User talk:Bibcode Bot

Infobox script error
I reverted this edit by Bibcode Bot, because it caused some error to occur in the infobox, but I couldn't identify the problem. But now that I've reverted it, it seems no longer to appear. Please do as you think best,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 20:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you're talking about. That edit cause no difference in the infobox at all. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Spurious characters added to bibcode
The bot apparently added spurious characters to bibcode values in this edit. – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's been fixed. I thought I caught them all, but I guess I missed that one. Here was the intended fix: . Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There were five or six like this in . You can see the others in my contributions from a couple of hours ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

OABOT arxiv suggestions
Hello Headbomb, in OAbot queue we have a few thousands matches for arxiv IDs which could be added to existing citations. Do you want to add them automatically with your bot? The data comes in JSON files like this: --Nemo 08:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The bot uses ADSABS data only, and I lack the skills to make adapt the bot to do anything else. Right now the bot is offline because of issues with the NASA databases, and I lack the skills to fix that too, so the bot is dead for now. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Understood. Better use the oabot code and make a bot request for that then, starting with some subset of its suggestions. --Nemo 16:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Stephen Hawking
Stephen Hawking was appointed in 2016 Honorary Professor of the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias (Institute of Astrophysics of the Canary Islands). I think this information should go in the section "Awards and honours". See references: Stephen Hawking, Profesor Honorario en Canarias, Director del IAC recuerda a brillante científico y a un luchador por la vida. The page is blocked and I can not add this data. you can help me? Thank you.--95.22.177.12 (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * This is the talk page of a bot. If you want the article to be updated, the best way to do that is to post on the article's talk page with an edit request. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

When bibcode points to arxiv
Is there any actual utility in adding bibcodes that point to the arxiv eprint version of an article when the citation already has an an arxiv id pointing directly to it? What possible value could the reader gain from such a bibcode? Doesn't it make it more difficult to detect situations when the archival (journal) version of the article has a bibcode that has not been added and should be used instead? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Without an example, I can only give a general "depends on the citation". Some are published, but don't get assigned formal bibcodes. If it's only a preprint, it's best to convert the citation to or cite xxx to cite arxiv. Bibcode bot will leaves cite arxiv alone. However, I'll point out that Bibcode bot will update an arxiv bibcode to the final bibcode once it gets assigned. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * An example. Both bibcodes added in this case are at least currently arxiv-only (however I would disagree with the recommendation to change citation to cite arxiv — there's nothing wrong with leaving it in the more generic format). In any case, you didn't answer my question: what value is added by this edit, in exchange for the value lost to extra clutter? Clearly we can fill in a bibcode for arxiv papers. But the existence of a hole is not by itself a reason to fill it. Why should we be filling in these bibcodes? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The ADSADS database contains information about those papers beyond what's available on the arxiv, such as dois, links to published version, and so on. In the case of pure preprints (e.g. ), you can still tell it's been cited twice, once by you, once by Ambainis et al. Again, if this isn't desired, it's a simple matter to use, which bibcode bot will leave alone. The bot has no way of knowing if something is a pure preprint or if it's been published. E.g. if gets published, it likely won't get a new bibcode, even if it might get a doi. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)