Style 1. This article is Citation Style 2. And your edits to the article show that your understanding of the citation is incorrect: you added information about the work reviewed to a citation of a review of the work. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- Then a straight up removal of
|journal=is not problematic. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)- It is when title=none. The citation templates only allow title=none with journal=something. And the bot should never turn a valid citation template into an invalid one, as it did here. In this case I was deliberately using title=none because most of the reviews in the citations have useless titles like "Fingleton, John; Fox, Eleanor; Neven, Damien and Seabright, Paul. Competition Policy and the Transformation of Central Europe. Centre for Economic Policy Research, London, 1996. xv + 253 pp. Map. Tables. Appendices. Bibliography. Index. £24.95; £16.95." —David Eppstein (talk) 01:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- Then a straight up removal of
- {{cite ssrn}} is Citation Style 1. This article is Citation Style 2. And your edits to the article show that your understanding of the citation is incorrect: you added information about the work reviewed to a citation of a review of the work. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- The solution is to convert to a {{cite ssrn}}. However, removing a wrong journal from a
EuropePMC url cleanup
- What should happen
- [10]
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
Note that one is redundant with a PMID, and the other with a PMC. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
More doi url cleanup
- What should happen
- [11]
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/2896 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Caps: AAOHN
- What should happen
- [12]
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/2895 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
location -> publication-place
Dear citation bot please stop replacing "publication-place" with "location" in the citation template. The parameter is not deprecated. You did this again today the 14 May 2020 on the article Thomas Dillon, 4th Viscount Dillon. Why are you doing this? With thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
|publication-place=is needlessly verbose and is an alias of|location=, which is the prefered parameter. It's same thing as simplifying|publication-date=to its preferred alias|date=. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)- {{notabug}}
Incorrect bibcode addition
- Status
- {{fixed}}
- Reported by
- Rjwilmsi 07:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- What happens
- Incorrect bibcode addition - bibcode 1948SoilS..66...77T isn't correct for a citation to a paper in a different journal, volume and pages, even if the title of the paper may be similar.
- Relevant diffs/links
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Potential_evaporation&diff=958046261&oldid=952052383
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
I will add code to double check bibcodes we get back. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/2898 Will fix this once deployed. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Weird double edit needed for cite document
More betterly conversions of author to last
- What should happen
- [15]
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
Could also convert to last1/first1 instead of last/first. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Convert more template-free citations
- Status
- {{wontfix}}
- Reported by
- Nemo 12:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
- What happens
- Nothing.
- What should happen
- Convert a semi-structured citation into a citation template when the DOI is linked either as plain link or with {{DOI}}.
- Relevant diffs/links
- Example by others
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
In general, this is a bad idea, unless very restricted to very specific structures. Which are probably too tricky to handle. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
- The examples given are currently too tricky to with no human oversight. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Needless normalization
- What happens
- [16]
- What should happen
- keep last/first as last/first, not last1/first1
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
My previous normalization suggestion was when it was last1/first or last/first1, not last1/first1 or last/first. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Caps: PLOS ONE/PLOS One/PLoS One/PLoS One
- What should happen
- [17]
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
If it's not one of the four above, it should be normalized to one of the four above. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
if journal = Biochimica et Biophysica Acta, TNT journal to fetch section name
- What should happen
- [18]
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/2903 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
CAPS: TAPPI Journal
- What should happen
- [19]>
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/2903 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
ebooks
Want:
https://public.ebookcentral.proquest.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=1234
Have:
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/claremont/detail.action?docID=1915017 https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/claremont/detail.action?docID=1915017# https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/claremont/detail.action?docID=1915017&query=&ppg=35# https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uiowa/detail.action?docID=201994#goto_toc https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.libproxy.berkeley.edu/lib/berkeley-ebooks/detail.action?docID=167671
AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
More EuropePMC
- What should happen
- [20]
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
A single extra slash. https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/2904 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 12:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
pointless first/last --> last1/first1
- Status
- {{fixed}} - still will only do when last2 is set and if some other change was done on the page
- Reported by
- Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- What happens
- [21]
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
It does that when |last2= is set. Probably should only do when something else is being done. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 12:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/2904 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 12:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- That's not true. See [22] Grimes2 (talk) 12:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- that was actually fixed last night. Existing runs wont see code update. for critical bugs i will try to reboot the bot to stop existing runs. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 12:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Caps: eNeurologicalSci
- What should happen
- [23]
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/2905 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 13:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Expand bibcodes
Porting to other Wiki's
Hi, Headbomb is there a possibility to run this bot on the Macedonian Wikipedia and look and fix errors in the numbers of the identifiers like isbn and other and also can it automatically fix an error multiple names: authors list, with other words to write for each author |last(n)= and |first(n)= ; where n is the number of the author starting from 2 and on. Thank you! Инокентиј (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- I wouldn't know, I'm not the bot operator. Smith609 and AManWithNoPlan would be the ones that would know, however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- People have asked this before. There are several issues. The bot would need an account. The bot would need approval. The version of citation templates might not match well. The source code has some hard-coded en.wikipedia.org's that would need changed (but not all). The version of the wiki software might not work the same enough to allow the bot to edit. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/2908 One small step for citation bot. One giant leap for wiki-kind. This removes some of the explicit "en." dependencies in the source code and isolates them in the constants file better. :-) AManWithNoPlan (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- People have asked this before. There are several issues. The bot would need an account. The bot would need approval. The version of citation templates might not match well. The source code has some hard-coded en.wikipedia.org's that would need changed (but not all). The version of the wiki software might not work the same enough to allow the bot to edit. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
{{fixed}} what we can. someone else will have to deploy/port it. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
- https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/2911 ported test suite too. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Bot stripped wiki linking within {{cite book}} title
- Status
- {{notabug}} - should not partial link. I have manually fixed the link to be to the section aarea
- Reported by
- 64.246.159.246 (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
- What happens
- Wikilinking within a book title gets stripped by the bot
- Relevant diffs/links
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Tasch&type=revision&diff=958629187&oldid=956395239
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
In this edit in the third paragraph of changes, the bot changed this:
- <ref>{{cite book |last=Tasch |first=Paul |editor-last=Moore |editor-first=Raymond |title=[[Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology]], Part R, Arthropoda 4, vol. 1 & 2: Crustacea (Exclusive of Ostracoda), Myriapoda, Hexapoda |publisher=University of Kansas |date=1969 |pages=128–191 |chapter=Branchiopoda |isbn=978-0-8137-3018-9}}</ref>
to this:
- <ref>{{cite book |last=Tasch |first=Paul |editor-last=Moore |editor-first=Raymond |title=Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part R, Arthropoda 4, vol. 1 & 2: Crustacea (Exclusive of Ostracoda), Myriapoda, Hexapoda |publisher=University of Kansas |date=1969 |pages=128–191 |chapter=Branchiopoda |isbn=978-0-8137-3018-9}}</ref>
That's incorrect. The Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology is significant; however, individual parts of the treatise do not have their own articles (and should not). Please don't strip wikilinking from book titles. 64.246.159.246 (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
- Use
|title-link=then Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)- Thanks! I didn't know about the "title-link" parameter. (FWIW, I removed the now-extra closing brackets ]] from your manual edit.) I definitely agree this is not a bug: editors should use the correct parameters. Maybe a feature request: if the bot detects wikilinking in the "title", it strips it from the "title" and adds the "title-link" parameter? I can imagine this is probably low priority, but I thought I'd throw it out there. Again, thanks for your help! 64.246.159.246 (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
- Use
bot borked the journal title for GSA Memoirs
- Status
- {{not a bug}}
- Reported by
- 64.246.159.246 (talk) 01:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
- What happens
- bot borked the journal title for GSA Memoirs
- Relevant diffs/links
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Tasch&diff=prev&oldid=958629187
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
In this edit, the bot changed this:
- {{cite journal |last1=Tasch |first1=Paul |date=1987 |title=Fossil Conchostraca of the Southern Hemisphere and continental drift |journal=Paleontology, Biostratigraphy and Dispersal. The Geological Society of America, Memoir |volume=165 |pages=1–290 |doi=10.1130/MEM165 }}
to this:
- {{cite journal |last1=Tasch |first1=Paul |date=1987 |title=Fossil Conchostraca of the Southern Hemisphere and continental drift |journal=Paleontology, Biostratigraphy and Dispersal. The Geological Society of America, Memoir |series=Geological Society of America Memoirs |volume=165 |pages=1–290 |doi=10.1130/MEM165 |isbn=0-8137-1165-7 }}
I'm gonna guess that the bot got the series title from the DOI. However, the bot did not correct the "journal" parameter to reflect the redundant information that the bot added to the "series". 64.246.159.246 (talk) 01:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
- Judging from the facts that the doi leads me to a page whose first big heading is "Books", and that it has an ISBN rather than an ISSN, I'm going to guess that this is not actually a journal paper but a book, and that the citation should actually be more like
- {{cite book|last=Tasch|first=Paul|date=January 1, 1987|doi=10.1130/MEM165|isbn=0-8137-1165-7|publisher=Geological Society of America|series=GSA Memoirs|title=Fossil Conchostraca of the Southern Hemisphere and Continental Drift|volume=165}}
- Tasch, Paul (January 1, 1987). Fossil Conchostraca of the Southern Hemisphere and Continental Drift. GSA Memoirs. Vol. 165. Geological Society of America. doi:10.1130/MEM165. ISBN 0-8137-1165-7.
- Compared to this issue, the bot's reorganization of the deck chairs is comparatively minor. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks! Good catch. Closing this. 64.246.159.246 (talk) 14:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
! CrossRef title did not match existing title: doi:10.1016/s0092-8674(03)00436-7
- What should happen
- "Retracted:" should be ignored in title matching, and the title updated
- Kitagawa H, Fujiki R, Yoshimura K, Mezaki Y, Uematsu Y, Matsui D, Ogawa S, Unno K, Okubo M, Tokita A, Nakagawa T, Ito T, Ishimi Y, Nagasawa H, Matsumoto T, Yanagisawa J, Kato S (Jun 2003). "The Chromatin-Remodeling Complex WINAC Targets a Nuclear Receptor to Promoters and is Impaired in Williams Syndrome". Cell. 113 (7): 905–17. doi:10.1016/s0092-8674(03)00436-7. PMID 12837248.
→ (without the bold)
- Kitagawa H, Fujiki R, Yoshimura K, Mezaki Y, Uematsu Y, Matsui D, Ogawa S, Unno K, Okubo M, Tokita A, Nakagawa T, Ito T, Ishimi Y, Nagasawa H, Matsumoto T, Yanagisawa J, Kato S (Jun 2003). "Retracted: The Chromatin-Remodeling Complex WINAC Targets a Nuclear Receptor to Promoters and is Impaired in Williams Syndrome". Cell. 113 (7): 905–17. doi:10.1016/s0092-8674(03)00436-7. PMID 12837248.
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
! CrossRef title did not match existing title: doi:10.1016/S0378-1119(97)00500-3
- What should happen
- Primes ′ should be ignored for the purpose of title matching (and probably converted)
- Ng SW, Liu Y, Schnipper LE (Dec 1997). "Cloning and characterization of the 5'-flanking sequence for the human DNA topoisomerase II beta gene". Gene. 203 (2): 113–9. doi:10.1016/S0378-1119(97)00500-3. PMID 9426241.
→
- Ng SW, Liu Y, Schnipper LE (Dec 1997). "Cloning and characterization of the 5′-flanking sequence for the human DNA topoisomerase II beta gene". Gene. 203 (2): 113–9. doi:10.1016/S0378-1119(97)00500-3. PMID 9426241.
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
! CrossRef title did not match existing title: doi:10.1016/j.bbamcr.2005.05.004
! CrossRef title did not match existing title: doi:10.1016/S0167-4781(99)00008-1
- What happens
- Run on CLCA3
- What should happen
- Title should be a match. Only differs in whitespace, and sup/sub tags.
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
- Right, the footnote... there should be a way to recognize that "1The sequence of hCLCA3 has been deposited in the GenBank database under accession number AF043976. 1" is garbage and should be discarded. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- Is that type of footnote common in crossref? AManWithNoPlan (talk) 13:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- Seems to be pretty common for BBA at least. I'll try to find a pattern. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/2922 should match many. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 11:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- Still says there's a mismatch on CLCA3? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/2932 This has been actually tested and will fix that once deployed. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 12:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- Still says there's a mismatch on CLCA3? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- Is that type of footnote common in crossref? AManWithNoPlan (talk) 13:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Bot is excruciatingly slow
Seems to be due to User:AManWithNoPlan's latest "all pages linked" huge run. Or maybe a large category run by User:Ost316 (related to deletions), although category runs seem to have not caused major (i.e. several hours + of bot being hogged) recently.
Haven't been to do a single run, via script through my account or via the bot account directly for several hours now. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- Massive proxy reduction run. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 01:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- {{wontfix}} for now, but will reboot bot if it continues to be a problem. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 11:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
parameter harmonization
- Status
- {{notabug}}
- Reported by
- — Smuckola(talk) 06:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
- What happens
- needlessly and wrongly converts 'cite magazine' to 'cite journal', at least for Electronic Gaming Monthly, Game Informer, and Nintendo Power
- What should happen
- Do nothing.
- Relevant diffs/links
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evolution_Worlds&diff=959631274&oldid=953906209&diffmode=source
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
This is totally needless. Why is this bot programmed to think that Electronic Gaming Monthly, Game Informer, and Nintendo Power are journals and not magazines? Thanks. — Smuckola(talk) 06:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
- Just a guess, but maybe because they used {{cite journal}} instead of {{cite magazine}}? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
- That's right we convert to make sure it is either {{Cite magazine|magazine=}} or {{Cite journal|journal=}}. If the conversion was wrong, at least it encourages humans to fix the original error. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 02:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Aliases of existing parameters inserted
- Status
- {{fixed}}
- Reported by
- Kanguole 21:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- What happens
- The bot inserts parameters that duplicate existing parameters, apparently because it is unaware of aliases supported by the template, in the example below
|editor1-first=vs|editor1-given=and|editor1-last=vs|editor1-surname=, etc. - What should happen
- If aliases for the required parameters are present, they should be left alone and nothing added.
- Relevant diffs/links
- this edit
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/2946 Will fix this once deployed AManWithNoPlan (talk) 22:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that's quite right:
|editor1-surname=is an alias for|editor1-last=, but|editor1-given=is an alias for|editor1-first=.- Also, it might make sense to add "surname1" and "surname" to AUTHOR1_ALIASES, and to add "given1" and "given" to FORENAME1_ALIASES. Kanguole 22:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Convert semanticscholar links to use s2cid=
- What should happen
- [28]
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
The parameter is now supported as of the last module update. @Nemo bis: and @Pintoch: since OAbot (talk · contribs) should also make use of this parameter, with |sc2id-access=free when appropriate. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Personally I vastly prefer direct links to pdfs.semanticscholar.org but I know this will go ahead anyway. So sad. :( Nemo 17:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- For transparency, I'm Sebastian and I work on Semantic Scholar a free/non-profit academic search and discovery engine (additional details about us are available here). It would be great if as part of this bug fix we can bring back the logic (see code change) that was reverted ~2 months ago pending creation of the s2cid citation template parameter. This change will insert the s2cid on references to add links to Semantic Scholar for publisher licensed content (using the "is_publisher_licensed" flag in our API) on references that don't have an open access link. This should enrich the links that are available to Wikipedia users without cluttering the references and enable users to explore the referenced content on Semantic Scholar (which includes the ability to discover supplemental and extracted content such as links to code libraries, clinical trials, citations and references and more).Sebaskohl (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Sebaskohl: in my humble opinion it was a mistake to request the addition of
|s2id=for this reason: paradoxically, having support for this parameter means that links to SemanticScholar are going to be migrated away from the title itself to a cluttered identifier list (because Citation bot does that, and I am not sure it is a good thing). Perhaps the free-to-read locks will encourage readers to click on them, but still, I would not expect the change to increase the number of clicks from Wikipedia to SemanticScholar. In terms of reader experience, I think it is wrong to show SemanticScholar ids to users, as they are not established bibliographical ids that people would be able to use elsewhere like DOIs or ISSNs. I am all in for linking to SemanticScholar, but I think this change was detrimental to this aim (sorry that I did not flag that earlier in the process). Retrospectively I think the same of the addition of|citeseerx=(the identifier has no bibliographic value - we just want the link). − Pintoch (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)- Everyone has their preferred website, adding all the identifiers allows everyone to win (lose?). I honestly think
|citeseerx=exists simply to get rid of those links from a place of primacy. Parameters reduce any wikipedia responsibility for linking to copyrighted works by linking to the abstract page instead of directly to the PDF. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 13:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Everyone has their preferred website, adding all the identifiers allows everyone to win (lose?). I honestly think
- @Sebaskohl: in my humble opinion it was a mistake to request the addition of
- For transparency, I'm Sebastian and I work on Semantic Scholar a free/non-profit academic search and discovery engine (additional details about us are available here). It would be great if as part of this bug fix we can bring back the logic (see code change) that was reverted ~2 months ago pending creation of the s2cid citation template parameter. This change will insert the s2cid on references to add links to Semantic Scholar for publisher licensed content (using the "is_publisher_licensed" flag in our API) on references that don't have an open access link. This should enrich the links that are available to Wikipedia users without cluttering the references and enable users to explore the referenced content on Semantic Scholar (which includes the ability to discover supplemental and extracted content such as links to code libraries, clinical trials, citations and references and more).Sebaskohl (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
The dedicated S2CID parameter greatly simplifies maintainance reduces edit-window clutter, and combined with |s2cid-access=free is the better solution. And if it's a version of record, we can have bots [or the templates] automatically link to it from the ongoing RFC. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- TODO: Convert url to s2cid and cite web to cite journal. Get doi based upon ID and add. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
https://semanticscholar.org/paper/861fc89e94d8564adc670fbd35c48b2d2f487704 https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8805/b4d923bee9c9534373425de81a1ba296d461.pdf https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Holdridge-life-zones-of-the-conterminous-United-Lugo-Brown/406120529d907d0c7bf96125b83b930ba56f29e4
- Direct PDF links generally redirect to the landing page anyway. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 13:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Edit-warring continues
Extended content
|
|---|
|
Immediately after the User talk:Citation bot/Archive 20#3RR topic was archived, the bot resumed edit-warring, on the same article on which the 3RR warning was issued. Suggestions? --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
|
{{notabug}} -- bot follows exclusion standards and discussion has ended.
Other edit-war
Extended content
|
|---|
|
Meanwhile Headbomb has teamed up with Citation bot (steered by himself, no less) to "win" an edit-war here (about the same type of edit, i.e. jstor conversion coupled with cosmetic edits). IMHO this is disruptive behaviour far beyond the scope of this talk page, but I want to give Headbomb yet another chance to commit to a cease and desist from now on, so that we can return to our regular editing (which is: actually improving the encyclopedia instead of programming bots to perform marginal deteriorations). WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND won by editors teaming up with the bots they steer. If you think that a useful edit on that page, then take it up at that article's talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Still, not up to you to decide. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Above, I pinged the bot's maintainers, not up to you to decide whether they should answer or not. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC) Further, I'm still thinking whether, and if so how, I'd respond to your first contribution to this sub-section: I won't be time-pressured on that one, tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
"This guideline does not restrict linking to websites that are being used as sources to provide content in articles." and that's exactly why we have
|
{{notabug}} -- bot follows exclusion standards and discussion has ended.
page 017084061989119
At Volkswagen emissions scandal, the bot added the doi number as the page number. I removed it but the bot added it back again.
Is something wrong here ? Stepho talk 21:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- The Journal is reporting the article number as the page number, so it kind of makes sense. It is really long though. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for blocking the bot for that reference. Stepho talk 21:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- i will add some code to the bot to reject so-called page numbers over a certain length. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Allow for at least 7 digits long. Possibly more. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- This bug was "{{fixed}}" quite a while ago, but because is_int() was used instead of is_numerical(), the fix did not actually work. Now we have a test and working code. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 11:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Allow for at least 7 digits long. Possibly more. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- i will add some code to the bot to reject so-called page numbers over a certain length. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for blocking the bot for that reference. Stepho talk 21:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
CAPS: e-Collaboration
- What should happen
- [29]
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
Caps: MycoKeys
- What should happen
- [30]
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
Don't unlink when decapping
Also there's something weird going on with and vs & Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- When get all caps, we blow away and try again. We dont "de-cap" it. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- If someone is careless enough to use all caps, then we do not trust them. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 11:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Feature request for title match failure
In the output generated from running the web form there are sometimes entries like this
> Checking that DOI 10.1097/MD.0000000000019473 is operational... DOI ok.
! CrossRef title did not match existing title: doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000019473
It would be useful if that output included both versions of the title. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 03:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Not really actually. We check series/chapter/title etc and look for a match. Occasionally, the human readable text matches, but someone used some crazy character set so that they are not actually letters. I speak from personal experience of tracking these down and writing the checking code. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 11:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- In the examples I looked at there were significant discrepancies. In a couple of them the title and identifiers were for different articles. It would be nice to have it in the output from the run. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, so you are worried about easily finding DOI=a dogs life and TITLE=a cats life, and then fixing the broken reference. You are not so concerned about debugging why the bot did what it did. I will think about how do that in a non-insane way. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- In the examples I looked at there were significant discrepancies. In a couple of them the title and identifiers were for different articles. It would be nice to have it in the output from the run. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
{{fixed}}
not adding archive-url and archive-date
- Status
- new bug
- Reported by
- Grimes2 (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- What happens
- no changes required
- What should happen
- Adding archive-date and archive-url
- Relevant diffs/links
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Grimes2/sandbox
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
[15:13:39] Processing page 'User:Grimes2/sandbox' — edit—history > Remedial work to prepare citations ~ Extracting URL from archive + Adding archive-url: https://web.archive.org/web/20160418061734/http://www.weimarpedia.de/index.php?id=1&tx_wpj_pi1%5barticle%5d=104&tx_wpj_pi1%5baction%5d=show&tx_wpj_pi1%5bcontroller%5d=article&cHash=0fc8834241a91f8cb7d6f1c91bc93489 + Adding archive-date: 2016-04-18 > Consult APIs to expand templates > Using Zotero translation server to retrieve details from URLs. ! Operation timed out after 15001 milliseconds with 0 bytes received For URL: http://www.weimarpedia.de/index.php?id=1&tx_wpj_pi1%5barticle%5d=104&tx_wpj_pi1%5baction%5d=show&tx_wpj_pi1%5bcontroller%5d=article&cHash=0fc8834241a91f8cb7d6f1c91bc93489 > Expand individual templates by API calls > Checking CrossRef database for doi. > No new data since last CrossRef search. > Searching PubMed... nothing found. > Checking AdsAbs database no record retrieved. > Remedial work to clean up templates > No changes required.
{{notabug}} we roll back url to template convesions if we do not get a title. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- OK. I used in addition reFill, which was able to find a title. Thanks. Grimes2 (talk) 16:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- we dont grab titles from archives. refill seems too. might be a good feature to add. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
To be noted https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3012 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
OSTI / OSTI url duplication
- What happens
- [33]
- Relevant diffs/links
- only
|osti= - We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
zenodo
Why does the bot add zenodo.org URLs to citations that have a unique/permanent DOI identifier? Whywhenwhohow (talk) 17:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC) Example at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Choline&diff=960515001&oldid=959975648 Whywhenwhohow (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- Because it contains a free version of the article? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- Each zenodo page has its own DOI. When a citation has a URL in addition to a permanent or unique identifier, such as the DOI, the bot usually removes the URL. Why is zenodo different in that it does the opposite and adds a URL? Whywhenwhohow (talk) 03:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- For example
- Recognized existing DOI in URL; dropping URL
- Dropping parameter "url"
- Recognized existing DOI in URL; dropping URL
- Dropping parameter "url"
- Recognized existing DOI in URL; dropping URL
- Dropping parameter "url"
- Recognized existing DOI in URL; dropping URL
- Dropping parameter "url"
Whywhenwhohow (talk) 03:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- The URLs that get dropped are the same provider as the DOI. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 11:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Why should the URL go to a different place than the article? It is confusing when clicking on the title doesn't go directly to the journal article represented by the DOI. Why isn't the zenodo URL added using a new parameter similar to what was done for Semantic Scholar? Was there some discussion and consensus about using zenodo URLs? Whywhenwhohow (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- There is no zenodo parameter. Only free copies should be linked via URL. The S2CID and PMID and PMC and DOI and HDL and other dozen parameters exist to allow lots of ways to get the reference. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC) 18:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- The URL in the "url" parameter should always go to a place different from the DOI target, otherwise it would be a duplicate. It's true that every Zenodo item displays a DOI, but a new DOI is created by Zenodo only for the works which lack one. The links removed by Whywhenwhohow were correct because the DOI points to the publisher's version, not to Zenodo archived version. Nemo 19:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- There is no zenodo parameter. Only free copies should be linked via URL. The S2CID and PMID and PMC and DOI and HDL and other dozen parameters exist to allow lots of ways to get the reference. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC) 18:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Why should the URL go to a different place than the article? It is confusing when clicking on the title doesn't go directly to the journal article represented by the DOI. Why isn't the zenodo URL added using a new parameter similar to what was done for Semantic Scholar? Was there some discussion and consensus about using zenodo URLs? Whywhenwhohow (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- The URLs that get dropped are the same provider as the DOI. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 11:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
{{notabug}} i guess then.
Too many URLs from OAI-PMH discarded
- Status
- {{fixed}}
- Reported by
- Nemo 09:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- What happens
- Nothing. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.09.001 has https://works.bepress.com/patric_spence/3/download/ wasn't added to Source credibility, probably for the error "Ignored a blacklisted OA match on a repository via OAI-PMH for DOI".
- What should happen
- Add the URL.
- Relevant diffs/links
- special:diff/904780724
- Replication instructions
- Run the bot or gadget or any page with a DOI.
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
- If some title is too common and produces frequent mismatches, the correct and easier solution is to add said title to the list of overly common titles. Throwing the baby with the bathwater just produces confusion. Nemo 09:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- Perhaps it is time to revisit those URLs. They are not very reliable compared to others. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 11:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- What URLs? Nemo 11:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- Revisit the topic of the bot's rejecting of all urls from the OAI-PMH. Not really sure if there is anything we can do. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 12:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think it's currently rejecting all URLs from OAI-PMH, that would mean practically all universities in the world. It's very easy to know what to do, just accept the Unpaywall data which is verified to be the best available and is the gold standard used by countless publishers and libraries. Nemo 12:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- The unpaywall data is where we get the data from. Their data has a lot of crap in it; which is why we reject a lot of it, including their OAI-PMH data. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 12:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- Right now we print the same error message for all rejections. This will split the two reasons. https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3009 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- They're not "low quality" matches. It just happens to be a category of matches which contains millions of repository records (3.5M in the latest dump). The last time this exclusion was added was because of a bug with one of the thousands of repositories, which Unpaywall dealt with in a couple days, in fact before Citation bot was patched. Nemo 18:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- Right now we print the same error message for all rejections. This will split the two reasons. https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3009 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- The unpaywall data is where we get the data from. Their data has a lot of crap in it; which is why we reject a lot of it, including their OAI-PMH data. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 12:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think it's currently rejecting all URLs from OAI-PMH, that would mean practically all universities in the world. It's very easy to know what to do, just accept the Unpaywall data which is verified to be the best available and is the gold standard used by countless publishers and libraries. Nemo 12:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- Revisit the topic of the bot's rejecting of all urls from the OAI-PMH. Not really sure if there is anything we can do. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 12:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- What URLs? Nemo 11:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- Perhaps it is time to revisit those URLs. They are not very reliable compared to others. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 11:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Request to add link to Semantic Scholar s2cid when an open access link is not available
- Status
- {{fixed}}
- Reported by
- Sebaskohl (talk) 16:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- What happens
- New feature request: Add a link to Semantic Scholar s2cid in the Citation Template when an open access link is not available to provide users with additional options to explore and assess licensed content (which includes the ability to discover supplemental and extracted content such as links to code libraries, clinical trials, citations and references and more).
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
Disclosure for full transparency: I'm Sebastian and I work on Semantic Scholar, a free/non-profit academic search and discovery engine (additional details about us are available here).
Following this Citation Bot discussion and this discussion, the Semantic Scholar Corpus ID has been added to the template as a new Citation Template parameter. Since the s2cid is now available as a supported parameter in the Citation Template, I'm putting out a request to bring back the logic (see code change) that was reverted ~2 months ago pending creation of the s2cid citation template parameter. This change will insert the s2cid on references to add links to Semantic Scholar for publisher licensed content (using the "is_publisher_licensed" flag in our API) on references that don't have an open access link. This should enrich the links that are available to Wikipedia users without cluttering the references and enable users to explore the referenced content on Semantic Scholar (which includes the ability to discover supplemental and extracted content such as links to code libraries, clinical trials, citations and references and more). I'm opening this up for discussion and we are happy to explore alternative options to make this as useful as possible for the Wikipedia community. Sebaskohl (talk) 16:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- FYI, see Semantic Scholar entry on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources list: if I understand correctly only open access Semantic Scholar references are deemed reliable in Wikipedia (because of the unclear copyright situation of the others – if that is no longer applicable this bot talk page is anyhow not the place to change the current "reliability" assessment). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Sebaskohl: see also User_talk:Citation_bot#Convert_semanticscholar_links_to_use_s2cid= above. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Anyhow, opened a talk at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Semantic Scholar about the copyright aspect. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Headbomb: Thanks! Let me add this request to User_talk:Citation_bot#Convert_semanticscholar_links_to_use_s2cid= and we can archive/close this request (I didn't want to overload the other request). @Francis Schonken: For this ask we would only be linking to publisher licensed content and not any indexed crawled content (we have licensed content from 550+ publishers and academic societies - additional details are available here). Sebaskohl (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Again, it is not me you have to impress, and certainly not on this talk page: I suggest you let your voice heard at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Semantic Scholar – which may have to go elsewhere in view of earlier discussions, but there's a start about the copyright issues. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- That page doesn't determine anything. For instance arXiv is listed as a terrible source (which is ridiculous) only because some people are not able to consult it properly, but there's ample consensus for linking it whenever possible from an existing citation. Nemo 17:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- There is no inherent issue of reliability with SemanticScholar. There are some concerns about copyrights in certain situations, but that's already addressed above. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- If arXiv is considered always suitable for addition, even automatically, it shouldn't be. Many new arXiv preprints have not yet undergone any peer review. More to the point, for an existing peer-reviewed publication, many (I would venture to guess most) arXiv preprints have not been updated to include all the changes made during peer review, so they may remain unreliable even when the actual publication version is reliable, or may not even contain claims sourced to the reliable version. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- arXiv links are links of convenience and are clearly marked as arxiv links. Useful to have when versions of records are down, or no free access version exists. They aren't added as URLs though, so they don't display any identifier-of-record or other versions of record. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- If arXiv is considered always suitable for addition, even automatically, it shouldn't be. Many new arXiv preprints have not yet undergone any peer review. More to the point, for an existing peer-reviewed publication, many (I would venture to guess most) arXiv preprints have not been updated to include all the changes made during peer review, so they may remain unreliable even when the actual publication version is reliable, or may not even contain claims sourced to the reliable version. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- There is no inherent issue of reliability with SemanticScholar. There are some concerns about copyrights in certain situations, but that's already addressed above. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- That page doesn't determine anything. For instance arXiv is listed as a terrible source (which is ridiculous) only because some people are not able to consult it properly, but there's ample consensus for linking it whenever possible from an existing citation. Nemo 17:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Again, it is not me you have to impress, and certainly not on this talk page: I suggest you let your voice heard at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Semantic Scholar – which may have to go elsewhere in view of earlier discussions, but there's a start about the copyright issues. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Headbomb: Thanks! Let me add this request to User_talk:Citation_bot#Convert_semanticscholar_links_to_use_s2cid= and we can archive/close this request (I didn't want to overload the other request). @Francis Schonken: For this ask we would only be linking to publisher licensed content and not any indexed crawled content (we have licensed content from 550+ publishers and academic societies - additional details are available here). Sebaskohl (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
This looks neat. Maybe time to update the perennial source discussion... but imo arXiv links are always useful as links of convenience -- and their permalinked versions make fine identifiers if needed. A pity they're not added as URLs. Contra David's hypothesis above, I would venture that in fact most of them are indeed updated after review, at least in math + physics -- authors often want the fully-public version of their work to be as correct as possible. – SJ + 20:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- It has already been proven «that the text contents of the scientific papers generally changed very little from their pre-print to final published versions» https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.05363 and «The high level of DOIs indicates that authors are returning to their records to update the information after publication», «As the figure below shows, most articles on arXiv are updated 90 days prior to publication or later. On average, arXiv versions are updated two months before the date of publication.» https://arxiv.org/pdf/1804.06648.pdf The version of record rarely adds anything to the citation, it's just a (poor) signal of quality for those who cannot judge the content by themselves. Nemo 21:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- The version of record is a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. The preprint version is not. If you adhere to such fundamental disagreement with how Wikipedia defines reliability of sourcing, you should not be one of the developers of a bot that makes mass changes to Wikipedia sourcing. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- thinking about this. Hope to have some questions to drive soon. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- This isn't always working properly. The bot has added a link to a graduate thesis with the same name as the Journal of Wildlife Management article that is the actual reference. It then replaced this url with a S2CID parameter. However, the S2cid article not the same source as the one I used for the article! I'll remove it, but I hope the bot doesn't just replace it. MeegsC (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- Not sure how one reports these errors to S2. We are not yet adding S2 links. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- This isn't always working properly. The bot has added a link to a graduate thesis with the same name as the Journal of Wildlife Management article that is the actual reference. It then replaced this url with a S2CID parameter. However, the S2cid article not the same source as the one I used for the article! I'll remove it, but I hope the bot doesn't just replace it. MeegsC (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- thinking about this. Hope to have some questions to drive soon. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- The version of record is a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. The preprint version is not. If you adhere to such fundamental disagreement with how Wikipedia defines reliability of sourcing, you should not be one of the developers of a bot that makes mass changes to Wikipedia sourcing. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Is anyone apposed to adding the S2CID parameter for papers that S2 have licensed? AManWithNoPlan (talk) 13:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- I am opposed if adding that parameter results in the unlinking of the title. --RexxS (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thats not the question I (meant to) ask. i am referring to have the bot use the DOI to find the S2 ID and add that. Only for properly licenced content of course. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- As long as we're not linking to content that may be copyright violations (and remember that folks like me in the UK have no 'fair use' exception), I'm all in favour of adding s2cid and other useful identifiers, as they may sometimes be the most useful link for our readers. My concern remains that the bot will still remove links from the title at the same time, but I guess I've made that clear already. --RexxS (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thats not the question I (meant to) ask. i am referring to have the bot use the DOI to find the S2 ID and add that. Only for properly licenced content of course. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
More sciencedirect URL cleanup
- What should happen
- [34]
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
I will look into this. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- This is because of the reduction of URL removal from the last explosion. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Remove via if the same as work
- Status
- {{fixed}}
- Reported by
- Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- What should happen
- Remove
|via=www.bbc.co.ukwhen adding|work=BBC News - Relevant diffs/links
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Statue_of_Edward_Colston&diff=961311412&oldid=961311090
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3034 Special BBC code. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Cite arXiv
- Status
- {{fixed}}
- Reported by
- John B123 (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- What happens
- Citation bot adds doi= to cite arXiv. Doi is not supported by cite arXiv so causes a "Unknown parameter |doi= ignored" error
- Relevant diffs/links
- [35]
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
- In this case the same doi is also visible on the arxiv landing page metadata so one can be quite confident that it is the correct doi for the published version of the paper. The behavior that I would like to see is that the cite arxiv reference gets transformed into a properly filled-in cite journal reference. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for noticing and reporting. Should now convert cite arxiv with DOI to cite journal. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Incorrect addition of chapter to URL parameter
- Status
- {{fixed}}
- Reported by
- WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- What happens
- Citation bot should not have replaced
|url=with|chapter-url=. - Relevant diffs/links
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reward_system&diff=945246828&oldid=940800967
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3152 will deploy soon AManWithNoPlan (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Error authenticating
- Status
- {{Duplicate Issue}} - bot currently off and OAuth needs updated
- Reported by
- ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- What happens
- See error "Error authenticating. Resetting. Please try again."
- Relevant diffs/links
- https://citations.toolforge.org/authenticate.php?return=%2Fprocess_page.php%3Fedit%3Dtoolbar%26slow%3D1%26page%3DThe_Last_of_Us_Part_II
- Replication instructions
- Click "Expand citations" in tool, or use the web interface at citations.toolforge.org, add in a page name and click "Process page". Both go to the same link, and show the same error. 2FA is not enabled.
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
CAPS: Proceedings of the IRE
- What should happen
- [36]
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3174 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
CAPS: Nauka i Zhizn
- What should happen
- [37]
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3174 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
CAPS: MedChemComm
- What should happen
- [38]
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3174 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
CAPS: MIS Quarterly
- What should happen
- [39]
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3174 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Caps: JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
- What should happen
- [40]
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3176 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 19:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Minor bot news
Just documenting for the future and anyone who cares. We have moved from PHP 5.6 to 7.3. All variables have declared types when possible. A few bugs found. We have added additional static code analysis to the bug test suite. We have code coverage to almost 100% now. semanticscholar.org API key added. Internationalization - all HTML now sets language to english to help non-english browsers. We are looking forward to PHP 7.4. Our hostname has changed too. Most "FALSE" have been replaced with "NULL". AManWithNoPlan (talk) 19:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- Converting all network access to Curl for maximum control and ease of debugging. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- Adding code to detect bot is blocked and put up a warning message instead of running and then dying. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 11:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- {{fixed}} all I intended to fix. Archiving discussion flagged. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 11:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Adding code to detect bot is blocked and put up a warning message instead of running and then dying. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 11:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Better Pubmed URL cleanup
- What should happen
- [41]
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3177 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 19:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
CAPS: ICES Journal of Marine Science
- What should happen
- [42]
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3176 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
CAPS: IBM Systems Journal
- What should happen
- [43]
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3176 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
CAPS: HIV and also HIV/AIDS
Both HIV and HIV/AIDS should be capitalized whenever encountered. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3176 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
CAPS: HLA
- What should happen
- [44]
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3176 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
CAPS: Hylli i Dritës
- What should happen
- [45]
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3178 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
CAPS: UNED Research Journal
- What should happen
- [46]
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3178 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
CAPS: CrystEngComm
- What should happen
- [47]
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3178 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
CAPS: Commlaw Conspectus
- What should happen
- [48]
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3178 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
CAPS: ChemCatChem
- What should happen
- [49]
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3178 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
CAPS: Inside Higher Ed
- What should happen
- [50]
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3188 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 17:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
CAPS: AIP Advances
- What should happen
- [51]
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3188 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
CAPS: ChemBioChem
- What should happen
- [52]
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3189 added to what I was working on. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Caps: many
- ChemBioChem
- ChemCatChem
- ChemElectroChem
- ChemistryOpen
- ChemistrySelect
- ChemistryViews
- ChemMedChem
- ChemPhotoChem
- ChemPhysChem
- ChemPlusChem
- ChemSusChem
- ChemSystemsChem
Some of those are already in. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Everyone wants to special these days and have a fancy name. https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3197 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 13:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Well those are the Chemistry Europe journals. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- {{fixed}} How true: different regions and companies have their own perspectives. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Well those are the Chemistry Europe journals. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
No changes but edit summary is non-empty
- Status
- {{wontfix}} since i have no clue
- Reported by
- DougHill (talk) 07:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- What happens
- When I click on the "citations" gadget (next to "changes"), the edit summary shows that some changes were made, but the top of the page show "(No difference)".
- What should happen
- Some of the citations should be filled in the text of the article.
- Relevant diffs/links
- No changes were made so I did not save these edits.
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
Can you point to the page in question. I assume multiple cancelling out changes were made. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 12:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- I have looked over the code and cannot see how this is possible, but I have been wrong before. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- E.g. when I try the gadget on I Can't See Nobody the edit summary fills with
Alter: url. Add: isbn, year. | You can use this tool yourself. Report bugs here. | via #UCB_Gadget
- but the top of the page shows "(No difference)". Thanks for looking into this. DougHill (talk) 22:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- i hate saying this, but it worked for me. It might be a conflict with some other tool you have installed or something. you might check gadget talk page-no battery left to find it. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- link to WP:Citation_expander and its talk page MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-citations.js AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- There is a report that wikEd breaks the gadget. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, that was the issue. It works now that I've disabled wikEd. Thanks for your help. DougHill (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- link to WP:Citation_expander and its talk page MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-citations.js AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- i hate saying this, but it worked for me. It might be a conflict with some other tool you have installed or something. you might check gadget talk page-no battery left to find it. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- E.g. when I try the gadget on I Can't See Nobody the edit summary fills with
Caps: IDCases
- What should happen
- [53]
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
How to cite WorldCat?
- Status
- undesired behavior caused by a previous fix
- Reported by
- – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- What happens
{{cite web|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/873805659}}→{{cite book|oclc=873805659}}- What should happen
- nothing
- Relevant diffs/links
- User talk:Citation bot/Archive 10#OCLC url → OCLC parameter (Pinging @Headbomb, AManWithNoPlan)
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
So, how exactly do I cite a WorldCat record instead of the book it is about? I've never even seen the book (WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT) and the information I want verified is in the WorldCat record, not the book itself. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Put a comment like this
{{cite web <!--Citing OCLC itself -->|...}}. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)- Probably best to be paranoid
{{cite web <!--Citing OCLC itself -->|url=... <!--Citing OCLC itself --> | oclc = <!--None. Citing OCLC itself -->}}AManWithNoPlan (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)- That level of paranoia isn't really needed with the current version of the bot though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- user can work around. very rare. {{notabug}}. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- That level of paranoia isn't really needed with the current version of the bot though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Probably best to be paranoid