User talk:Citation bot/Archive 40

Archive 35

←

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Caps: Feminismo/S → Feminismo/s

Status

{{fixed}}

Reported by

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

What happens

[1]

What should happen

[2]

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

De-Allcapsify Cyrillic characters

Status

{{wontfix}}

Reported by

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

What should happen

[3]

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

Why the won't fix? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:41, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Untitled_new_bug

Status

{{notabug}}

Reported by

Will;Draku (talk) 19:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

IWSEC

Status

{{fixed}}

Reported by

—David Eppstein (talk) 17:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

What happens

This may be a case of GIGO, but the bot changed the case of journal=IWSEC to journal=Iwsec in a cite journal. IWSEC is an initialism and it is not a journal.

What should happen

Special:Diff/1251341586

Relevant diffs/links

Special:Diff/1251292967

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

10.18637 is free access

Status

{{fixed}}

Reported by

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

What should happen

[4]

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

bad volume meta-data

Status

{{fixed}} - now reject just a dash

Reported by

—Kusma (talk) 20:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

What happens

Bot adds "-" as volume name, which is either bad OCR from the metadata or means no volume name

What should happen

If the volume name looks crazy, do nothing

Relevant diffs/links

[5]

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

Bot does nothing

Status

{{not a bug}}

Reported by

C⚛smLearner ^💬🔬 13:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

What happens

I enter the title name - German American and click on proceed. After waiting sometimes, it shows "Done with page." But it doesn't make any edit to the article.

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

That means the bot has nothing to do on that page. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

period/comma at the end of a numbered volume

Status

{{fixed}}

Reported by

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

What should happen

[6]

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

Must run twice to add class to cite arxiv

Status

{{notabug}} - no idea why this happened and now does not happen

Reported by

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

What happens

[7] + [8]

What should happen

One edit

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

Titles that aren't

Some of the titles this bot adds are not titles. They belong in other fields like "work" or "newspaper". Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 04:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Examples would help otherwise {{wontfix}} . AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Caps: eHealth, eWelfare

Status

{{fixed}}

Reported by

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

What should happen

[9]

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

PMC url cleanup

Status

{{fixed}}, now supports new URL format

Reported by

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

What should happen

[10]

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

Generic name added to citation

Status

{{fixed}} - added "news desk" to list of bad authors

Reported by

Achmad Rachmani (talk) 03:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

What happens

[11]

What should happen

[12]

Relevant diffs/links

McDonald's

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

Tumblr isn't a newspaper

Status

{{fixed}}

Reported by

:Jay8g [V•T•E] 20:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

What happens

[13]

What should happen

Don't change to cite news

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

Even worse, sometimes it removes specific information to replace it with website=Tumblr. Please don't ignore these issues.:Jay8g [V•T•E] 06:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Replaced unformatted "multiple sources" with a template for only one of those sources

Status

{{fixed}} with this: https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/commit/2e6ed34687b05ce9a8ca210f4bf960baba93f92d

Reported by

:Jay8g [V•T•E] 00:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

What happens

[14]

What should happen

no edit

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

This is exactly the same kind of shit we disabled ReferenceExpander over. I mention that Citation bot does a lot of good work every time I complain about it, but I'm aware Citation bot has no BRFA to add templates to manually formatted citations. If it's deleting sequential citations in the process of formatting one, that subroutine should be disabled until the regexes are fixed. A newline with initial asterisk would probably go a long way towards successfully identifying cases like this. Folly Mox (talk) 01:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Adding incorrect PMIDs

Status

{{fixed}}

Reported by

Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

What happens

|pmid=0586

What should happen

|pmid=15830586

Relevant diffs/links

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AJosve05a%2Fsandbox&diff=prev&oldid=1254215182

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

Expand from PMC

Status

{{fixed}}

Reported by

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

What should happen

[15] also [16]

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

Removes PMC url, but does not put PMC identifier

Status

{{fixed}} - new URL type. Also added code to detect an empty PMC and log that and not drop URL

Reported by

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

What should happen

[17]

Relevant diffs/links

[18]

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

See also [19] + [20] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Headbomb (talk • contribs) 17:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for checking the result each time you invoke this bot on an article, and for reporting when it RUNS AMOK. -A876 (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Fails to add PMID from PMC

Status

{{fixed}} - new URL type. Also added code to detect an empty PMC and log that and not drop URL

Reported by

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

What should happen

[21]

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

Duplicate

Status

{{fixed}} - new URL type. Also added code to detect an empty PMC and log that and not drop URL

Reported by

-- -- -- 19:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

In this edit, the bot removed a valid url [22] for no good reason. -- -- -- 19:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Duplicate of #Removes PMC url, but does not put PMC identifier above. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Duplicate, 2

Status

{{fixed}} - new URL type. Also added code to detect an empty PMC and log that and not drop URL

Reported by

A876 (talk) 20:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

What happens

removed |url=https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC#######/ but did not add |pmc=####### ?!

Relevant diffs/links

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Type_1_diabetes&diff=prev&oldid=1254804837

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

The edit comment for the above edit: (Added doi-broken-date. Removed URL that duplicated identifier. | ... | Suggested by Headbomb | Linked from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Journals_cited_by_Wikipedia/Sandbox | #UCB_webform_linked 101/122)

Problem: The 6 URLs that it removed DID NOT duplicate any identifier! (Also added a space.) (I fixed it in the next edit.)

I think that not many citations contain |url=https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC#######/ without also containing |pmc=#######, but that seems to derail Citation bot whenever someone invokes it on such a page. I'm not the first to notice. I would love to slap your EMERGENCY STOP button!

You removed "|url=..." without adding "|pmc=..." ?!

You must check for a matching identifier (in correct form) before removing the URL! Otherwise you must convert the URL (and its accessories) into an identifier. (post-edited -A876 (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC))

Duplicate of #Removes PMC url, but does not put PMC identifier above. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, I described it longer, and signed. (I hope it gets fixed.) -A876 (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I have rebooted the bot to make sure that all jobs get the fixed code. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 22:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Favor

Hello my friend BOT; please cite the sources which I put in this newly created article Alias El Mexicano. Is important. Thanks. JeanMercier90 (talk) 00:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

{{fixed}} AManWithNoPlan (talk) 11:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

www.pro-football-reference.com getting hammered by toolforge tool

Status

{{fixed}}

Reported by

Mvolz (WMF) (talk) 13:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

What happens

Hammering a particular website

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

We've recently been auditing citoid traffic to see which websites are giving us the most errors. The site with the most errors happens to be www.pro-football-reference.com with over a quarter of million errors, and all in just the last month. The website is giving us 429 "too many requests" errors. We've traced a little over half of this activity back to the toolforge tool.

Total errors. Includes activity from reFill as well.

Errors with Citation_bot user-agent only

I was wondering if you had any thoughts on how we should deal with this. I thought perhaps it was someone using the citationbot on en wiki, but when I looked for a sample of URLs, none of them I tried were found on en wiki at least so no luck there. I found one of the urls on https://arz.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%83%D8%A7%D9%8A%D9%84_%D9%88%D9%8A%D8%AA%D9%86%D8%AC%D9%87%D8%A7%D9%85 so maybe it's ARZ wiki, though perhaps it's a coincidence? If it's a single user or perhaps a different bot using the toolforge tool, maybe we could ask them to stop. Any idea how to find them?

Alternatively (or additionally) is there a precedent of blacklisting or rate limiting certain urls? Mvolz (WMF) (talk) 13:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The bot only runs on English and Simple. Unless people are using it in "gadget" mode, which would be stupid on most wiki's since the bot assume english style templates. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I have added pro-football-reference.com to the list of websites that do not have dates, volumes, issues, etc, so that the bot will rarely try to get data for them. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 13:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi

Hello friend BOT. Since you cited my sources in an article I'm about to finish, please cite those of this one Let It Be (1970 film). Greetings. JeanMercier90 (talk) 14:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Please enable the bot in your preferences and run them yourself AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

{{wontfix}}

Hi again

Hi dude. Please cite the references which I put in the finished article Pablo Escobar. Thanks. JeanMercier90 (talk) 15:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Run it yourself. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

{{wontfix}}

Bot is slow

The bot's been extremely slow these past 2-3 days? Is it being chocked by insanely large jobs? Or needs a reset somehow? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

{{fixed}} - rebooted. Only two large jobs running. Not sure what was up with that. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete stray <formula>...<formula/> and <roman>...<roman/>

Status

{{fixed}}

Reported by

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

What should happen

[23]

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

How common is this, and do you have a search to find them? AManWithNoPlan (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

No idea how common it is. The bot added them here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I will look into cleaning them from incoming data. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

MathML

Status

{{wontfix}}, since it would require a large lift. I have looked at this multiple times and been "how hard could it be" and then ran away

Reported by

Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

What happens

Weird math, mrow and nowiki tags in title

Relevant diffs/links

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AJosve05a%2Fsandbox&diff=prev&oldid=1255192629

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

That math/mrow syntax is MathML, which Wikimedia does not support directly. You can format it using Wikimedia math syntax as "$S\to F$ and $S\to J$" (<math>S\to F</math> and <math>S\to J</math>) but in this case I would prefer template syntax, "S → F and S → J" ({{math|''S'' → ''F''}} and {{math|''S'' → ''J''}}) because Wikimedia math does not work well within linked text. I'm not convinced that the bot understands these issues well enough to translate the mathml into Wikimedia syntax. Probably the easiest is just to drop the tags and keep the text within them, giving "S→F and S→J". —David Eppstein (talk) 18:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The bot explicity wraps incoming titles with certain math items in nowiki tags so that they are human readable for the most part and also obviously needing fixed. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 12:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

That seems like an entirely reasonable way to handle this sort of markup, to me, maybe enough to label this as wontfix. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Can't we just strip the math tags all together? And simply output S→J in this example? now the bot adds both nowiki tags and broken math tags inside these nowiki-tags, making the math tags become visible.. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 04:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Keeping the math/mrow/etc tags is important for anyone trying to figure out what the formula was actually supposed to be. In this case they didn't help much, and in this case the preprint version also uses S→J rather than anything more nicely formatted, but in other cases dropping tags like this could lose some important information. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Mathematical Reviews is not a book

Status

{{fixed}} for the most part

Reported by

—David Eppstein (talk) 06:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

What happens

Converts correct cite journal, describing a book review published in the journal Mathematical Reviews (which more or less coincides with the modern MathSciNet online database, but genuinely used to be a journal) into cite book, replacing the given title for the review with the title of the book, after a previous pass of a bot (probably the same bot) helpfully and incorrectly added the book doi to the review references. In the process a CS1 error is generated because the citations to the wrong reference of the wrong type still have a leftover journal parameter.

As I keep saying, this is the type of damage that can be predicted to happen when bots run over the same reference over and over and over and over, probably making improvements on the first pass or two but also introducing minor mistakes that they then amplify into major mistakes until eventually the reference is totally garbled. The whole process of repeatedly polishing citations so many times needs to be rethought. Get it right the first time and then stop.

What should happen

Not that.

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

This is likely about [24] where a reference to MR is confused to a reference to the work reviewed by MR. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

The majority of that reference is to the book itself (DOI, ISBN, volume, etc) and not the MR. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

You are completely missing the point.

After multiple passes of citation-cleaning bots including Citation bot and OAbot, what was originally a reference purely to a review in Mathematical Reviews gradually became more and more borked, in the process resembling a reference to the reviewed work. The most recent pass of Citation bot took a reference that, by then, resembled a citation to a book and made it look more like a citation to the book. But that was only the latest step of this borkage. Sometime longer ago a bot planted a turd in the citation and then the bots kept on polishing it, making it shinier and shinier but not any less smelly.

The problem here is not the individual edit. The problem is that when bots repeatedly replace and replace and replace bits of citations, without intelligence or oversight, they have a tendency to amplify their earlier mistakes. All it takes is a month or two of a bug where bad dois or bad hdls get added to citations (and we've seen such bugs, not just in this bot) and then later iterations take that as gospel and keep massaging the citation to more closely resemble that bad piece of the reference. One or two passes of Citation bot is usually an improvement. After that, further passes are as likely to break things and make more work for human editors as they are to make anything better.

We need some sort of cone of shame that can stop the bots from continuing to worry the same sore spots over and over, without keeping them away from new citations in need of bot cleanup. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The reciprocal operation seems more common in my experience: DOIs to book reviews where the citation points to the reviewed book. Perhaps the least fun is where the same content is published originally in a journal and later as a book chapter, and the citation scripts pick the opposite publication to the original editor, resulting in wholly mixy-match metadata that can take twenty or thirty minutes to untangle.

Whenever I find myself fixing citations that Citation bot has micrd up in this way (which can often as not be blamed on Crossref), I'll drop a hidden html comment so it ignores the citation in the future, but it would nice not to have to do that every time. However, bots sprinkling |script-embargo-date= or suchlike all over doesn't feel like a super premium solution either. Folly Mox (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

There is no such parameter as |script-embargo-date=. What did you really mean?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry. I was workshopping ideas of how to slow down or arrest the process of citation scripts repeatedly replace and replace and replace bits of citations, and what it might implement like to have some sort of cone of shame that can stop the bots from continuing to worry the same sore spots over and over, without keeping them away from new citations in need of bot cleanup.

I think I skipped a step where I typed out the immediately rejected ideas of scripts keeping track of which citations they had previously edited (too resource intensive), or checking revision histories for their own activity (ditto). Then I leapt straight into rejecting the third idea, where bots drop themselves and each other little reminder notes using an invented parameter for the purpose.

Unlike a few other problems that get mention on this talkpage, I don't have any clear idea how to prevent the sort of error described in this bug report. I forgot to type out some of my unclear bad ideas, probably due to being in an IRL conversation during the edit. Folly Mox (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

can we please not "Upgrade ISBN10 to 13"?

As far as I can tell this has no practical advantage at all, and only serves to make the opaque identifier take up more space at readers' expense. –jacobolus (t) 23:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Looking for 13 ISBN leads to more google hits oddly. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand your reply. Can you clarify? I agree with jacobolus. RememberOrwell (talk) 06:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

{{notabug}} since the isbn13 is much more likely to get a google hit, and it is technically the correct ISBN for newer books. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Can we please not add bibcode when it contains no useful information?

Citation Bot has recently been adding more bibcodes to various citations, but nearly every time I click through the bibcode turns out to contain zero new information. That is, the bibcode has some metadata already included in the Wikipedia citation plus an abstract already included at the publisher's website linked from a DOI, and nothing else whatsoever. Adding these bibcodes to citations seems like a waste of space which is at best useless, or at worst wastes readers time. Sometimes bibcode links contain full text or some other useful information, so I wouldn't say bibcode should never be added, but it seems very unhelpful to add it just because it happens to exist. –jacobolus (t) 04:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Bibcodes always contain useful information. Like every other identifiers, iIf you don't like them, ignore them. That doesn't make them useless to others who know how to use them. No different than PMIDs in medicine. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Which useful information is it that they contain, exactly? How does such a knowing person "use" them? PMIDs are also often useless, I agree. Adding an extra half-dozen opaque identifiers which all point to the same identical information does a disservice to readers and is harmful to the project overall, because it makes the citations harder to read and forces readers to carefully sift through chaff to find the links they are looking for. Anyone who cares about these identifiers for their own sake, for whatever reason, can find them absolutely trivially. –jacobolus (t) 19:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be useful to add an invisible-by-default view for all of these extra identifiers which could be revealed in CSS to the trivial number of "others who know how to use them" without needing to shove a bunch of line noise in everyone else's face. –jacobolus (t) 19:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be some way of distinguishing bibcodes or other ids that provide useful information (like full article text) from the ones that merely point to other ids, so that the useful ones can be shown and the useless ones can be hidden.

But this may be reader-dependent. For instance MathSciNet codes are useful to people with subscription access to MathSciNet (who are shown reviews of the works) but useless to non-subscribers (who get a landing page with a bare citation). In such cases I don't think Wikipedia is capable of determining which readers can make use of the id. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The bibcodes I'm talking about are opaque IDs pointing at a web page which includes: author, title, journal name/issue, date, page numbers, DOI (all included already in the wikipedia citation), plus an abstract (included on the DOI page), but no other information at all. I don't see any benefit to anyone in clicking through to such a page, unless someone's goal is to find the bibcode itself for some (obscure, niche, irrelevant to wikipedia) purpose.

As a concrete example, here is a Wikipedia citation after Citation bot added a bibcode:

Vincenty, Thaddeus (1975-04-01). "Direct and Inverse Solutions of Geodesics on the Ellipsoid with Application of Nested Equations" (PDF). Survey Review. 23 (176). Kingston Road, Tolworth, Surrey: Directorate of Overseas Surveys: 88–93. Bibcode:1975SurRv..23...88V. doi:10.1179/sre.1975.23.176.88. Retrieved 2008-07-21.

If it were up to me, this should instead be:

Vincenty, Thaddeus (1975). "Direct and Inverse Solutions of Geodesics on the Ellipsoid with Application of Nested Equations" (PDF). Survey Review. 23 (176): 88–93. doi:10.1179/sre.1975.23.176.88.

The publisher and their location are not essential or even useful information to include in journal citations like this when we can include them in a wiki page about the journal (though frankly even a wikilink to Survey Review has only marginal value here), but the bibcode especially is pointless, because when we click through we find the following info on the bibcode page:

• Direct and Inverse Solutions of Geodesics on the Ellipsoid with Application of Nested Equations
• Vincenty, T. (-)
• No abstract
• Publication: Survey Review, vol. 23, issue 176, pp. 88-93
• Pub Date: April 1975
• Bibcode: 1975SurRv..23...88V
• FULL TEXT SOURCES: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/link_gateway/1975SurRv..23...88V/PUB_HTML

Where the latter link just points the same place as doi:10.1179/sre.1975.23.176.88.

There is literally no new useful information at the bibcode link.

Remember, from WP:NOT, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information. The purpose of citations is to help readers locate a source for particular claims being made in articles, and that's it. Any information beyond that should be carefully considered and balanced against the significant cost imposed on readers who don't care when we add extra links and opaque identifiers.

I often feel like the main project of Citation bot and some of its friends and supporters is to turn the bottom of every Wikipedia page into a comprehensive bibliographic cross-reference of citation index identifiers. But in my opinion this is not what Wikipedia is for, and they really have no community mandate to impose this vision across the site. –jacobolus (t) 19:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree that Bibcode feels like the worst offender of the unnecessary stable identifiers, mostly due to aesthetics: s2cid is equally useless (unless we count doing Semantic Scholar's work for them) but at least they're not an almost intelligible word followed by a mishmash of letters, numbers, and dots.

I'm sure not all of that awful example citation is Citation bot's fault: it doesn't typically add street addresses or access dates. It would be nice if we could have some sort of discussion somewhere about what is and isn't desirable for citation scripts to add to references, although I doubt anyone who isn't already active on this talkpage would care.

And to answer your edit summary, no, he never checks on the results of his bot runs, and calls Citation bot so profusely that whenever I type "Abductive", my text prediction suggests "who never checks their work" from all the edit summaries I've left cleaning up after him. Folly Mox (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I think Citation bot backed off on s2cids, or at least I haven't found as many being added recently. (If so, thanks for the change!) –jacobolus (t) 20:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The Bibcode link does provide information about what the paper cites and what has cited it. Whether or not the DOI resolves to a page that also provides such information depends upon the journal and publisher (that stuff is paywalled by default on Physical Review websites, for example). XOR'easter (talk) 23:50, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The list of citing papers at a bibcode link is extremely incomplete though. For example, for this particular paper the bibcode page lists 110 results whereas the publisher's page lists 750 results, Semantic Scholar lists 1219 results, Google Scholar lists lists 1742 results, and I'm sure there are other citation indices including this paper in their graph. I don't think a list of citations alone is enough to justify the space it takes to linking any of these citation index pages (beyond the publisher page or sometimes a third-party page including a preprint or similar). Anyone who wants to hop around the literature graph starting from this paper, as part of their research process, is capable of going to their preferred citation index and typing in the title or other basic metadata to find this paper. –jacobolus (t) 00:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not comprehensive, for sure; in my experience, the thoroughness varies by field. The only point I wanted to make is that it provides more than absolutely nothing. (Also, I kind of like bibcodes just because they are alphanumeric-punctuation mishmashes. They give a bibliography a 3l33t h4x0r feel.) XOR'easter (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

As XOR'easter says, "but no other information at all" is wrong.

It also contains how many papers cite it, and how this varies over the year (e.g. [25].)

So far this is no different than including PMIDs.

But additionally, bibcodes will also often contain/host papers itself (e.g. Bibcode:1995ApJS..100..473K), and point to preprints, and related papers (for example, Bibcode:2007A&A...470..685L is the 2nd paper in a series of 3).

Again, that you don't personally like Bibcode or find it useful is not a reason to deprive the reader of easy access to this ressource. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

"how many papers cite it" – or to be precise, a very significant undercount by more than an order of magnitude of how many papers cite it. If we just wanted that we should link Google scholar, but I don't think this information justifies any citation index link; it's not relevant to locating the paper, which is the primary purpose of Wikipedia citations.

"bibcodes will also often ..." – this is not sufficient justification to include every possible bibcode. It only offers a supporting reason to occasionally add a bibcode when it hosts a paper not available from the publisher or some other source which has the right to host it. If the bot cannot determine these cases programmatically, then it should leave it to humans to decide them.

you don't personally It's not about what I personally like, it's about what is worth spending very valuable Wikipedia readers' attention on. There is certainly no site-wide consensus about adding this type of metadata at every possible opportunity, so what you are really arguing for is that bot authors should get to unilaterally make sweeping controversial decisions to match their own preference; I think that approach runs counter to the spirit of the Wikipedia project. In my opinion, every bit of metadata, especially anything added by bots, has to have some strong and clear benefit to justify the space it takes up, and just "it exists and some people sometimes like it" is not good enough reason to mass spam these site-wide. –jacobolus (t) 04:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I am now tracking the bad bibcodes and removing those. So, as least going forward, bibcodes that are on any page that the bot visits will work. That will be a bit of an improvement. I have been removing the bad ones and updating the changed ones for a while, and that should reduce the negative value links. While I personally get access to many of these publications via my various university/military/government/college/etc accesses that I have, I personally consider the bibcodes to often helpful when on my home internet. So, I consider this to be {{notabug}}.AManWithNoPlan (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Don't replace |title= with |chapter= when not adding a new title

Status

{{wontfix}} for now, but need to think about if this ever occurs again

Reported by

:Jay8g [V•T•E] 06:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

What happens

[26]

What should happen

The title should be kept as is to avoid creating a CS1 error

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

Although I agree that the bot's edit was bad, maybe the bot was confused by doi:10.5040/9781472597540.0007 which looks like it should go to chapter 7 within the book (whatever title that chapter might have)? doi:10.5040/9781472597540 appears to refer to the entire book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Eppstein (talk • contribs)

Probably caused by the chapter and booktitle being the same. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Probably an edge case that's not worth fixing

Status

{{fixed}} on page. GIGO, but the GI is meta-data. It is kind of right, but pretty wrong (both DOI and PMID).

Reported by

Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 06:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

What should happen

Good question!

Relevant diffs/links

[27]

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

This citation references an online-only supplement that is not in the journal and therefore not in the article's page range. I suspect this is rare enough to not need any bot code changes, or if there's a better way to input the citation template I am all ears. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 06:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Date format

Status

{{wontfix}}, since the page has no consistent date format and does not have a date format template set

Reported by

ChaseKiwi (talk) 15:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

What happens

bot changed date in reference on page Philippines–Taiwan relations for doi-broken-date=2024-08-20 to doi-broken-date=1 November 2024

What should happen

keep original date and its format, not change date format which is adopted elsewhere on page alone and certainly not change date

Relevant diffs/links

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippines%E2%80%93Taiwan_relations&curid=39377200&diff=1254952941&oldid=1242823249

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

It certainly should be updated, since the broken date is that last time checked, and not the first time found to be dead. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

A point, although it has been known for doi's by genunine journals never to be issued. What ever the change in date format is bad practice.ChaseKiwi (talk) 21:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Stuck in an endless loop on certain pages

Status

{{fixed}} with much better coding

Reported by

:Jay8g [V•T•E] 20:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

What happens

On List of assassinations in the Philippines, Citation Bot gets stuck in an endless loop and eventually crashes. The results page is filled with thousands of

   ~Renamed "work" -> "agency"
   ~Renamed "agency" -> "work"

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

I have fixed the page, which has invalide information. I will look at fixing the bot to deal with that. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Extraneous journal parameter.

Status

{{wontfix}}, since it points out things that need fixed

Reported by

User-duck (talk) 05:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

What happens

Bot adds journal parameter which is not supported by cite book template.

Relevant diffs/links

Draft:Astroclimatology

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

Example: Turchi, A.; Masciadri, E.; Veillet, C. (29 August 2022). "Characterization of LBT atmospheric and turbulence conditions in the context of ALTA project". In Marshall, Heather K.; Spyromilio, Jason; Usuda, Tomonori (eds.). Proc. SPIE 12182, Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes IX; 121824O. Vol. 12182. p. 111. arXiv:2210.11247. Bibcode:2022SPIE12182E..4OT. doi:10.1117/12.2629813. ISBN 978-1-5106-5345-0. {{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help) User-duck (talk) 05:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Those require human fixing, since they are almost always GIGO, but in very rare cases, they need a bot exclusion comment added. That I why I log these and then go back and fix them. Often people get to them much faster than I do. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Slow

Status

{{fixed}}

Reported by

Faymas (talk) 12:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

What happens

Citation bot is not working. It still stops while Loading.

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

What is happening? It takes a very long time between submitting until the edit is made, and in its contribs there are long pauses. 2600:1702:2670:B530:DD90:74FE:804D:EC47 (talk) 14:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I have made some changes to help. Watching it carefully. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about the multiple reboots. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)