User talk:Citation bot/Archive 39

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35 ← Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39

archive-link should be replaced with archive-url, not archive-date

Status
{{fixed}}
Reported by
:Jay8g [V•T•E] 04:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
What happens
[1]
What should happen
[2]
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


Treat deadlink= the same as deadurl= (to convert to url-status=)

Status
{{fixed}}
Reported by
:Jay8g [V•T•E] 04:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
What should happen
[3]
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


audible.com

Status
{{fixed}}
Reported by
Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
What happens
So citation bot is changing audible listings to cite book.
What should happen
Cite web should be used.
Relevant diffs/links
[4]
Replication instructions
Add a source to audible.
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


Replace Cite Web with Cite Journal

Status
{{fixed}} several different ways to catch this and others
Reported by
—Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
What happens
changed Cite Web to Cite Journal
What should happen
should have left as web or possibly changed to Cite Archive
Relevant diffs/links
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stained_glass_windows_by_Harry_Clarke&diff=1223741434&oldid=1223665575
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


Not sure if Citation bot assumed that a the presence of a doi meant it was a journal, but the ref was pointing to a piece in the Trinity College Library archives collection. Attributed authors were picked up and added in ways that created CS1 errors. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Don't add title=MSN

Status
{{fixed}}
Reported by
:Jay8g [V•T•E] 00:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
What happens
[5]
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


It appears that Citation Bot has a blacklist for generic titles. "MSN" is a common generic title that I see Citation Bot add, so it should be added to that blacklist. (I know the diff I linked is old, but I've seen this happen recently.):Jay8g [V•T•E] 00:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

AS Racine FC

Hi bot.can you help correct a typo on the AS racine fc page you just edited?

The page title "AS Racine FC" is wrong. The correct title is "AS Racines F.C".

Please correct it. RoaringEdits (talk) 14:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with Citation Bot. Try Help:Desk. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Unlinking journal parameter

Hello,

According to the documentation at Template:Cite journal:

work (required by {{cite journal}} and {{cite magazine}}): Name of the work containing the source; may be wikilinked if relevant.

However, it seems citation bot unlinks the journal= parameter (by default?). Is this intentional? Should the documentation be updated if wikilinking journals is discouraged? Or should citation bot be updated to honor an existing wikilink, if any? (Example diff. There's some other questionable changes in there but that's probably from bad input data and harder to deal with.). SnowFire (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Caused by the (JTS) being present for no reason. The bot expects |journal=[[Foo|Everything]], not |journal=[[Foo|Something]], something else. 21:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
If this is intentional, then I feel like the documentation should be updated that this field needs to have only a single link. I don't really see the problem with the other approach, but I respect that maybe it's needed for bots / microformats rather than humans. (I saw quite a number of short references to "JTS" hence putting the acronym gloss in there, so it's not like a totally irrelevant piece of information to have somewhere.) SnowFire (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

date/year are the same

Status
{{fixed}}
Reported by
Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
What should happen
[6]
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


Won't run on categories with only one item

Status
{{fixed}}
Reported by
:Jay8g [V•T•E] 02:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
What happens
Webpage reports !Category appears to be empty
Replication instructions
Run the bot on any category with only one item. This happens both with the direct link on CS1 error/maint categories and with the category input on the Toolforge page.
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


Category-link formatting in bot's edit summaries is broken

Status
{{fixed}}
Reported by
Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 15:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
What happens
When the bot makes an edit from a category run, the category link in the edit summary is missing one of the two closing brackets necessary to actually activate the link: [[Category:NAME].
What should happen
The category link should be properly formatted as a link, with two opening and two closing brackets: [[Category:NAME]].
Relevant diffs/links
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Planking_(fad)&diff=prev&oldid=1224637690
Replication instructions
Run the bot on a category; any edits made during that run will show this bug.
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


TNT Title if "Request Rejected"

Status
{{fixed}}
Reported by
Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
What should happen
[7]
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


Introduces ref error when citing Penguin publisher website

Status
{{fixed}} - will not change if |website= is set.
Reported by
czar 07:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
What happens
Introduces ref error by turning {{cite web}} to {{cite book}} ostensibly when url=https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/295/295446/bullshit-jobs/9780141983479.html.
What should happen
Citation bot should take no action. Instead of interpreting that link as referencing a book, citation bot should not assume. In this case, the publisher's webpage itself is being cited as a primary source, so a book it not being cited.
Relevant diffs/links
[8]
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


This is the solution. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Pretty grateful we get to go through every citation to a publisher's blurb or library catalogue record and add a hidden html comment so Citation bot can continue assuming we're all ding-dongs who don't know the difference between a book and a website.
Having said sassed that, I'm not sure what percentage of us are ding-dongs who don't know the difference between a book and a website, and I'm of the opinion that the true solution is probably neither manually adding tens of thousands of hidden html comments nor endlessly tweaking exceptions into Citation bot's code, but mapping |website= to |via= instead of |periodical= in the context of {{Cite book}}, or rolling back the deprecation of the |periodical= aliases from {{Cite book}}, or having Citation bot output {{Cite conference}} or {{Citation}} to support more parameters. Folly Mox (talk) 09:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
The vast, vast, vast majority are ding dongs, where a link to the publisher website is meant to be a link to the book (much like links to Amazon are meant to simply reference the book, not the Amazon listing). There are exceptions of course, but those are the minority, and citing a publisher's website directly is often a failure of WP:IRS (for example here, you really should be citing Financial Times, New Statesman, and City AM directly, rather than the publisher of the book). Adding a comment is a very simple way to prevents bots from fucking up on the minority of cases where such a citation is intentional. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
I believe you, and I think I argued a similar point to your position when someone brought the same concern to this talkpage last year. I think I might just be grumpy this morning. Folly Mox (talk) 09:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
@Headbomb, does the bot match this exact text or can I add to it? I would prefer the comment to mention that this comment is specifically for Citation bot, as otherwise I see hidden comments often removed from wikitext in mainspace. czar 14:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
It only cares that there's a comment. See User:Citation_bot/use#..._the_bot_made_a_mistake?, specific parameter vs entire citation. Headbomb (alt) (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Past and Present volume and issue numbers

Status
{{not a bug}}
Reported by
Ifly6 (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
What happens
For journal Past and Present, in {{cite journal}} given |volume=26 and |issue=26, bot omits |volume= and keeps |issue=
What should happen
It should keep |volume= preferentially to |issue= when the two are identical
Relevant diffs/links
* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pliny_the_Younger&diff=prev&oldid=1223755369
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


Past and Present only has issue numbers. There is no volume number. That's erroneous metadata. See [9]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

They call them "volumes" and yet have "number" on the front of the magazines themselves. Oh yeah, and each one is "issue 1". AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Volumes and Issue 1 is the bad metadata. The front cover is what's reliable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Don't convert URLs to all lowercase

Status
{{fixed}}
Reported by
:Jay8g [V•T•E] 08:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
What happens
[10]
Replication instructions
This doesn't happen often and I'm not sure what causes it, but in this case it broke the link.
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


URLs are case insensitive (URL : "Although schemes are case-insensitive, the canonical form is lowercase and documents that specify schemes must do so with lowercase letters."), if something broke, it's not because of the casing. Headbomb (alt) (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit, I tried manually setting the casing and... well that website is some kind of special nutjob case because it IS case sensitive. I've never seen that before, ever. Headbomb (alt) (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
@Headbomb (alt): You're misreading your source for that, I'm afraid. URLs are case sensitive.
'scheme' refers to the protocol element before the :// , e.g. http, https, ftps. That is case insensitive; hostnames generally are too (because DNS is); other parts of the URL are not.
Check these out: https://yorril.uk/test https://yorril.uk/Test https://yorril.uk/TEST. This is perfectly normal web server behaviour (out-of-the-box Apache 2). Conventionally, these days, most people make their URLs fully lower case, but they don't have to. TSP (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
The problem is that the parameter https://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/legacy-of-jews-in-MENA/Iraq’s-First-Minister-of-Finance#:~:text is set to the value Iraq's%20First%20Minister%20of%20Finance%20%2D%20World%20Jewish%20Congress&text=Sassoon%20Heskel%20(1860–1932)%20was%20born%20into%20an%20established,the%20Middle%20East%2C%20and%20Asia. Which leads to some odd GIGO problems. If the the data was set to be a URL instead of done wrong, this would not occur. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes it has a URL but missing the |url= key name. These errors are not very common, but I've seen enough of them, they exist. Not sure how to check. Probably slicing the citation string along "|" and making sure each segment contains at least one "=". It's imperfect since URLs (like this one) often contain a "=". If it detects a URL "https?://" then temporarily mask it out before doing the "=" test. -- GreenC 21:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Caps: ChemInform

Status
{{fixed}}
Reported by
Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
What should happen
[11]
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


Change |date-accessed to |access-date (not |osti-access)

Status
{{fixed}}
Reported by
:Jay8g [V•T•E] 17:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
What happens
[12]
What should happen
[13]
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


Journal = Progress of Optics

Status
{{fixed}}
Reported by
Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
What happens
[14]
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


This is a series, and should not be added to the journal parameter of a cite book.

True, but also the bot should not misspell it "Progess". —David Eppstein (talk) 05:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Caps: Farmakologiia i Toksikologiia

Status
{{fixed}}
Reported by
Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
What should happen
[15]
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


Like all other lone I in the middle of a journal name (save for Part I / Section I), should be lowercase. Reporting every single one individually is annoying. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Favor

Dear citation bot: I need a favor; please cite the sources of this articles: Diamonds Are Forever (film); Carlos Alberto Rentería Mantilla; Epiphone Casino and 1988 Writers Guild of America strike. Best wishes. 2800:484:D473:700:C502:BC5C:682A:6B88 (talk) 21:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Misidentifications as journals of not-journals

Status
{{fixed}} a couple of things
Reported by
Folly Mox (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
What happens
Citation bot incorrectly changes template type to {{cite journal}}
Relevant diffs/links
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


Past and Present issue=1

Status
{{fixed}}
Reported by
Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
What should happen
[16]
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


See also [17] Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Huh I had a very different impression. Special:Diff/1223749410 popped up on my watchlist, and I looked into the change. According to doi.org/10.1093/pastj/gty034 we've got volume rather than issue for Past & Present. Folly Mox (talk) 10:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
That's because the OUP metadata is wrong here. It's the 13th supplement, which happened to be in the same year as the 238th issue. See [18]. It should be cited as Past & Present (Suppl. 13). Nowhere in the actual issue is the 238th issue mentioned (or 238th volume). Headbomb (alt) (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Fixed. Thanks, Headbomb. Folly Mox (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Better handling of page/pages with leading p.

Status
{{fixed}}
Reported by
Headbomb (alt) (talk) 17:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
What should happen
[19] [20] [21]
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


Adding current date to old citations

Status
{{fixed}} - will no longer add dates that are within two weeks of today. Also add corydondemocrat.com to the list of websites with bad dates.
Reported by
:Jay8g [V•T•E] 00:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
What happens
[22]
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


I've seen Citation Bot periodically adding the current date to citations where it clearly does not belong. I'm guessing this is some issue with the metadata on the pages in question, but I wonder if there's some way to avoid it - one thing I can think of would be to prevent it from adding the current date (citations where that is actually valid could have the date added by a future bot run when it is no longer the current date), but maybe there's a better option.:Jay8g [V•T•E] 00:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Bot unitalicizes titles of works (e.g. films) in |trans-title= parameter

Status
{{fixed}} - trans-title now treated like title and not 'fixed'
Reported by
Centcom08 (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
What happens
Citation bot unitalicizes words that needs italicizing (e.g. films) in |trans-title= parameter of a {{Cite}} template, despite MOS:CONFORMTITLE.
Relevant diffs/links
sample 1, sample 2
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


Past and Present when linked

Status
{{fixed}} -- found four places that the pipe was not taken into account.
Reported by
Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
What should happen
[23]
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


Bot removes specific details from |orig-date parameter in the cite book template

Status
{{fixed}} orig-date will no longer be cleaned
Reported by
Gricharduk (talk) 02:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
What happens
The bot is removing specific details from the |orig-date parameter in the cite book template e.g. |orig-date=First published 1859 is replaced with |orig-date=1859.
What should happen
As per Wikipedia:Undated, the orig-date parameter requires specific details as well as a date/year e.g. |orig-date=First published 1859 rather than |orig-date=1859.
Relevant diffs/links
Example diff from the Audrey Stuckes article (see the Fendrich 1994 reference)
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


Bot making up dates

Status
{{fixed}} - dates that are really new will now be rejected.
Reported by
DuncanHill (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
What happens
Bot is obsessed with saying everything was published on the 4 June 2024
What should happen
bot stops making shit up. It's bad enough that it goes around breaking sfn/harv refs, but that ity should add entirely false information as well is unforgiveable.
Relevant diffs/links
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gupta%E2%80%93Hunnic_Wars&diff=prev&oldid=1227166526
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


Switch the damn thing off. Or fix the errors it introduced. Don't leave it to other poor saps to clean up its mess. DuncanHill (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

This is reported somewhere else above, and is probably the result of sites with overeager structure putting the current date in the meta elements of the html header. I think the solution to this one is to code Citation bot to check the date it scrapes against the current date, and if it's within 24 hours, don't add it. This will stop it from adding dates to breaking news sources about new developments, which is a fine tradeoff.
Another potential solution would be to disable for most users the ability to run Citation bot against an entire category in a way that they aren't forced to review each resulting change manually. Most editors who use this functionality never double check to see if their script run has introduced any errors.
Citation bot does a lot of really good work, but it does a lot of work: last I estimated, an average of around two hundred edits an hour, way too fast to clean up after without the help of the people who run it all the time. Folly Mox (talk) 10:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Specifically, these dates: [24] Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Another one added to a Good Article after this report was placed: Special:Diff/1227284405, adding today's date to a book published in 2006 (not formatted as a web link), and incidentally masking a bad anonymous IP edit with a bot edit on top of it. It is definitely not what was suggested above, the result of sites with overeager structure putting the current date in the meta elements of the html header, because there is no url and no html header that the bot could have taken this date from. I tend to agree with the original poster: if this is not going to be fixed quickly then the bot needs to be shut down. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Also pinging User:Jay8g. Jay8g: please make sure that your bot runs aren't garbaging existing good citations. Ultimately when they do it becomes your responsibility. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
That's the exact same solution I suggested in #Adding current date to old citations above, which has been completely ignored. :Jay8g [V•T•E] 02:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Citation_bot/Archive_39&oldid=1227344546"