Archives

List of archives Before 2020 Archive 0 (Early bug reports) Archive 1 (May 2008 – Jun 2011) Archive 2 (Jun 2011 – Nov 2015) Archive 3 (Nov 2015 – Jul 2016) Archive 4 (Jul 2016 – Oct 2016) Archive 5 (Oct 2016 – Sep 2017) Archive 6 (Sep 2017 – Oct 2017) Archive 7 (Oct 2017 – Jul 2018) Archive 8 (Jul 2018 – Aug 2018) Archive 9 (Aug 2018 – Aug 2018) Archive 10 (Sep 2018 – Oct 2018) Archive 11 (Oct 2018 – Nov 2018) Archive 12 (Nov 2018 – Jan 2019) Archive 13 (Jan 2019 – Feb 2019) Archive 14 (Feb 2019 – Mar 2019) Archive 15 (Mar 2019 – Jun 2019) Archive 16 (Jun 2019 – Jul 2019) Archive 17 (Jul 2019 – Aug 2019) Archive 18 (Aug 2019 – Oct 2019) Archive 19 (Oct 2019 – Mar 2020) Archive 20 (Mar 2020 – May 2020) Archive 21 (May 2020 – Jul 2020) Archive 22 (Jul 2020 – Sep 2020) Archive 23 (Sep 2020 – Dec 2020) Archive 24 (Dec 2020 – Apr 2021) Archive 25 (Apr 2021 – Jun 2021) Archive 26 (Jun 2021 – Aug 2021) Archive 27 (Aug 2021 – Sep 2021) Archive 28 (Oct 2021 – Dec 2021) Archive 29 (Dec 2021 – Dec 2021) Archive 30 (Dec 2021 – Mar 2022) Archive 31 (Mar 2022 – May 2022) Archive 32 (May 2022 – Jul 2022) Archive 33 (Jul 2022 – Oct 2022) Archive 34 (Oct 2022 – Apr 2023) Archive 35 (Apr 2023 – Aug 2023) Archive 36 (Aug 2023 – Oct 2023) Archive 37 (Oct 2023 – Dec 2023) Archive 38 (Dec 2023 – May 2024) Archive 39 (May 2024 – Nov 2024) Archive 40 (Nov 2024 – present)

This page has archives. Sections older than 90000 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Note that the bot's maintainer and assistants (Thing 1 and Thing 2), can go weeks without logging in to Wikipedia. The code is open source and interested parties are invited to assist with the operation and extension of the bot. Before reporting a bug, please note: Addition of DUPLICATE_xxx= to citation templates by this bot is a feature. When there are two identical parameters in a citation template, the bot renames one to DUPLICATE_xxx=. The bot is pointing out the problem with the template. The solution is to choose one of the two parameters and remove the other one, or to convert it to an appropriate parameter. A 503 error means that the bot is overloaded and you should try again later – wait at least 15 minutes and then complain here.

Please click here to report an error.

Or, for a faster response from the maintainers, submit a pull request with appropriate code fix on GitHub, if you can write the needed code.

• Implement support to expand from https://doi.org/10.1093/ww/9780199540884.013.U192476 to {{Who's Who}}
  Example: https://teknopedia.ac.id/w/index.php?title=Friern_Hospital&diff=prev&oldid=1167644213
• Implement support to convert cite web to {{BioRef}} and {{GBIF}}
• Use https://www.crossref.org/blog/news-crossref-and-retraction-watch/
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK25497/ set NLM_APIKEY and NLM_EMAIL
• journal/publisher that only differ by 'and' and '&' should be treated as identical https://teknopedia.ac.id/w/index.php?title=Congenital_cartilaginous_rest_of_the_neck&diff=prev&oldid=1199200383
• Free archive.org links such as curl -sH "Accept: application/json" "https://scholar.archive.org/search?q=doi:10.1080/14786449908621245" | jq -r .results[0].fulltext.access_url
• Use GET instead of POST for better proxy caches when talking to data-bases when possible.
• Start to convert Google Books URL to "new" format https://www.google.com/books/edition/_/m8W2AgAAQBAJ?gbpv=1&pg=PA379
• When encountering a {{cite journal}} or {{citation}} with |journal=bioRxiv or |journal=bioRxiv: The Preprint Server for Biology [case insensitive], the bot should convert the citation to a proper {{cite bioRxiv}}, i.e.
  • {{cite journal |last1=Larivière |first1=Vincent |last2=Kiermer |first2=Véronique |last3=MacCallum |first3=Catriona J. |last4=McNutt |first4=Marcia |last5=Patterson |first5=Mark |last6=Pulverer |first6=Bernd |last7=Swaminathan |first7=Sowmya |last8=Taylor |first8=Stuart |last9=Curry |first9=Stephen |date=2016-07-05 |title=A simple proposal for the publication of journal citation distributions |journal=bioRxiv |page=062109 |url=http://biorxiv.org/lookup/doi/10.1101/062109 |language=en |doi=10.1101/062109 |hdl=1866/23301 |s2cid=64293941 |hdl-access=free}}
  • Larivière, Vincent; Kiermer, Véronique; MacCallum, Catriona J.; McNutt, Marcia; Patterson, Mark; Pulverer, Bernd; Swaminathan, Sowmya; Taylor, Stuart; Curry, Stephen (2016-07-05). "A simple proposal for the publication of journal citation distributions". bioRxiv: 062109. doi:10.1101/062109. hdl:1866/23301. S2CID 64293941.
  • The bot should keep |author/last/first/date/year/title/language=, convert |doi= to |biorxiv=, and throw the rest away.
  • {{cite bioRxiv |last1=Larivière |first1=Vincent |last2=Kiermer |first2=Véronique |last3=MacCallum |first3=Catriona J. |last4=McNutt |first4=Marcia |last5=Patterson |first5=Mark |last6=Pulverer |first6=Bernd |last7=Swaminathan |first7=Sowmya |last8=Taylor |first8=Stuart |last9=Curry |first9=Stephen |date=2016-07-05 |title=A simple proposal for the publication of journal citation distributions |language=en |biorxiv=10.1101/062109}}
  • Larivière, Vincent; Kiermer, Véronique; MacCallum, Catriona J.; McNutt, Marcia; Patterson, Mark; Pulverer, Bernd; Swaminathan, Sowmya; Taylor, Stuart; Curry, Stephen (2016-07-05). "A simple proposal for the publication of journal citation distributions". bioRxiv 10.1101/062109.
  • If it was from a {{citation}}, append |mode=cs2 to it.
  • To be extra safe, this should only be done when the DOI starts with 10.1101. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same for with |journal=medRxiv or |journal=medRxiv: The Preprint Server for Health Sciences [case insensitive] and convertions to {{cite medrxiv}}
• If encountering a {{cite bioRxiv}} that is fully published, convert it to a {{cite journal}}
  • Wolf, Luise; Silander, Olin K.; Van Nimwegen, Erik J. (2014). "Expression noise facilitates the evolution of gene regulation". bioRxiv 10.1101/007237. says "Now published in eLife doi: 10.7554/eLife.05856"
  • So TNT the citation
  • {{cite journal |biorxiv=10.1101/007237 |doi=10.7554/eLife.05856}}
  • and expand it
  • Wolf, Luise; Silander, Olin K.; Van Nimwegen, Erik (2015). "Expression noise facilitates the evolution of gene regulation". eLife. 4: e05856. bioRxiv 10.1101/007237. doi:10.7554/eLife.05856. PMC 4468965. PMID 26080931.
  • New DOI is in crossref. https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1101/007237
  • Same for {{cite medRxiv}} to {{cite journal}}

I have remained silent on this issue even though it has irritated me for a while now. And now that there is discussion above about the widespread useless cosmetic edits this bot continues to waste everyone's time with, I'll raise it: Why must every citation of a publisher's webpage be changed to to Cite book? I can only speak for myself, but every time I cite such book webpages I am not citing the book itself. I am specifically referencing the information published on the webpage. So of course I do not want the citation to be changed to Cite book with a bunch of parameters of the book itself (ISBN, date, etc) added. So I inevitably stop the bot or replace the reference with a third-party source. I realise the defense will be "It doesn't hurt" or that some users are actually citing the book. And I realise this is not the most pressing issue, but why must the bot come to its own conclusion of the editor's intent? I see another user complained of this issue last year. Οἶδα (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This may be the kind of situation where it's safest to explicitly tell citation bot not to muck with the citation. It's hard to automatically judge whether the human editor actually wanted "cite web" or "cite book". (There are many examples of people using "cite web" to cite resources that should actually be books, journal articles, etc.) –jacobolus (t) 01:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. But it still feels like an another unnecessary task for this bot to insert itself into every article it can possibly find. For example, this edit is completely useless and actually corrupts my intention of the citation. Call me crazy but I don't want or need a bot telling me what I am citing (and actively altering my citations accordingly). Οἶδα (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When I've quoted publisher blurbs in the past, I usually set |type=publisher's blurb for clarity. In the specific case you've linked just above, another option would be not to cite the publisher's landing page at all, and add the book to a "Selected works" subsection or something. Indeed, the altered citation is sequential to another one, and so seems a bit superfluous. Or, alternatively, use "Citation bot bypass" somewhere in your citation as suggested by jacobolus above.

Given the overall lazy referencing culture of less experienced editors, it's likely that in the majority of cases, people who drop a link to a publisher landing page are probably trying to cite the book itself, so this behaviour of assuming that's the case is net beneficial. Folly Mox (talk) 22:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot personally maintain that the majority of users citing a publisher's webpage are lazily intending to cite the book itself. My experience suggests otherwise which is why I have taken issue, but I realise my editing purview might be skewed. However, if that is observably true then I will resign to accepting this as a forgivable externality. Οἶδα (talk) 06:35, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness to your point, I haven't looked into the data about how frequently this sort of change is appropriate; it could be the case that my own perspective is the skewed one. Folly Mox (talk) 08:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find a list of tasks that the bot has been approved for (other than the very first approval) nor a thorough description of all of its mystical activities. I was surprised to find it would change "Cite web" to "Cite book" (for unclear reasons). The only cure, if the bot is unchanged, seems to be the <!-- Citation bot bypass--> mechanism documented at User:Citation_bot#Stopping_the_bot_from_editing - R. S. Shaw (talk) 04:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Identical to § Changing every citation of a publisher's webpage to Cite book above. While the choice of formatting may be questioned (can't the Library Journal review be located somewhere less objectionable than Amazon?) the behaviour here is the same underlying misfeature of altering any webpage citation where a book's bibliographic information is presented, as if the citation was meant to be to content of the book rather than e.g. a publisher's blurb or library listing. I think there are more discussions of this in the talkpage archives here; I used to favour this feature, but I'm no longer so sure it's a net positive. Folly Mox (talk) 11:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from User talk:Citation bot/Archive 32 § Web->Book: I don't think that it was right in this case... (May 2022) linked in the thread above, there was some conversation at User talk:Citation bot/Archive 39 § Introduces ref error when citing Penguin publisher website (May 2024). There could be others. I have to go to work. Folly Mox (talk) 13:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On Charles Clinton, Citation bot removes "?seq=9" from this URL. That bit of code give the Page # within the larger cite, so why does Citation bot remove it? It makes sense to me to leave that bit of code in there but the bot doesn't seem to think so. It's removed it twice, once here and once here, so maybe I'm wrong... Would appreciate some clarification. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 03:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if by some chance I am correct, is there any way to stop people from running the Bot needlessly on this supposed issue? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 03:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The landing page is the same in either case. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't the same for me... The one without the ?seq lands me on the main page, the URL with the ?seq=9" lands me on the exact page with the quoted text... Shearonink (talk) 04:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I also see the preview page showing page 9 of 17 with the ?seq parameter. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good David Eppstein it isn't just me... The ?seq code might be taking us & other registered editors to the exact page because we have a JSTOR account through the WP Library I guess... But even if people don't have a JSTOR account the *code* should be left there, otherwise the URL seems useless. I like to give readers the option of going down the rabbithole of verifiability if they want to. Why is WP giving readers an URL that is to the entire book or article as the Citation bot default when the bot is run on the article? Shearonink (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually currently JSTOR thinks it is providing me access through UT Dallas, I guess because I was there for a conference last summer. But yes, this should be left in place, like the pg= parameter of Google Books links, for the same reason. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb 2409:4070:4381:EF12:0:0:1BF5:A5 (talk) 12:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb. I just undid the edit the bot had done at @Jay8g's request. RememberOrwell (talk) 06:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I asked this in the discussion of an earlier bug but it was archived without providing an answer. Can you please explain

1. How is it not a violation of WP:CITEVAR for Citation bot to convert manually-formatted references into templates, as it is doing e.g. at Special:Diff/1216926071? A human might do this but a bot automatically doing it is completely something else, especially in cases such as here where it does not even improve the consistency of formatting (the article is still a mix of CS1, CS2, and manually-formatted references).
2. For those of us who might deliberately format references manually because we don't want bots messing with our citations, or we made a deliberate decision that the citation templates were inadequate for some specific citation, do we now have to start explicitly locking the bots out of articles altogether?
3. Where is this included in the BAG-approved tasks for this bot?
4. I find the bot's edit summary "Changed bare reference" to be significantly misleading. This is not a bare-url reference. It is a well-formatted reference that happens to be manually formatted. Where is there any guideline or policy suggesting that such references are a problem that needs to be fixed?

—David Eppstein (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's already citation templates on that page. No CITEVAR violation happened. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mix manually formatted citations and template-formatted citations on pages all the time, deliberately. I would be extremely annoyed if a bot took it upon itself to change that deliberate decision. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should however, preserve the editors. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing an incorrect cite journal to cite book [1]: Good (although would have been better as cite conference).

Creating a new CS1 error where there was none before, because it left the paper title in the book title parameter and did not change the journal parameter to a book title parameter: doubleplusungood.

Stop it.

Posting as a message rather than a new bug because this is not a new bug. It is an old bug that has been ignored far too long by the developers (see #Causing template errors, above). It needs to be fixed. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not creating error, it's flagging errors that were already there, but not reported. |journal=FM 2014: Formal Methods was wrong before. That the bot didn't manage to fix it doesn't make it a new error. Now the error is reported. This is an improvement, even though ideally the bot would be able to figure out and fix the error itself. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

INCORRECT. It is creating an error, because formerly readers could see the paper title, see the book title (called a journal, but still formatted in italics the way readers would expect a book title to look), and see that it was a paper in a book with that title. After the edit, readers were presented only with the paper title, formatted as a book title, falsely telling them both in visible appearance and reference metadata that the reference was to an entire book-length work. It is not merely that it is creating CS1 errors, although that is bad enough. It is also making the reference less accurate in both its metadata and in its visible appearance. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've gotten really exhausted with this category of error introduced by Citation bot, which I encounter every day I edit. I used to creep its contributions and clean up after it, but I've started just reverting its edits that cause this kind of template error, regardless of any value added, and only sometimes actually fix up the citations myself. Few of the editors who call Citation bot on large sets of pages ever check in after it to see if it's causing errors, so typically no one notices my reverts.

I saw a few weeks back that for one subset of conferences (IEEE maybe? or SPIE?) Citation bot has successfully been changing {{cite journal}} to {{cite book}} without introducing errors and growing the backlogs. So there has been a partial fix, but it's pretty frustrating that this known error has been perpetuated in thousands of edits spanning months.

Citation bot does not have an approved BRFA task to change citation template types, and changing to {{cite book}} has been the one that's particularly fraught and error-prone ever since support for the aliases of |periodical= was dropped from {{cite book}} a year ago. The easiest thing would be if support were readded, but that seems highly unlikely. I do think that eventually, if this bug isn't fixed, I'll end up asking BAG to ban Citation bot changing template type to {{cite book}}. Disabling the functionality would be an improvement over the current situation. Folly Mox (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still ongoing failure to remove journal= from conversions to cite book, creating new CS1 errors and wasted time for human editors: Special:Diff/1245112056. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should be enough to do a pass for new {{cite xxx}} being added in the edit if every other cite was {{citation}} (or {{cite xxx|mode=cs2}}. The exception should be that {{cite arxiv}}, {{cite bioRxiv}}, {{cite citeseerx}}, {{cite medrxiv}}, and {{cite ssrn}} all have |mode=cs2 added to them instead of being converted to {{citation}}.

I think Citation bot is to aggressive in it's capitalization of every three-/four-letter combinations and words following a dot. Also on other references it many times incorrectly capitalizes words inside parentheses. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

specific issues fixed. some special code for parentheses does need added AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self. Look at UCFIRST_JOURNAL_ACRONYMS in expandFns.php. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's an article number and should be formatted using |article-number= instead of |pages=. See § Added page parameter when it should be article-number, above. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this example. Unlike many of the other ones, this one actually has the article number as an article and not just a page in CrossRef. I now have an example to work with. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a duplicate of the above. Are you sure that the search is not displayed on the same page, instead of a javascript overlay. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 20:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by "search is not displayed on the same page". Using the link in the old version, namely [2], the quotation "dépêche-vous..." appears at the top of the Google Books page. But using the link in this version, as revised by Citation bot, namely [3], the overview page of the book is shown, not the page with the quote. Tested in Chrome 130.0.6723.117 (on x86_64 MacOS), Firefox 131.0.2, and Safari 18.1 (19619.2.8.111.5, 19619). --Macrakis (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please check in incognito mode. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ida. I checked in incognito mode in Chrome. The edited link now does show the quotation, though in a different place on the page. The reason appears to be that in incognito, I'm using the default Google Books, while in logged-in mode, I'm using the new Google Books interface. Shouldn't Citation bot work with both the new and the old Google Books? --Macrakis (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reality is the old google books is much more likely to work for people. The new format is dependent upon javascript while the old version is not. Google needs to figure this out. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason this link doesn't open a page on Google Books, but this one does. Citation bot will change the latter to the former, and say it is anonymizing links. Any way we can get it to keep the bsq though? Andre🚐 10:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what your issues are, but they work for me. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the first link, there's no page opened with the query. While the latter does. I tried in an incognito too and same thing. Andre🚐 19:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm the reported behaviour here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[4] also works, but [5] doesn't. Removing the hl=en I suppose is anonymization, but can it just leave the bsq and the gbpv, and I guess it would have to also not shorten the URL as it does? [6] doesn't work either. Andre🚐 05:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The new google books url requires javascript to display anything and it dynamically generated. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 17:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same for author2/first2 --> last2/first2. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same issue as § Changing every citation of a publisher's webpage to Cite book above (September 2023), User talk:Citation bot/Archive 39 § Causing template errors (November 2023), User talk:Citation bot/Archive 39 § A class of new(?) errors (November 2023), User talk:Citation bot/Archive 39 § Introduces ref error when citing Penguin publisher website (May 2024), etc. I believe most of the cases that cause template errors have been fixed this year, but the underlying behaviour has not. Maybe this exact class of parameters wasn't addressed because it includes both |website= and |page=.

TBH Citation bot is such a popular and high-volume tool that it might actually be worth holding a centralised discussion about whether this functionality is desired instead of having the same conversation here every few months. Folly Mox (talk) 14:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there – just reaching out regarding something that's been annoying to deal with for a bit, and that's when the bot changes the 'publisher' paramater to 'work' for Fox Sports sources, even though it's treated the same as ABC News, Seven News, Nine's Wide World of Sports, ESPN, etc., all of which use 'publisher'; thanks. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 03:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is the others that are wrong. Am I correct to believe that News International is the publisher of Fox Sports? So who is really the publisher of each of the other channels you mention? And who cares? That's why "work=" is the safer option. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	ReallyGoodBotAward(R)
	w/ love Hym3242 (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, the bot seems to only touch {{cite news}} when the title parameter is empty/missing. Is there a way to have the bot add missing/empty author parameters in {{cite news}} where the title parameter already exists, barring manually removing the title beforehand? --Paul_012 (talk) 12:15, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The types of things that end up in {{cite news}} have historically resulted in bad results from Zotero. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 18:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The specific case I'm trying to address here is citations to the Bangkok Post, a lot of which currently have the author incorrectly listed as "Limited, Bangkok Post Public Company". A Zotero translator was recently added that corrects this, and I'm looking for a way to fix them en masse. The incorrect fields can be removed using AWB, but bot assistance is pretty much needed to perform the Zotero lookups. Do you have any suggestions? --Paul_012 (talk) 01:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Please do a couple, I have added bangkokpost.com to the list of hosts that we Zotero even when cite news. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 01:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, I forgot that I had such a list. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 01:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I submitted a few (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7), and it's performing better than I expected. The Bangkok Post sometimes uses generic bylines such as "Post Reporters" and "Online Reporters", but the bot already filters these out.

I can go ahead and compile a list of pages that need fixing, do an AWB run to remove the incorrect parameters, and submit them for bot processing. Are there any particular issues I should watch out for? --Paul_012 (talk) 04:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm noticing a minor issue where citations with dates of the 1st day of the month are being parsed as just the month (2022-12-01 becomes December 2022 in this example). Presumably this is because the metadata is provided in ISO date format and the bot can't tell whether it should be treated with day- or month-level precision. Is there a way to get around this? --Paul_012 (talk) 06:29, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a huge problem with things that are actually published on the first day of the month. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The converting to non-existing parameters has been fixed. pridate is a real CS1/CS2 parameter, just not in all templates. I do continue to log all conversions and undo and block bad ones. I also add good ones to the master list of automatic ones. The bot generated ones use Levenshtein distance to make an educated guess that is correct almost all the time. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 22:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear colleagues, why this replacement is made? What justifies this introducing of inconsistency? With best regards, Sneeuwschaap (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Which replacement exactly is confusing you? Iniquity (talk) 19:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mass replacements of Cite web by Cite news. Of course, they don't cause much harm, but what is the reason for this introducing of inconsistency? Was it approved by the community? Sneeuwschaap (talk) 13:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the source is a newspaper or news site, it should use {{cite news}}. Where's the inconsistency? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The inconsistency is using of two templates where one is perfectly enough. Sneeuwschaap (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Each template has a separate class for different source formats. We can't use {{cite web}} for printed newspapers, for example, since {{cite web}} is only for online resources. Iniquity (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not related to the topic. The bot replaces {{cite web}} with {{cite news}} for online resources. Where {{cite web}} works perfectly. Sneeuwschaap (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also: Special:diff/1261279289 at Apollo et Hyacinthus where |last=, |first= and |author-link= are unnecessarily replaced by |last1=, |first1= and |author-link1=. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this twice in the same article, I think, on the very same citation. I've reverted it twice. Guy1890 (talk) 05:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source html meta properties include:

<meta property="article:published_time" content="2019-09-27T11:17:35-05:00" />
<meta property="article:modified_time" content="2024-12-02T14:25:21-06:00" />

Why wasn't |date= already specified in the {{Cite web}} template?

Sometimes web sources have bogus publication dates due to their own laziness, and Citation bot should also probably prefer modified_time over published_time, but I doubt it would be doing this if the citation template had been filled out properly in the first place. (You could also add an empty |date= param with an html comment to make Citation bot leave it alone if dates are deemed unnecessary given the article scope.) Folly Mox (talk) 10:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parameters added. Folly Mox (talk) 10:23, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The bot gets dates from Zotero. The problmen with modified_time is that it is very often set to right now or something very close to that, even when nothing has changed or something trivial like the advertisement network used. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]